Brainbay guide
Does brain training work? What the research says
Partly. Brain training reliably makes you better at the games you practise, and sometimes at very similar tasks. The evidence that it improves everyday memory, intelligence or school and work performance is weak, and no study has shown that it prevents dementia.
Near and far transfer
Almost everyone gets better at a brain game by playing it. That part isn't in question. The real question is transfer: does the skill you build in the game spread to anything else?
| Kind of gain | Example | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| The trained task | You practise a memory grid game and your grid score rises. | Strong |
| Near transfer | Your score also rises on a different but similar memory test. | Weaker, mixed |
| Far transfer | You remember names better at work, reason better, or do better at school. | Little convincing evidence |
Brain-training marketing has usually promised far transfer. Most of the research has found the first two levels and struggled to find the third.
The big online test
In 2010, Adrian Owen and colleagues ran one of the largest tests of brain training, with viewers of the BBC programme Bang Goes the Theory. 11,430 people trained online for six weeks, asked to do at least ten minutes a day, three times a week. One group practised reasoning, planning and problem-solving tasks. Another practised memory, attention, visuospatial and maths tasks. A control group answered obscure general-knowledge questions, looking up the answers online.
The results, published in Nature, were clear. People improved on every task they trained. But there was no evidence of transfer to untrained tasks, even ones closely related to what they had practised.
The ACTIVE trial
The ACTIVE trial (Advanced Cognitive Training for Independent and Vital Elderly) is the study most often quoted in favour of brain training, and it is worth knowing what it actually found.
Karlene Ball and colleagues (2002) randomly assigned 2,832 adults aged 65 to 94 to ten sessions of memory training, reasoning training or speed-of-processing training, or to a no-contact control group. Each type of training improved the ability it targeted, and the gains were still there two years later. But the trial found no effects on everyday functioning at two years.
A ten-year follow-up led by George Rebok (2014) found that the reasoning and speed gains were still measurable, while the memory training gains had faded. People in all three training groups reported less difficulty with everyday tasks, such as managing money, medicines and meals, than the control group. The effects were modest, and those everyday measures were self-reported, so they are encouraging but not proof.
The 2014 letters
In October 2014, the Stanford Center on Longevity and the Max Planck Institute for Human Development published a consensus statement signed by a large international group of scientists (more than 70, by most counts). It said claims promoting brain games "are frequently exaggerated and at times misleading", and that no studies had shown brain games cure or prevent Alzheimer's disease or other dementias.
The statement didn't say training does nothing. It agreed that people improve on the skills they practise, sometimes with small gains on related tasks, and that the brain stays able to learn throughout life. Its advice was to live a physically active, mentally challenging and socially engaged life, and it named regular aerobic exercise as a moderately effective way to support brain function.
A few months later, a group of 133 scientists and practitioners replied in an open letter. They argued that a substantial body of research showed some training regimens could improve cognition. So for a while, the scientific community appeared split.
The 2016 review
To settle the argument, Daniel Simons and six colleagues (2016) reviewed the published studies that brain-training companies themselves cited as evidence. Writing in Psychological Science in the Public Interest, they found:
- extensive evidence that training improves performance on the trained tasks;
- less evidence that it improves closely related tasks;
- little evidence that it improves distantly related tasks or everyday cognitive performance.
They also found that many of the studies had flaws in how they were designed or analysed. None of the studies they reviewed met all of their standards for good practice.
A separate meta-analysis of working-memory training by Monica Melby-Lervåg, Thomas Redick and Charles Hulme (2016), covering 87 publications, reached a similar view: short-term gains on similar memory tasks, but no convincing improvement in intelligence, reading or arithmetic. (For the most famous working-memory task, see dual n-back explained.)
The FTC and Lumosity
In January 2016, the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that Lumos Labs, the company behind Lumosity, would pay $2 million to settle charges of deceptive advertising. The order set a $50 million judgment, suspended because of the company's finances.
