The Truth About Brain Training Apps: What Science Actually Shows

Brain training apps won't make you smarter—but some might sharpen specific skills. That's the honest conclusion from over a decade of research, multiple meta-analyses, and one landmark federal enforcement action. The scientific evidence shows that while you'll definitely improve at the games you play, those gains rarely transfer to real-world thinking, memory, or the prevention of cognitive decline.

However, the story isn't all negative. One specific type of training—processing speed—shows genuine promise for certain populations, and the science offers clear guidance on what actually works for brain health.

This matters because the brain training industry generates over $1 billion annually by selling hope to worried consumers. Some of that hope is warranted. Most of it isn't. Our commitment to radical honesty means giving you the full picture: what the research actually shows, where scientists agree and disagree, and how to make informed decisions about your cognitive health.

When seventy scientists called out the brain training industry

The brain training debate reached a turning point in October 2014 when something unusual happened in the scientific community. The Stanford Center on Longevity and Max Planck Institute released a statement signed by more than seventy leading neuroscientists. Their conclusion cut through the marketing noise: "The scientific literature does not support claims that the use of software-based 'brain games' alters neural functioning in ways that improve general cognitive performance in everyday life, or prevent cognitive slowing and brain disease."

The statement was careful and measured. The scientists acknowledged that training can improve performance on practiced tasks. They noted that some studies show near-transfer effects to similar tasks. But they drew a clear line: the evidence did not support the broad claims that brain training companies were making about real-world benefits and disease prevention.

Two months later, a counter-letter signed by 133 scientists argued back. They insisted that "a substantial and growing body of evidence shows that certain cognitive training regimens can significantly improve cognitive function." Both sides agreed that more research was needed, that many commercial claims were exaggerated, and that physical exercise benefits brain health. Their disagreement centered on how to interpret the existing evidence.

What happened next largely vindicated the skeptics. In 2019, Giovanni Sala and Fernand Gobet published a "meta-analysis of meta-analyses" covering 332 studies, 1,555 effect sizes, and 21,968 participants. When studies used proper active control groups to account for placebo effects, the effect size for far transfer dropped to essentially zero. Their findings suggested that the true benefit of brain training, once you controlled for expectation effects and publication bias, was approximately nothing.

This doesn't mean brain training does nothing. It means the benefits are specific and limited in ways that matter deeply for consumers. Understanding this distinction is crucial for evaluating any brain training claim.

The difference between getting better at games and getting smarter

Near transfer means improvements on tasks closely related to what you trained on. If you practice a working memory game, you'll likely improve on similar working memory tests. This effect is well-documented with medium to large effect sizes. Far transfer means improvements on unrelated real-world abilities—getting smarter, preventing dementia, performing better at work. This is what consumers actually want. It's also what the evidence doesn't support.

Daniel Simons and his colleagues examined this distinction carefully in a 2016 review published in Psychological Science in the Public Interest. They looked at 132 citations commonly used by brain training proponents. Their conclusion was diplomatic but devastating: "Extensive evidence that brain-training interventions improve performance on the trained tasks... less evidence that such interventions improve performance on closely related tasks... little evidence that training enhances performance on distantly related tasks or that training improves everyday cognitive performance."

Why does near transfer occur but far transfer doesn't? The explanation lies in how learning actually works. When you practice a brain game, you develop task-specific strategies—ways of chunking information, allocating attention, or recognizing patterns that work for that particular game. These strategies don't automatically apply elsewhere. As one researcher summarized plainly: "Basically, the most that they have shown is that with enough practice you get better on these games, or on similar cognitive tasks. There's no evidence that training transfers to any real world setting."

The human brain is remarkably good at learning specific skills. It's remarkably resistant to general cognitive enhancement through repetitive training. Chess training improves chess. Music training improves music-related skills. Video game training improves performance on similar video games. But none of these make you globally smarter or better at unrelated cognitive tasks.

The n-back example shows why this matters

Working memory training using the n-back task has been one of the most extensively studied approaches. In this game, you monitor a stream of stimuli—letters, shapes, or positions—and indicate when the current item matches one presented "n" steps earlier. It's challenging and feels cognitively demanding. Many people report feeling mentally sharper after n-back training. Companies have built entire products around it.

A meta-analysis of 33 randomized controlled trials found that training produced large improvements on untrained n-back tasks, with an effect size of 0.63. That's impressive. But improvements on fluid intelligence—the ability to solve novel problems, which is what people actually care about—showed only a tiny effect of 0.16. Even this small effect disappeared in well-controlled studies that properly accounted for placebo effects.

