Cited by 304Cognitive Abilities and TestingCognitive Functions and MemoryCognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skills

Cognitive Training Does Not Enhance General Cognition

Open access
Sala, Giovanni, Gobet, Fernand·2019·Trends in Cognitive Sciences

Abstract

Due to potential theoretical and societal implications, cognitive training has been one of the most influential topics in psychology and neuroscience. The assumption behind cognitive training is that one's general cognitive ability can be enhanced by practicing cognitive tasks or intellectually demanding activities. The hundreds of studies published so far have provided mixed findings and systematic reviews have reached inconsistent conclusions. To resolve these discrepancies, we carried out several meta-analytic reviews. The results are highly consistent across all the reviewed domains: minimal effect on domain-general cognitive skills. Crucially, the observed between-study variability is accounted for by design quality and statistical artefacts. The cognitive-training program of research has showed no appreciable benefits, and other more plausible practices to enhance cognitive performance should be pursued.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.tics.2018.10.004

Cites

123 of 123 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Sala et al. (2019a) found a far-transfer effect of g=0.02 in children with learning disabilities.

    “The effect size was 𝑔̅ = 0.37 for near transfer, and 𝑔̅ = 0.02 for far transfer.”

    From Working memory training in typically developing children: A multilevel meta-analysis (2020) · cites this paper as Sala et al., 2019a

    The Working-Memory Training section reports near-zero generalized benefits in a meta-analysis of children and adolescents with learning disabilities. It does not give a far-transfer estimate of g = 0.02; searches for 0.02 and 0.37 found neither estimate in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Sala et al. (2019a) found a near-transfer effect of g=0.37 in children with learning disabilities.

    “The effect size was 𝑔̅ = 0.37 for near transfer, and 𝑔̅ = 0.02 for far transfer.”

    From Working memory training in typically developing children: A multilevel meta-analysis (2020) · cites this paper as Sala et al., 2019a

    The Working-Memory Training section says training appears to improve performance on memory tasks and reports similar findings for children and adolescents with learning disabilities. It does not give a near-transfer effect size of g=0.37 or a far-transfer effect size of g=0.02 for that population (searched both values and the population). (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Prior meta-analyses found that working memory training has a medium effect on near-transfer memory tasks.

    “Both meta-analyses reach the conclusion that while WM training exerts a medium effect on memory-task performance (near transfer), no other cognitive or academic skills (far transfer) seem to be affected, regardless of the population examined; in particular, no effects are observed when active controls are implemented to rule out placebo effects”
  • Prior meta-analyses found no far-transfer effects on other cognitive or academic skills, especially when active controls are used.

    “Both meta-analyses reach the conclusion that while WM training exerts a medium effect on memory-task performance (near transfer), no other cognitive or academic skills (far transfer) seem to be affected, regardless of the population examined; in particular, no effects are observed when active controls are implemented to rule out placebo effects”
  • This pattern of results also appears in adults, older adults, and children with learning disabilities.

    “Furthermore, as the same pattern of results has been found in adults, older adults, and children with learning disabilities (Aksayli et al., 2019;Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016;Sala et al., 2019a), the most parsimonious and plausible conclusion is that WM training does not lead to far transfer.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Gobet, F. (2016) Understanding expertise: A multidisciplinary approach, Palgrave.
  2. Strobach, T. and Karbach, J. (2016) Cognitive training -An overview of features and applications, Springer.
  3. Baddeley, A. (1992) Is working memory working? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 44, 1-31.
  4. Hambrick, D.Z. et al. (2018) The science of expertise, Psychology Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sala, G., & Gobet, F.
Affiliations
  • Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JP)
  • University of Liverpool (GB)
Corresponding author
Gobet, Fernand
Venue
Trends in Cognitive Sciences
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-01
Volume
23
Issue
1
Pages
9-20
ISSN
1364-6613 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2901703539
Cited by
303
References
122
Citations by year
2026: 42 · 2025: 46 · 2024: 44 · 2023: 48 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 1
FWCI
3.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Trends in Cognitive Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • London School of Economics and Political Science Research Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) (acceptedVersion)
  • London School of Economics and Political Science Theses Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (17F17313)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Cognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skills
Keywords
cognitive training, general intelligence, transfer of training, domain-general cognitive abilities, cognitive enhancement, statistical artifacts, study design quality
MeSH terms
Cognition, Humans, Intelligence, Practice, Psychological

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review