Do "Brain-Training" Programs Work?
Simons DJ, Boot WR, Charness N, Gathercole SE, Chabris CF, Hambrick DZ, Stine-Morrow EAL · 2016
grade Breviewindependentnot-applicable
Sample
Every peer-reviewed intervention study cited on the websites of leading brain-training companies
Population
All ages; the commercial brain-training evidence base as the industry itself presents it
Design
An unusually fair adversarial design: rather than selecting studies themselves, the authors evaluate exactly the papers the industry cites as its best evidence, against a pre-specified set of best practices (active controls, blinding, multiple measures per construct, preregistration, adequate power).
Key findings
Extensive evidence that training improves performance on the TRAINED tasks; less evidence for closely related tasks; little evidence for distantly related tasks or everyday cognition. Many of the cited studies had design or analysis shortcomings precluding definitive conclusions, and NOT ONE of the cited studies conformed to all the identified best practices.
Genetic confound
Low. Randomised designs throughout; the identified problems are control-group choice, blinding and power, not heritable selection.
Effects
| Outcome | Metric | Value | Measure | Timing | Vs | Horizon | Class |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trained task performance | qualitative strength of evidence | extensive evidence of improvement | researcher-designed | post-training | unclear | end-of-treatment | domain-skill |
| Distantly related tasks and everyday cognition | qualitative strength of evidence | little evidence | mixed | post-training | unclear | end-of-treatment | far-transfer |
| Industry-cited studies meeting all best practices | count | zero | unknown | n/a | none | not-applicable | unclear |
Cited by
- Does working-memory or brain training transfer to intelligence and achievement?no effectconf: highgc: low