A 2024 preregistered, double-blind study delivered what should be the definitive result. Participants completed twenty sessions of thirty minutes each. They got much better at n-back. Their general cognition didn't budge. The researchers concluded: "While training gains increased with longer training, these improvements did not generalize to untrained cognitive tasks."

This pattern repeats across training types. The improvement is real. The generalization is not.

One exception deserves your attention

The ACTIVE study—Advanced Cognitive Training for Independent and Vital Elderly—remains the most rigorous long-term brain training trial ever conducted. It enrolled 2,832 adults averaging seventy-three years old and tracked them for a decade. Three types of training were tested: memory strategies, reasoning strategies, and computerized processing speed training.

The results told an interesting story. Memory training effects disappeared by year ten. Reasoning training showed small but persistent benefits. But processing speed training stood out, maintaining a medium-large effect size after a decade. More controversially, a 2017 follow-up analysis reported that speed training was associated with a 29% reduction in dementia risk.

Before you rush to sign up for processing speed training, honest evaluation requires noting significant caveats. The p-value was marginally significant at 0.049—the confidence interval barely excluded chance. The dementia analysis was secondary and not pre-specified in the original study design. No independent replication has been published. Key investigators had conflicts of interest, including consulting relationships and stock holdings with the company that licenses the training. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality systematic review rated the ten-year outcomes as "low strength evidence" due to participant attrition.

Processing speed training also showed real-world benefits that matter: participants were forty percent less likely to cease driving and showed fifty percent fewer at-fault crashes per mile driven. But these outcomes relate directly to what the training targets. Visual processing speed is integral to safe driving. This represents near-to-intermediate transfer to a closely related skill, not broad cognitive enhancement.

The training, now marketed as BrainHQ's "Double Decision," has more evidence behind it than other commercial offerings. But even here, the honest assessment is: promising for specific populations on specific outcomes, not proven for general brain enhancement or dementia prevention. It's the exception that proves the rule—specific training can improve specific, closely related skills when the training is intensive and sustained.

When the Federal Trade Commission stepped in

In January 2016, the Federal Trade Commission announced that Lumosity would pay $2 million to settle charges of deceptive advertising. The original judgment was $50 million, reduced due to the company's financial condition. The case revealed exactly how far marketing had outpaced evidence.

The FTC prohibited specific claims. Lumosity could no longer advertise that its training would improve performance on everyday tasks, in school, at work, and in athletics. It couldn't claim the training could delay age-related cognitive decline or protect against mild cognitive impairment, dementia, and Alzheimer's disease. It couldn't say the training would reduce cognitive impairment from stroke, traumatic brain injury, PTSD, ADHD, or chemotherapy side effects. And it couldn't claim that scientific studies proved these benefits.

Jessica Rich, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection, stated bluntly: "Lumosity preyed on consumers' fears about age-related cognitive decline, suggesting their games could stave off memory loss, dementia, and even Alzheimer's disease. But Lumosity simply did not have the science to back up its ads."

The investigation also revealed marketing tactics designed to manufacture credibility. Lumosity solicited testimonials through contests offering prizes like iPads and trips to San Francisco—without disclosing these incentives to consumers. The company purchased Google AdWords targeting keywords like "dementia" and "Alzheimer's" to reach anxious consumers searching for solutions.

This wasn't an isolated case. The FTC took action against Focus Education's "Jungle Rangers" for claiming its brain games would help children with ADHD. It challenged Carrot Neurotechnology's UltimEyes for vision improvement claims based on studies that weren't properly controlled. The pattern was consistent: companies making health claims that their science couldn't support.

The December 2022 FTC Health Products Compliance Guidance raised the bar further. It now requires "competent and reliable scientific evidence"—generally meaning randomized, controlled human clinical testing—for health-related claims. The guidance warns specifically against "p-hacking" and specifies that terms like "clinically tested" imply proven benefits, not just that testing occurred.

For consumers, this regulatory history offers a useful heuristic: if a brain training company was making bold claims before 2016, they were likely overstating their evidence. Today's claims face stricter scrutiny, but marketing still routinely exceeds what science supports.

Most brain training apps don't even meet basic quality standards

A 2025 study published in JMIR mHealth and uHealth searched major app stores for cognitive training apps targeting older adults with cognitive impairment. The researchers identified 4,822 apps using sixty-seven relevant search terms. After applying basic quality criteria, only twenty-four apps qualified for evaluation.

Using the Mobile App Rating Scale, researchers found that only two apps scored above 4.0 out of 5.0: BrainHQ at 4.13 and Peak at 4.09. Nineteen apps scored in the "acceptable" range between 3.0 and 4.0. Three scored below 3.0. The lowest-quality dimension was "information"—meaning most apps lack evidence-based content. Only thirty-three percent involved medical professionals in development.

