The DOI matches its Crossref record; 334 of the 334 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Do “Brain-Training” Programs Work?
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.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“our findings challenge the notion that WM training only leads to performance gains in tasks that are closely related to the training79”
From Near transfer to an unrelated N-back task mediates the effect of N-back working memory training on matrix reasoning (2022) · cites this paper as [79]
In the citing paper
“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).”
From Indie at Scale: How Large Language Models Make Community-Centered Game Development Economically Viable (2026) · cites this paper as Simons et al. (2016)
In the citing paper
“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.”
From Indie at Scale: How Large Language Models Make Community-Centered Game Development Economically Viable (2026) · cites this paper as Simons et al., 2016
In the citing paper
“a long tail of exercise-style brain trainers whose evidence base is weak (Simons et al., 2016)”
From Indie at Scale: How Large Language Models Make Community-Centered Game Development Economically Viable (2026) · cites this paper as Simons et al., 2016
In the citing paper
“The control condition should be identical to the treatment condition in every way except for the critical ingredient of the treatment (Simons et al., 2016), including matching participant expectations (Boot et al., 2013).”
From Do growth mindset interventions impact students’ academic achievement? A systematic review and meta-analysis with recommendations for best practices. (2023) · cites this paper as Simons et al., 2016
In the citing paper
“An active control group is necessary but not sufficient to attribute differences in achievement to the intervention (Simons et al., 2016).”
From Do growth mindset interventions impact students’ academic achievement? A systematic review and meta-analysis with recommendations for best practices. (2023) · cites this paper as Simons et al., 2016
In the citing paper
“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
In the citing paper
“Second, beyond this broad distinction, there is little understanding of the cognitive constraints on transfer (Shipstead, Redick, & Engle, 2010; Simons et al., 2016; Taatgen, 2013).”
From Working memory training involves learning new skills (2019) · cites this paper as Simons et al., 2016
In the citing paper
“To date the evidence that WM training can ameliorate these practical problems is not compelling.”
From Working memory training involves learning new skills (2019) · cites this paper as Simons et al., 2016
In the citing paper
“As in most cognitive-training programs, the findings regarding CWMT have been mixed, which has kept researchers from reaching a definite conclusion on the topic.”
From The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis (2019) · cites this paper as Simons et al., 2016
In the citing paper
“The studies investigating the effects of CWMT are undoubtedly the most numerous and best designed (e.g., often including active controls) in this category (Simons et al., 2016, pp. 143-148).”
From The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis (2019) · cites this paper as Simons et al., 2016
In the citing paper
“In fact, poor design quality is often associated with more optimistic results in the field of cognitive training (Simons et al., 2016).”
From The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis (2019) · cites this paper as Simons et al., 2016
In the citing paper
“these effects should not be interpreted as evidence of memory enhancement.Rather, such effects denote improvement in the ability to perform the trained tasks.”
From The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis (2019) · cites this paper as Simons et al., 2016
In the citing paper
“The effectiveness of training based on the n-back task in eliciting transfer to other different tasks thus remains unclear.”
From Nearest transfer effects of working memory training: A comparison of two programs focused on working memory updating (2019) · cites this paper as [23]
In the citing paper
“An active control group was included in the study, as recommended by the literature (e.g., [20, 23]) to control for other experiment-related variables, such as contact with the experimenter or assessment context.”
From Nearest transfer effects of working memory training: A comparison of two programs focused on working memory updating (2019) · cites this paper as [23]
In the citing paper
“A recent review on cognitive training [23] also emphasized that the strongest evidence for post-training gains tends to be in favor of nearest transfer, while broader transfer is considerably less frequent.”
From Nearest transfer effects of working memory training: A comparison of two programs focused on working memory updating (2019) · cites this paper as [23]
In the citing paper
“the near transfer results also support the idea that training on either WM or IC leads to specific performance benefits in tasks related to the training (Simons et al., 2016).”
From Training on Working Memory and Inhibitory Control in Young Adults (2016) · cites this paper as Simons et al., 2016
Citations
Cites
James, W. (1891) · Personality Culture Society · doi:10.1037/11059-000 · Cited by 25,876
Journal of Clinical Psychiatry
(2018) · Journal of Clinical Psychiatry · doi:10.5505/kpd · Cited by 13,703
The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.100.3.363 · Cited by 9,564
Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience
Button, K. S., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Mokrysz, C., Nosek, B. A., Flint, J., Robinson, E. S. J., & Munafò, M. R. (2013) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn3475 · Cited by 7,641 · cited 1×
“Many of the studies tested small samples, limiting their ability to detect small effects and increasing the chances that any observed effects would be spurious (Button et al., 2013).”
BackgroundSimmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797611417632 · Cited by 6,567
The ASA Statement on p -Values: Context, Process, and Purpose
Wasserstein, R. L., & Lazar, N. A. (2016) · The American Statistician · doi:10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108 · Cited by 6,306
The processing-speed theory of adult age differences in cognition
Salthouse, T. A. (1996) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.103.3.403 · Cited by 5,902
The Psychology of Learning and Motivation
(2021) · The Psychology of learning and motivation/The psychology of learning and motivation · doi:10.1016/s0079-7421(21)x0002-3 · Cited by 5,082
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005) · CHANCE · doi:10.1080/09332480.2005.10722754 · Cited by 4,702
Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1973) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/0010-0285(73)90004-2 · Cited by 4,479
Research works printed but not linked: 13
- 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.
- Bennett C. J. C. (1907). Formal discipline. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.
- 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.
- de Groot A. D. (1978). Het denken van de schaker [The thought of the chess player]. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Mouton. (Original work published 1946)
- 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
- 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.
- Jaeggi S. M. (2005). Capacity limitations in human cognition: Behavioural and biological considerations (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Bern Switzerland.
- 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
- Plomin R., DeFries J. C., McClearn G. E., McGuffin P. (2008). Behavioral genetics (5th ed.). New York, NY: Worth Publishers.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Wertheimer M. (1959). Productive thinking. New York, NY: Harper & Brothers. (Original work published 1945)
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 1,001–1,002 of 1,002
Sala, G., & Gobet, F. (2019) · Collabra: Psychology · doi:10.2478/collabra.2019.5.1.18
Metadata
- 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.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Psychological Science in the Public Interest
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2016-10
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 103-186
- ISSN
- 1529-1006 (ISSN-L)
- 2160-0031
- OpenAlex
- W2528124781
- Semantic Scholar
- 224d08a15960c774163fd53391d90b4caffe84e8
- 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
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › 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
