CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,056Cognitive Abilities and TestingCognitive Functions and MemoryNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Putting brain training to the test

Open access
Owen, Adrian M., Hampshire, Adam, Grahn, Jessica A., Stenton, Robert, Dajani, Said, Burns, Alistair S., Howard, Robert J., Ballard, Clive G.·2010·Nature
DOI 10.1038/nature09042PMC PMC2884087
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

'Brain training', or the goal of improved cognitive function through the regular use of computerized tests, is a multimillion-pound industry, yet in our view scientific evidence to support its efficacy is lacking. Modest effects have been reported in some studies of older individuals and preschool children, and video-game players outperform non-players on some tests of visual attention. However, the widely held belief that commercially available computerized brain-training programs improve general cognitive function in the wider population in our opinion lacks empirical support. The central question is not whether performance on cognitive tests can be improved by training, but rather, whether those benefits transfer to other untrained tasks or lead to any general improvement in the level of cognitive functioning. Here we report the results of a six-week online study in which 11,430 participants trained several times each week on cognitive tasks designed to improve reasoning, memory, planning, visuospatial skills and attention. Although improvements were observed in every one of the cognitive tasks that were trained, no evidence was found for transfer effects to untrained tasks, even when those tasks were cognitively closely related.

Overview

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 · 10.1038/nature09042

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 28 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Olton, D. S. in Spatial Abilities (ed. Potegal, M.) 325–360 (New York, 1982)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 801–900 of 1,001

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Owen, A. M., Hampshire, A., Grahn, J. A., Stenton, R., Dajani, S., Burns, A. S., Howard, R. J., & Ballard, C. G.
Affiliations
  • MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit (GB)
  • King's College London (GB)
  • Manchester Academic Health Science Centre (GB)
Corresponding author
Owen, Adrian M.
ORCID
Venue
Nature
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2010-04-20
Volume
465
Issue
7299
Pages
775-778
ISSN
  • 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-4687
DOI
10.1038/nature09042
PMC
PMC2884087
OpenAlex
W1969969444
Semantic Scholar
e661f8227960ad8c75cb033b3a0db7c76d86ebe7
Cited by
1,056
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 37 · 2024: 49 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 43 · 2021: 53 · 2020: 68 · 2019: 70 · 2018: 66 · 2017: 86 · 2016: 96 · 2015: 85 · 2014: 96 · 2013: 96 · 2012: 66
FWCI
65.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
  • Nature (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
brain training, cognitive training, transfer of training, cognitive function, reasoning, memory, attention, visuospatial ability, planning
MeSH terms
Attention, Brain, Cognition, Computers, Humans, Memory, Task Performance and Analysis, Thinking, Time Factors, Exercise

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