Most concerning: researchers found no correlation between app store star ratings and actual quality. Popular, highly-rated apps were not higher quality than obscure ones. Consumer reviews measure entertainment value and user experience, not scientific validity. An app can have five stars and ten thousand glowing reviews while having zero evidence for its cognitive claims.

How to spot weak evidence when you see it

Broad cognitive claims like "improve your brain," "get smarter," or "boost IQ" are unsupported by evidence. Genuine effects are specific and limited. Disease prevention promises—particularly claims about preventing Alzheimer's or dementia—lack scientific backing. No brain training program has been proven to prevent these conditions, despite what marketing materials might suggest.

Vague research references such as "studies show" or "based on neuroscience" without specific citations signal marketing rather than evidence. Legitimate claims cite specific peer-reviewed publications with authors, journals, and years. Company-sponsored research deserves extra scrutiny. When the company selling the product funded the research, the risk of bias increases substantially. This doesn't automatically invalidate the work, but it warrants careful evaluation.

Studies without active controls are unreliable. If participants knew they were in the brain training group versus a do-nothing control, expectation effects can explain any improvements. A study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences demonstrated this directly: participants recruited with "brain training" flyers showed larger improvements after a single session than those recruited with neutral language. This was a pure placebo effect—belief creating improvement, not the training itself.

Claims that conflate near and far transfer are often misleading. "Proven to improve memory" might mean participants got better at a specific memory game, not that their real-world memory function improved. The distinction matters enormously, but marketing materials rarely make it clear.

What to ask before trying any brain training program

If you're considering a brain training program, start by asking whether there's peer-reviewed research. Published studies in legitimate journals have undergone independent review. Press releases and white papers have not. Look specifically for randomized controlled designs with active controls. Active controls ensure participants in both groups expect to improve, isolating the training effect from placebo.

Pay attention to what the studies actually measured. Research measuring only performance on trained tasks tells you nothing about real-world benefits. Look for tests of untrained cognitive abilities and functional outcomes—things like driving safety, medication adherence, or ability to manage finances. Has the finding been replicated independently? Single studies, especially from labs with industry ties, are less reliable than findings confirmed across multiple research groups.

Consider the follow-up duration. Immediate post-training improvements often fade. Long-term follow-up spanning months to years matters much more than immediate effects. And always check whether conflicts of interest are disclosed. Many brain training researchers have financial relationships with companies. This doesn't invalidate their work, but it warrants caution in interpretation.

Who might actually benefit from brain training

The evidence suggests some populations benefit more than others from cognitive training. Older adults aged sixty-five and up with concerns about cognitive decline have the most evidence, particularly for processing speed training. The ACTIVE study enrolled participants in this age range, and effects were most robust for speed training with booster sessions. Benefits included preserved daily functioning and reduced driving risk.

Adults with mild cognitive impairment show mixed results. Some studies report modest improvements in trained domains, but transfer to daily function remains uncertain. The evidence is suggestive but not definitive. Healthy younger adults show the weakest evidence for benefit. Effect sizes are smaller, and practical significance is questionable. A young adult spending time on brain games might see more cognitive benefit from learning a new skill, exercising regularly, or sleeping adequately.

Children have been the subject of many claims, but Sala and Gobet's meta-analysis found that when study quality was controlled, music training and other cognitive interventions showed essentially no far-transfer effects in children. The finding applied across multiple training types. The developing brain is remarkably plastic, but that plasticity doesn't translate into general cognitive enhancement from repetitive game playing.

Setting realistic expectations

If you decide to try brain training despite the limitations, here's what evidence actually supports. You will improve at the games. This is nearly certain. With practice, you'll get faster and more accurate at the specific tasks. You may see improvements on similar cognitive tests. Near-transfer effects are documented, especially for processing speed training.

But you should not expect to get generally smarter, prevent dementia, or perform better at work. Far-transfer effects are essentially zero in well-controlled studies. This isn't pessimism—it's what the research consistently shows. Booster sessions matter significantly. The ACTIVE study found that periodic refresher training extended benefits. A single training block followed by years of no practice is unlikely to produce lasting change.

The optimal protocol from the ACTIVE study involved ten to eighteen sessions of sixty to seventy-five minutes over five to six weeks, with booster sessions at eleven and thirty-five months. This is substantially more intensive than most commercial app users manage. Casual use of brain training apps—ten minutes here and there—falls far short of protocols that produced even modest benefits in research settings.