According to the FTC, the ads had claimed the games could improve performance at school, at work and in sport, and delay age-related decline and protect against dementia and Alzheimer's disease. The FTC's consumer protection director said the company "simply did not have the science to back up its ads". The order required competent and reliable scientific evidence for any such claims in future.
What is reasonable to expect
- You will get better at the games. That improvement is real, and it is fun to watch.
- You may improve a little on very similar tasks, especially right after training.
- Don't expect a smarter you. Broad claims about intelligence, school or work performance are weakly supported.
- No game prevents dementia. No study has shown that.
- Strategies travel better than drills. A technique you can use anywhere, such as chunking or the memory palace, is more useful than raw practice. See how to improve your memory.
This is how Brainbay is built. Its scores show how you do at its games, and its levels adapt so they stay a challenge. It doesn't claim to raise your IQ, prevent dementia or make you smarter in general. (For what IQ tests actually measure, see what does an IQ test measure?)
Why play anyway
Plenty of things are worth doing without changing your IQ. Crosswords, sudoku and chess are in the same boat, and people love them.
- It's fun. Short puzzles with a clear score are satisfying. Enjoyment is reason enough.
- It's a habit. A few minutes a day is an easy routine to keep, and a nice break from scrolling.
- It's a warm-up. A five-minute session can help you settle and focus before work or study, the way a stretch helps before a run. The daily brain workout is made for that.
- It's a window on yourself. Your reaction time after a bad night, or your n-back score when you're stressed, can be interesting to notice.
Just don't let it replace the things with stronger evidence: sleep, exercise, time with other people, and learning genuinely new skills.
Sources
- Owen, A. M. et al. (2010). Putting brain training to the test. Nature, 465.
- Ball, K. et al. (2002). Effects of cognitive training interventions with older adults: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA, 288(18).
- Rebok, G. W. et al. (2014). Ten-year effects of the ACTIVE cognitive training trial on cognition and everyday functioning in older adults. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 62(1).
- Stanford Center on Longevity and Max Planck Institute for Human Development (2014). A consensus on the brain training industry from the scientific community.
- Simons, D. J. et al. (2016). Do "brain-training" programs work? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 17(3).
- Melby-Lervåg, M., Redick, T. S. & Hulme, C. (2016). Working memory training does not improve performance on measures of intelligence or other measures of far transfer. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(4).
- Federal Trade Commission (2016). Lumosity to pay $2 million to settle FTC deceptive advertising charges for its "brain training" program.
Questions
Does brain training actually work?
It works in the narrow sense: you get better at the games you practise, and sometimes at very similar tasks. Large reviews, including Simons and colleagues in 2016, found little evidence that those gains spread to everyday thinking, intelligence or performance at school or work.
Can brain games prevent dementia?
No study has shown that brain games prevent or cure Alzheimer's disease or other dementias. The 2014 consensus statement from the Stanford Center on Longevity said so directly. If you are worried about your memory, see your GP or doctor.
What is the difference between near and far transfer?
Near transfer is getting better at a task similar to the one you trained, such as a different memory test. Far transfer is improvement in something quite different, such as reasoning, schoolwork or everyday memory. Near transfer is sometimes found; far transfer rarely is.
What did the ACTIVE study find?
The ACTIVE trial trained 2,832 adults aged 65 to 94 in memory, reasoning or speed of processing. Each type of training improved its own ability, and reasoning and speed gains were still measurable after ten years. No effects on everyday functioning were found at two years; at ten years, trained groups reported somewhat less difficulty with daily activities.
Why was Lumosity fined?
In 2016 the US Federal Trade Commission said Lumosity's ads claimed its games could improve performance at work, school and sport, and protect against cognitive decline and dementia, without the science to back it up. Its maker, Lumos Labs, agreed to pay $2 million.
Is there any point playing brain games?
Yes, if you enjoy them. They are a pleasant daily habit, a quick way to settle and focus before work or study, and you will see your scores improve. Just treat the scores as how well you play the games, not as a measure of your intelligence.