The $2 Million Question: Do Brain Games Actually Work?

In 2016, Lumosity -- the most popular brain training app in the world with over 70 million users -- agreed to pay $2 million to the Federal Trade Commission to settle charges that it deceived consumers with unfounded claims that its games could improve cognitive performance in school, work, and everyday life.

That settlement sent shockwaves through the brain training industry. But the story is more nuanced than the headlines suggested. Some forms of cognitive training do show measurable benefits. The key questions are: which games, for which abilities, and do the gains actually transfer to real-world intelligence?

This article examines the most popular brain training programs and apps individually, reviewing what the scientific evidence actually says about each one.

"The consensus of the scientific community is that the evidence does not support the claim that brain training games produce broad cognitive improvements."
-- Daniel Simons, psychologist, University of Illinois, lead author of the 2016 consensus statement signed by 70+ scientists

But not everyone agrees with that consensus. And the research has evolved significantly since 2016. Let us look at the evidence.

Understanding Near Transfer vs. Far Transfer

Before evaluating specific games, you need to understand the concept that divides the entire brain training debate: transfer.

Transfer Type Definition Example Evidence Strength
Near transfer Improvement on tasks similar to the trained task Getting better at a memory game after playing memory games Strong -- consistently demonstrated
Far transfer Improvement on tasks unrelated to the trained task Improving fluid IQ after playing memory games Weak to moderate -- highly debated
Real-world transfer Improvement in everyday cognitive functioning Better decision-making, academic performance, or job effectiveness after brain training Very limited -- rarely demonstrated

Almost all brain training games produce near transfer. You play a memory game, you get better at that memory game. That is unsurprising and relatively uninteresting.

The real question -- and the one that matters for IQ -- is whether playing brain games produces far transfer to general cognitive abilities. This is where the evidence gets complicated.

"Getting better at brain training games is like getting better at a video game. It does not mean you have become smarter any more than getting better at Call of Duty means you have become a better soldier."
-- Randall Engle, cognitive psychologist, Georgia Institute of Technology

The Major Brain Training Programs: Evidence Review

1. Lumosity

What it is: A suite of 50+ mini-games targeting memory, attention, flexibility, speed, and problem-solving. Over 100 million registered users worldwide.

What the research says:

  • A large study by Hardy et al. (2015), published in PLOS ONE and funded by Lumos Labs (Lumosity's parent company), found that Lumosity users showed greater improvement on cognitive assessments than a control group that played crossword puzzles. However, the improvements were modest and primarily on tasks similar to the games themselves.
  • The FTC found that Lumosity's advertising -- claiming their games could help with ADHD symptoms, slow cognitive decline from aging, and improve school performance -- was not supported by the evidence.
  • Independent studies have generally found that Lumosity produces strong near transfer but minimal far transfer to standardized IQ measures.
Claim Evidence Level
Improves performance on trained tasks Strong
Improves working memory generally Moderate
Raises fluid IQ scores Weak
Prevents age-related cognitive decline Insufficient evidence
Helps with ADHD or brain injury Not supported

2. Dual N-Back

What it is: A demanding working memory task where you simultaneously track auditory and visual sequences. Originally a laboratory research tool, now available as various apps (e.g., Brain Workshop, IQ Mindware).

What the research says:

Dual N-Back is the most controversial and most studied brain training paradigm. The landmark 2008 study by Jaeggi, Buschkuehl, Jonides, and Perrig published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reported that training on Dual N-Back for just 8-19 days improved fluid intelligence -- the ability to reason and solve novel problems, which is the core component of IQ.

This finding was groundbreaking because fluid intelligence was previously considered largely fixed and resistant to training.

However, subsequent attempts to replicate this finding have produced mixed results:

Study Year Finding Sample Size
Jaeggi et al. 2008 Significant fluid IQ gains 70
Redick et al. 2013 No far transfer to fluid IQ 73
Colom et al. 2013 No significant IQ gains 168
Au et al. (meta-analysis) 2015 Small but significant effect (d = 0.24) 20 studies
Soveri et al. (meta-analysis) 2017 No significant effect after controlling for placebo 33 studies

The Au et al. (2015) meta-analysis, published in Intelligence, found a small but statistically significant effect of Dual N-Back training on fluid intelligence: an effect size of d = 0.24, which translates to roughly a 3-4 point IQ gain. However, critics argue this effect disappears when active control groups (rather than passive controls) are used, suggesting it may be partially a placebo effect.

"If you want the best odds of improving your fluid intelligence through brain training, Dual N-Back remains the most promising candidate. But the effects are small, and the jury is still out."
-- Susanne Jaeggi, cognitive neuroscientist, University of California, Irvine

3. Peak

What it is: A brain training app developed with input from academic researchers, featuring games designed by scientists from institutions including Cambridge and Yale. Games target memory, mental agility, language, focus, and problem-solving.

What the research says:

  • A 2019 study by Ballesteros et al. found that older adults who used Peak for 8 weeks showed improvements in processing speed and attention, but these did not transfer to other cognitive measures.
  • Peak's advantage over competitors is its academic partnerships, but published peer-reviewed evidence specifically on Peak remains limited.
  • Like most brain training apps, Peak produces reliable near transfer with uncertain far transfer.

4. Elevate

What it is: An app focused on language, reading, writing, and math skills rather than traditional cognitive domains. Named Apple's App of the Year in 2014.

What the research says:

  • Elevate targets practical academic skills rather than fluid intelligence, making it more of a skill-building tool than a brain training game in the traditional sense.
  • No major peer-reviewed studies have specifically evaluated Elevate's impact on standardized IQ scores.
  • Users consistently report subjective improvements in language and math confidence, but these are self-reported and subject to placebo effects.