What actually works better than brain training

Multiple lifestyle interventions show more robust evidence for cognitive health than commercial brain training. Physical exercise shows the strongest evidence. An umbrella meta-analysis covering 2,724 randomized controlled trials and 258,279 participants found exercise improved general cognition with an effect size of 0.42—larger than most brain training effects and more consistently observed. For older adults with mild cognitive impairment, effect sizes reached 0.81 to 1.09 for multi-component exercise programs.

The mechanisms are well-established. Exercise increases brain-derived neurotrophic factor, promotes neurogenesis in the hippocampus, improves cerebral blood flow, and reduces cardiovascular risk factors linked to cognitive decline. The optimal parameters: one hundred fifty minutes or more per week of moderate aerobic activity, supplemented with resistance training. For older adults with cognitive concerns, thirty-minute sessions three to four times weekly at sixty to eighty-five percent maximum heart rate shows benefit.

The Mediterranean diet reduces dementia risk by eighteen to thirty percent according to multiple meta-analyses. The diet emphasizes vegetables, fruits, whole grains, olive oil, fish, and nuts while limiting red meat and processed foods. Mechanisms include anti-inflammatory effects, improved vascular health, and beneficial changes to gut microbiota. These are substantial risk reductions supported by prospective data—far stronger evidence than exists for any brain training program.

Sleep is non-negotiable for cognitive function. Sleep deprivation impairs cognition with large effect sizes—greater than any benefit claimed by brain training. Sleep restriction to three to six and a half hours versus seven to nine hours significantly impairs memory consolidation. Sleep isn't just rest. It's when memory consolidation occurs. Slow-wave sleep triggers hippocampal-cortical dialogue that transfers memories into long-term storage.

Social engagement protects against cognitive decline. Longitudinal studies consistently find that low social participation, infrequent contact with friends, and loneliness each predict approximately one and a half times higher dementia risk. Research on "SuperAgers"—individuals in their eighties with memory function typical of people twenty to thirty years younger—shows they score significantly higher on measures of positive social relationships. Social activity provides cognitive stimulation, reduces depression and chronic stress, and often combines physical activity with mental engagement.

Learning new skills builds cognitive reserve in ways that generic brain games do not. Bilingualism delays Alzheimer's symptom onset by four to five years on average—not by reducing pathology, but by building compensatory capacity. Musical training in older adults improves processing speed and executive function. Any cognitively challenging new skill—a language, an instrument, a craft—appears to build cognitive reserve. The key difference: real-world skill learning involves complexity, novelty, social interaction, and progressive challenge in ways that repetitive app-based training doesn't replicate.

The bottom line on brain training

The brain training industry is not pure snake oil. But it's also not what the marketing suggests. You'll get better at brain games. Processing speed training has specific evidence for older adults' daily functioning and driving safety. Some cognitive training protocols show near-transfer effects to similar tasks.

But claims that brain games make you smarter, prevent dementia, improve work performance, or help with conditions like ADHD without specific clinical evidence are not supported by science. The Stanford Center on Longevity consensus got this right: "The promise of a magic bullet detracts from the best evidence to date, which is that cognitive health in old age reflects the long-term effects of healthy, engaged lifestyles."

If you're interested in brain training, BrainHQ's processing speed training has the most evidence behind it, particularly for adults sixty-five and older. Set realistic expectations: you might sharpen specific visual processing skills, but you won't transform your cognitive capacity. The benefits are real but narrow.

For most people, the evidence points elsewhere. Regular exercise, good sleep, Mediterranean-style eating, social engagement, and learning new skills all have stronger and broader evidence for cognitive health than commercial brain training apps. The time and money spent on brain games might deliver more benefit if redirected to these alternatives. A gym membership, a cooking class, language lessons, or a regular hiking group with friends would almost certainly do more for your brain than any app.

The brain training industry will continue making appealing claims. Your best defense is scientific literacy: understanding what the research actually shows, recognizing the limits of evidence, and making choices based on facts rather than marketing. That's the radically honest approach to brain health. Your brain deserves nothing less.

Sources and Further Reading:

This article draws on peer-reviewed research from major journals including the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Psychological Science in the Public Interest, and meta-analyses published in respected cognitive science journals. Key sources include:

Stanford Center on Longevity and Max Planck Institute consensus statement on the brain training industry (2014)
Sala & Gobet meta-analysis of cognitive training studies (2019)
Simons et al. comprehensive review in Psychological Science in the Public Interest (2016)
The ACTIVE study and ten-year follow-up analysis
Federal Trade Commission enforcement actions and compliance guidance
Systematic reviews on exercise, diet, sleep, and lifestyle factors affecting cognition

All specific claims are based on published research. For citation details and access to original studies, please contact our editorial team.