Does Brain Training Carry Over to Daily Life?

Does brain training carry over to daily life? Brain training means practicing computer games or drills built to sharpen memory, attention or speed. The research agrees on one point: people get better at the tasks they practice. Whether that improvement reaches untrained skills, or everyday life, is where the studies split.

The largest reviews found little or no carry-over. A 2016 review of the studies that brain-training companies cite found little evidence that training improves everyday thinking. A 2016 meta-analysis of 145 comparisons found no reliable gain on distant skills in well-controlled studies. A 2019 analysis pooling earlier meta-analyses agreed. The main exception is one large US trial of adults over 65. Its trained groups reported less trouble with daily tasks after ten years. We rate the research Early for carry-over to daily life, and Strong for gains on the trained tasks themselves.

What counts as brain training?

Brain training is repeated practice on tasks built to exercise one mental skill. Commercial programs package them as short games on a phone or computer. In the 2010 online trial, one group practiced memory, attention, spatial and maths tasks. The authors called them similar to those in commercial brain-training devices.

The idea behind it is transfer, which researchers split in two. Near transfer is improvement on tasks close to the one practiced, such as a different memory test. Far transfer is improvement on something distant: reasoning, work, or the tasks of independent living. The ad claims the FTC challenged in 2016 were far-transfer claims, such as better performance at work and school.

Research programs often differ from apps in ways that matter. The best-known trial, called ACTIVE, trained older adults in small groups. Its speed-of-processing course used computer exercises. Its memory and reasoning courses taught strategies and then practiced them.

What happened when large studies tested it?

In 2010, researchers ran a six-week online trial with viewers of a BBC science program. Of 52,617 people who signed up, 11,430 adults aged 18 to 60 completed both rounds of testing. They were asked to train at least 10 minutes a day, three times a week. Scores on the trained tasks rose sharply. The authors found no evidence of transfer to untrained tasks, even closely related ones. People who trained more did not do better on the untrained tests.

The ACTIVE trial is the largest test in older adults. It enrolled 2,832 people aged 65 to 94 in six US cities, starting in 1998. Each training group had ten sessions of 60 to 75 minutes over five to six weeks. Each group improved on the skill it trained. At two years, the trial found no training effect on everyday functioning.

The picture shifted at ten years. A 2014 report found that all three trained groups reported less difficulty with everyday tasks of independent living than the control group. The effect sizes were 0.36 to 0.48. That outcome was reported by the participants, not observed by the researchers.

Two later ACTIVE reports looked at dementia. At ten years, the speed group had a 29% lower risk by the study's own measure. The memory and reasoning groups showed no clear difference. A 2026 analysis of Medicare records over 20 years found a lower rate only among speed trainees who also had booster sessions. Those boosters went to people who had kept up with the sessions, not to a random group. Of those, 40% were diagnosed with dementia, against 49% of the control group. A reanalysis the same year found that no single result held up after correcting for the number of comparisons. The same author read the overall pattern as a small effect shared by all three kinds of training. He found it mostly in the youngest participants. Some of the trial's authors disclose ties to the company that now sells the speed program.

Reviews that pool many trials lean the other way. The 2016 meta-analysis found that working-memory training raised working-memory scores, but gave no convincing gain in intelligence, reading or arithmetic. The 2019 analysis put far transfer at zero once placebo effects and publication bias were accounted for. A 2014 review of 52 trials in healthy older adults, with 4,885 people, found a small effect on untrained thinking tests. Those were lab tests, not daily life.

Cochrane reviewers rated the evidence from trials in healthy adults over 65 as low or very low quality. They found no evidence on daily activities. For healthy adults in midlife, they found a single study and could not say whether training works. In 2017, the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine called the evidence for cognitive training encouraging but inconclusive.

Which claims go further than the studies?

The common claims are that brain games will sharpen you at work, keep you mentally young, or ward off dementia. In 2016, the US Federal Trade Commission settled with one brain-training company over ads for benefits like these. The FTC said the company did not have the science to support them. The company agreed to pay $2 million.

The dementia claims rest on one trial, ACTIVE, and on later analyses of some of its groups. In 2014, two groups of scientists published opposing open letters about brain training. They disagreed on much, but both said no study had shown that brain training prevents Alzheimer's disease.

The ACTIVE results also do not carry over to apps on their own. The National Academies report noted that ACTIVE used group sessions with social contact. It said there is no evidence that ACTIVE's long-term effects apply to brain-training apps. Getting better at the game itself is the one gain nobody disputes. Even gains on similar tasks have less support, the 2016 review found. Neither is the same as a change in daily life.

How much training did the studies give?

Doses varied widely. The 2010 online trial asked for at least 10 minutes, three times a week, for six weeks. People averaged about 24 sessions. ACTIVE gave ten group sessions of 60 to 75 minutes, about 10 to 12.5 hours in all. A random group of those who finished most sessions was offered four 75-minute booster sessions, at 11 and 35 months.

The setting and the schedule mattered. The 2014 review of 52 trials found that home-based training showed no clear benefit compared with group training. Programs with more than three sessions a week also did less well than those with three or fewer. Sessions under 30 minutes had only weak support.

The people studied were narrow groups. ACTIVE took adults 65 and older living in the community. It left out people with low scores on a dementia screening test, poor vision, stroke or certain cancers. The online trial was mostly women who volunteered after a TV program. For adults aged 40 to 65, Cochrane found one eligible study.

Cost appears in the FTC case: in 2016, that program cost $14.95 a month or $299.95 for life.

Are there downsides?

We found no trial that reported on harms. Cochrane reviewers judged direct side effects unlikely. They noted that the time, and sometimes the money, can be a real burden. The 2014 scientists' statement raised the same trade-off: hours on brain games may replace activities like hiking or seeing friends. In the trials of healthy older adults, Cochrane found no reports on adverse effects either way.

Questions to Ask Your Doctor

• Are the memory changes I notice usual for my age, or worth testing?
• Could a medicine, a sleep problem or my mood be affecting my memory or focus?
• Is anything in my health history, such as my blood pressure, linked to thinking skills later in life?
• Would a cognitive test now give us a baseline to compare against later?

Questions People Ask

Do brain games prevent dementia?

Both 2014 open letters said no study had shown that. A 2019 Cochrane review looked at eight trials with 660 people who had mild cognitive impairment. None of the trials reported new cases of dementia. The reviewers could not say whether computer training prevents it. The one signal comes from ACTIVE's speed training, and it holds only in some analyses.

If I get better at a brain game, is my brain better?

Not necessarily. In the 2010 online trial, trained-task scores rose sharply, with effect sizes from 0.72 to 1.63. Scores on untrained tests barely moved. The number of sessions people completed had almost no link to their untrained scores. The gains stayed with the trained tasks, even when the untrained tests were closely related.

Do ordinary video games count as brain training?

Researchers have tested that too. A 2018 meta-analysis in Psychological Bulletin pooled more than 300 effect sizes on video game training. It found small or null effects, and concluded there was no evidence that playing video games causes better thinking ability.

Is speed-of-processing training different?

One large review suggests it may be. A 2020 meta-analysis of 215 trials in older adults found a small far-transfer effect overall. It reported that speed training improved everyday functioning. Other reviews, using stricter controls, found no far transfer. The strongest evidence for speed training still comes from ACTIVE alone.

The Healing Spot reports published research for general information. It is not medical advice and does not replace a doctor, who knows your history. Talk to a qualified clinician before you start, stop or change any treatment, supplement or practice. If you think you may have a medical emergency, call 911 or your local emergency number.