Cognitive Training and Brain-Game Claims

What this page covers

Brain-training programs use puzzles, memory tasks and games and promise sharper thinking, a younger brain or protection from decline. This page looks at what controlled research and a US regulator found. It is information only. Evidence labels used: established, promising but limited, mixed, no good evidence of benefit and marketing claim.

The core question: transfer

Getting better at a game is not the same as thinking better in life. Researchers call the jump from practiced tasks to other skills "transfer." A major review of brain-training studies found extensive evidence that training improves performance on the trained tasks, less evidence of improvement on closely related tasks, and little evidence that training enhances performance on distantly related tasks or everyday cognitive performance. [1] It also found that many published studies had major shortcomings in design or analysis, and that none of the studies cited by leading companies met all the best practices needed for clear conclusions about everyday benefits. [1]

Labels: improvement on trained tasks is established; transfer to daily life is no good evidence of benefit in the review above.

Working-memory training

A meta-analysis of 87 publications and 145 comparisons found reliable short-term gains on measures similar to the training (verbal and visuospatial working memory). For far-transfer measures such as nonverbal ability, verbal ability, reading and arithmetic, there was no convincing evidence of improvement when compared with a treated control group. [2] Label: no good evidence of benefit for real-world skills.

Older adults: a more nuanced picture

The ACTIVE trial randomly assigned 2,832 independent-living older adults (average age 73.6 at the start) to memory, reasoning or speed-of-processing training, or no training. At 10 years, each training group reported less difficulty with everyday activities than controls. Reasoning and speed training, but not memory training, still showed improved targeted abilities. [3] Label: promising but limited. The everyday-function result was self-reported, it tested ten training sessions plus booster sessions rather than a commercial game, and volunteers may differ from the general public. It does not prove that apps sold today have the same effect.

Who should be careful

• People worried about memory should see a clinician, not rely on a game; some causes of memory trouble are treatable.
• Time and money spent on games can displace sleep, exercise and social activity, which have their own evidence. See brain-healthy habits.

How to evaluate a brain-training claim

1. Does the study measure something other than the game itself?
2. Is there an active control group, not just no activity?
3. Was the trial of this product, and was it independent of the seller?
4. Is the outcome a test score or daily life?

See also do brain-training games work, brain optimization claims and how to evaluate a biohack.