Fish or bird ownership showed no significant link to slower cognitive decline in study with implications for ageing societies

As global population ages and dementia rates climb, scientists may have found an unexpected ally in the fight against cognitive decline.

Cats and dogs may be exercising more than just your patience: they could be keeping parts of your brain ticking over too. In a potential breakthrough for preventive health, researchers have found that owning a four-pawed friend is linked to slower cognitive decline by potentially preserving specific brain functions as we grow older.

Interestingly, the associations differ depending on the animal: dog owners were found to retain sharper memory, both immediate and delayed, while cat owners showed slower decline in verbal fluency.

    • Phen@lemmy.eco.br
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      But they also keep you in your toes. Nobody ever worries about what their fish is doing while they aren’t looking.

  • Maeve@kbin.earth
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 hours ago

    Bird ownership may negatively affect the owner’s sleep quality due to the increased noise levels, which has been shown to be associated with cognitive decline.”

    This person never had a kitten, let alone a mom-less feral. They certainly do exercise patience, at all hours, specifically 3-6 in the morning. Mine just settled down on my arm that’s alternately a tree and scratching/teething post.

  • RainDog@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Last week I traveled 500km (310 miles) by train to visit a dog I met on the streets in the city here. I (we) missed her so much, and were invited by her current owner. It was food for brains (not brains as food). AMA.

  • Buffalox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    7 hours ago

    OK but so could a fidget spinner or an air fryer.
    The question is if it does or not, not if it “could”.

    • Neuromancer49@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Very few things are proved definitively in science. You test a hypothesis with statistics, which always carries a margin of error. Usually, it’s 5% - the probability that your data randomly supports your hypothesis, even though there’s no true relationship.

      Personally, I prefer when journalists coach their language to avoid overstating the truth.