Brain-training apps

Brain-training apps reliably make you better at the games in the app. Independent reviews find only small, short-term gains on thinking tests, of uncertain real-world value, with no evidence that they last or protect against dementia — and the makers of Lumosity paid to settle US government charges over exactly those claims.

Skip brain-training apps as a way to keep your brain young. If you want to spend the time on your brain, learn something genuinely hard and new instead.

What they are and what they promise

Brain-training apps — computerised cognitive training, in the research literature — are short digital puzzles played most days: working-memory drills, visual-search puzzles, reaction games. The single most-marketed claim in this space is that daily play with these proprietary puzzles improves general cognition or reduces dementia risk. That claim does not survive scrutiny.

The regulator: Lumosity's settlement

In 2016 the makers of Lumosity agreed to pay $2 million to settle US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) charges that they advertised, without scientific backing, that the app would improve performance at work and school, slow age-related decline, and protect against dementia and Alzheimer's disease. The FTC also charged that the company did not disclose that some customer testimonials had been gathered through contests offering prizes.^[1]

The best review: small, short-term, uncertain

A Cochrane review of computerised cognitive training run for twelve or more weeks in cognitively healthy older adults found low-quality evidence of small benefits immediately after training — on global cognition compared with active controls, and on episodic memory compared with doing nothing. It judged those benefits to be of uncertain clinical importance, and found no evidence that the effect on global cognition persisted twelve months later.^[2] Only one small trial (77 people) looked at twelve months, and the evidence from all eight trials was rated low or very low certainty. So: a small short-term bump on tests, of unclear real-world meaning, with no evidence that it lasts.

The 2024 Lancet Commission on dementia, drawing on this review, summarised it the same way: low-quality evidence of small short-term gains, with no evidence of a long-term effect.^[3]

Why the gains don't spread

The underlying problem is the failure of far transfer. People reliably improve at the specific game they play — a working-memory drill, a visual-search puzzle — but there is little evidence that the gains spread to broad mental abilities or to handling the complexities of everyday life.^[4] The brain learns the exact context it's trained in and tends to stay there. The hours produce a person who is good at the app; the marketing claim is that the same hours produce a younger brain.

The scientists' dispute

The most-quoted statement came from more than 70 cognitive scientists and neuroscientists convened by the Stanford Center on Longevity and the Max Planck Institute for Human Development. Their shared conclusion was that the scientific literature does not support claims that brain games improve general cognitive performance in everyday life, or prevent cognitive slowing and brain disease.^[5]

The field is not unanimous. A rival letter signed by 133 scientists, several with commercial ties to training companies, argued that the literature does show transfer. The most careful adjudication of both camps concluded that brain training reliably improves the trained task, sometimes a closely related one, but that no study in the industry's own evidence base met the design standards needed to show benefit for everyday activities.^[6] The weight of independent evidence, plus Cochrane, favours the skeptical reading.

The exceptions people cite

Speed-of-processing training. In the ACTIVE trial, speed training with booster sessions was linked to about a quarter lower rate of dementia diagnosis over 20 years — but only in a non-randomised comparison. Without boosters it showed nothing, no training group as a whole significantly reduced dementia, and a later analysis flagged higher mortality among memory and speed trainees with 12 or fewer years of schooling (unreplicated).
Games versus crosswords. In one 78-week trial of 107 people who already had mild cognitive impairment, intensive computerised training did slightly worse than web-based crosswords on the main memory-and-thinking test, a difference only just statistically significant, with no do-nothing group for comparison.^[7] The investigators had expected the games to win.^[8]
Specific dose promises. Claims such as "30 minutes a day slows brain aging," or a branded exercise remodelling a named brain region, trace largely to vendor and institute press materials rather than independent peer-reviewed trials.

What to do

Don't pay for a brain-training app as brain protection. Play one if you enjoy it; expect to get better at the app.
Spend the effort on demanding real-world learning — a language, an instrument, a craft you're bad at — and on staying socially connected. The case for those is on Cognitive engagement.