Cited by 1,183Cognitive Abilities and TestingCognitive Functions and MemoryCognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skills

Do “brain-training” programs work?

Simons, Daniel J., Boot, Walter R., Charness, Neil, Gathercole, Susan E., Chabris, Christopher F., Hambrick, David Z., Stine-Morrow, Elizabeth A. L.·2016·Psychological Science in the Public Interest

Abstract

In 2014, two groups of scientists published open letters on the efficacy of brain-training interventions, or “brain games,” for improving cognition. The first letter, a consensus statement from an international group of more than 70 scientists, claimed that brain games do not provide a scientifically grounded way to improve cognitive functioning or to stave off cognitive decline. Several months later, an international group of 133 scientists and practitioners countered that the literature is replete with demonstrations of the benefits of brain training for a wide variety of cognitive and everyday activities. How could two teams of scientists examine the same literature and come to conflicting “consensus” views about the effectiveness of brain training? In part, the disagreement might result from different standards used when evaluating the evidence. To date, the field has lacked a comprehensive review of the brain-training literature, one that examines both the quantity and the quality of the evidence according to a well-defined set of best practices. This article provides such a review, focusing exclusively on the use of cognitive tasks or games as a means to enhance performance on other tasks. We specify and justify a set of best practices for such brain-training interventions and then use those standards to evaluate all of the published peer-reviewed intervention studies cited on the websites of leading brain-training companies listed on Cognitive Training Data ( www.cognitivetrainingdata.org ), the site hosting the open letter from brain-training proponents. These citations presumably represent the evidence that best supports the claims of effectiveness. Based on this examination, we find extensive evidence that brain-training interventions improve performance on the trained tasks, less evidence that such interventions improve performance on closely related tasks, and little evidence that training enhances performance on distantly related tasks or that training improves everyday cognitive performance. We also find that many of the published intervention studies had major shortcomings in design or analysis that preclude definitive conclusions about the efficacy of training, and that none of the cited studies conformed to all of the best practices we identify as essential to drawing clear conclusions about the benefits of brain training for everyday activities. We conclude with detailed recommendations for scientists, funding agencies, and policymakers that, if adopted, would lead to better evidence regarding the efficacy of brain-training interventions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1529100616661983

Cites

336 of 336 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • The findings challenge the notion that WM training only leads to performance gains in tasks closely related to training.

    “our findings challenge the notion that WM training only leads to performance gains in tasks that are closely related to the training79”
  • Trace Memory Game is positioned as a cognitive-engagement title that stays carefully on the safer side of the brain-training debate critiqued by Simons et al. (2016).

    “The product is positioned as a cognitive-engagement title that stays carefully on the safer side of the brain-training debate critiqued by Simons et al. (2016).”
  • The App Store inventory of polished, modern games for blind/low-vision and dementia populations is thin, consisting of a handful of audio-only titles from specialist studios, a long tail of exercise-style brain trainers, and little in between.

    “A walk through the App Store for polished, modern games built for these audiences turns up a thin inventory: a handful of audio-only titles from specialist studios, a long tail of exercise-style brain trainers whose evidence base is weak (Simons et al., 2016), and little in between.”
  • The evidence base for exercise-style brain trainers is weak.

    “a long tail of exercise-style brain trainers whose evidence base is weak (Simons et al., 2016)”
  • The benefits of working memory training rarely transfer to other activities that also depend on working memory.

    “However, the benefits of that training rarely transfer to other activities that also depend on WM.”

    From Working memory training involves learning new skills (2019) · cites this paper as Simons et al., 2016

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. Angell J. R. Pillsbury W. B. Judd C. H. (1908). The doctrine of formal discipline in the light of contemporary psychology: A discussion of the proceedings from the meeting of the Michigan Schoolmasters’ Club at Ann Arbor Michigan April 2 1908. Retrieved from https://archive.org/details/doctrineofformal00michi.
  2. Bennett C. J. C. (1907). Formal discipline. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.
  3. Cogan A., Madey J., Kaufman W., Holmlund G., Bach-y-Rita P. (1977). Pong game as a rehabilitation device. In Warren G. C. (Ed.), Fourth Annual Conference on Systems and Devices for the Disabled (pp. 187–188). Seattle: University of Washington School of Medicine.
  4. de Groot A. D. (1978). Het denken van de schaker [The thought of the chess player]. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Mouton. (Original work published 1946)
  5. Dovis S. van Rentergem J. A. Huizenga H. M. (2015 April 4). Does Cogmed working memory training really improve inattention in daily life? A reanalysis [Reader comment]. Retrieved from http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/comment?id=info:doi/10.1371/annotation/148c2260-54ce-4d85-a49b-740053f6dbc8 · DOI
  6. Hardy J. L., Drescher D., Sarkar K., Kellett G., Scanlon M. (2011). Enhancing visual attention and working memory with a web-based cognitive training program. Mensa Research Journal, 42(2), 13–20.
  7. Jaeggi S. M. (2005). Capacity limitations in human cognition: Behavioural and biological considerations (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Bern Switzerland.
  8. National Institutes of Health. (2010). NIH Consensus Development Conference statement on preventing Alzheimer’s disease and cognitive decline. Retrieved from https://consensus.nih.gov/2010/docs/alz/ALZ_Final_Statement.pdf
  9. Plomin R., DeFries J. C., McClearn G. E., McGuffin P. (2008). Behavioral genetics (5th ed.). New York, NY: Worth Publishers.
  10. Postman L. (1972). Transfer, interference, and forgetting. In Kling J. W., Riggs L. A. (Eds.), Learning, Motivation, and Memory: Vol. II. Woodworth & Schlosberg’s experimental psychology (3rd ed., pp. 1019–1132). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
  11. SharpBrains. (2013). Web-based, mobile and biometrics-based technology to assess, monitor and enhance cognition and brain functioning: The digital brain health market, 2012–2020. San Francisco, CA: SharpBrains.
  12. SharpBrains. (2015, January). The digital brain health market 2012–2020: Web-based, mobile and biometrics-based technology to assess, monitor, and enhance cognition and brain functioning [Addendum]. San Francisco, CA: SharpBrains.
  13. Wertheimer M. (1959). Productive thinking. New York, NY: Harper & Brothers. (Original work published 1945)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Simons, D. J., Boot, W. R., Charness, N., Gathercole, S. E., Chabris, C. F., Hambrick, D. Z., & Stine-Morrow, E. A. L.
Affiliations
  • University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
  • Florida State University (US)
  • MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit (GB)
  • Union College (US)
  • Michigan State University (US)
  • Department of Educational Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Corresponding author
Simons, Daniel J.
Venue
Psychological Science in the Public Interest
Published
2016-10
Volume
17
Issue
3
Pages
103-186
ISSN
  • 1529-1006 (ISSN-L)
  • 2160-0031
OpenAlex
W2528124781
Cited by
1,183
References
328
Citations by year
2026: 96 · 2025: 112 · 2024: 101 · 2023: 89 · 2022: 116 · 2021: 123 · 2020: 137 · 2019: 161 · 2018: 137 · 2017: 101 · 2016: 10
FWCI
16.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Science in the Public Interest (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
brain training, cognitive training, cognitive games, transfer of training, cognitive decline, evidence evaluation
MeSH terms
Cognition, Humans, Learning

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