5. CogniFit

What it is: A brain training platform originally developed for clinical and research applications, now available to consumers. Claims to offer personalized training based on neuropsychological assessment.

What the research says:

  • Several published studies have found improvements in specific cognitive domains after CogniFit training, particularly in older adults (Shatil et al., 2013).
  • CogniFit has the most robust clinical research base among consumer brain training apps.
  • However, evidence for generalized IQ improvement remains limited.

Comparative Summary

App/Program Near Transfer Far Transfer (IQ) Research Base Cost
Dual N-Back Strong Possible (small effect) Extensive (mixed results) Free (Brain Workshop)
Lumosity Strong Weak Moderate (industry-funded) $11.99/month
Peak Strong Not demonstrated Limited $4.99/month
Elevate Strong (skill-specific) Not studied Minimal $14.99/month
CogniFit Moderate to strong Limited Moderate (clinical focus) $19.99/month

What the Two Opposing Camps Say

The brain training debate has produced two formal public statements from researchers, revealing a deep split in the scientific community.

The Skeptics: Stanford-Max Planck Statement (2014)

Signed by 70+ cognitive scientists, this statement concluded:

"The strong consensus of this group is that 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."

The Optimists: Cognitive Training Data Response (2014)

Signed by 130+ scientists, this counter-statement argued:

"A substantial and growing body of evidence shows that certain cognitive training regimens can significantly improve cognitive function, including in ways that generalize to everyday life."

The disagreement centers not on whether brain training improves something -- it clearly does -- but on whether those improvements transfer meaningfully beyond the trained tasks.

"The question is not whether brain training works. It does, for the tasks you train on. The question is whether it generalizes. And on that, reasonable scientists disagree."
-- Adam Gazzaley, neuroscientist, University of California, San Francisco

What Actually Improves IQ? Evidence-Based Alternatives

If brain training games have limited effects on IQ, what does work? Research points to several activities with stronger evidence for cognitive enhancement:

Activity Effect on IQ/Cognition Evidence Strength Key Study
Aerobic exercise +3-5 IQ points equivalent; improves executive function Strong Hillman et al. (2008), meta-analysis
Musical instrument training +3-7 points in children; enhanced verbal memory Moderate to strong Schellenberg (2004)
Learning a new language Enhanced executive function and cognitive flexibility Moderate Bialystok (2017)
Formal education +1-5 IQ points per year of schooling Strong Ritchie & Tucker-Drob (2018)
Cardiovascular fitness Protects against age-related cognitive decline Strong Erickson et al. (2011)
Meditation Improved attention and working memory Moderate Zeidan et al. (2010)
Adequate sleep Prevents 5-8 point reduction from deprivation Strong Lim & Dinges (2010)
Social engagement Protects cognitive function in aging Moderate James et al. (2011)

Why Exercise Outperforms Brain Games

The most robust evidence for cognitive enhancement comes not from any app, but from aerobic exercise. A meta-analysis by Smith et al. (2010) covering 29 studies found that exercise improved attention, processing speed, executive function, and memory -- all components of IQ.

The mechanism is well-understood: exercise increases brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), promotes hippocampal neurogenesis, and improves cerebrovascular function. These are broad, systemic changes that affect the entire brain, unlike the narrow skill-specific improvements from brain games.

"If you want to improve your brain function, put down the phone and go for a run. The evidence for exercise is orders of magnitude stronger than the evidence for any brain training app."
-- John Ratey, psychiatrist, Harvard Medical School, author of Spark: The Revolutionary New Science of Exercise and the Brain

A Practical Brain Training Protocol That Maximizes Your Odds

Based on the current evidence, here is a protocol that combines the most promising elements:

Weekly Cognitive Enhancement Plan

  1. Aerobic exercise (150+ minutes/week) -- The single most evidence-supported cognitive enhancer. Brisk walking, running, cycling, or swimming.
  1. Dual N-Back training (20 minutes/day, 5 days/week) -- The brain training paradigm with the most promising (though debated) far transfer evidence. Use a free app like Brain Workshop.
  1. Novel learning -- Dedicate time to learning something genuinely new: a musical instrument, a language, a complex skill. Novelty drives neuroplasticity more effectively than repetitive games.
  1. Adequate sleep (7-9 hours/night) -- Non-negotiable. Sleep deprivation is the fastest way to reduce your cognitive performance.
  1. Periodic cognitive assessment -- Track your progress with our full IQ test or timed IQ test every few months to see if your protocol is producing measurable results.

What to Avoid

  • Spending money on premium brain training apps before trying free alternatives (Dual N-Back is free and has the strongest evidence)
  • Expecting dramatic IQ gains -- even the most optimistic studies show gains of 3-5 points, not 20
  • Replacing physical activity with screen-based training -- exercise has far stronger evidence
  • Training only one cognitive domain -- variety drives broader improvement

The Neuroplasticity Factor: Why Age Matters

One important nuance in the brain training debate is that effectiveness varies significantly by age, because neuroplasticity -- the brain's capacity to reorganize itself -- decreases over the lifespan.

Age Group Neuroplasticity Level Brain Training Potential Best Approach
Children (5-12) Very high Highest potential for lasting gains Musical training, language learning, physical play
Adolescents (13-17) High Strong potential; critical period for executive function Diverse cognitive challenges, sports, creative activities
Young adults (18-30) Moderate to high Good potential; most research participants are in this group Dual N-Back, exercise, novel skill learning
Middle-aged (30-60) Moderate Maintenance and modest improvement possible Exercise, social engagement, continuous learning
Older adults (60+) Lower but still present Can slow decline; some improvement possible Physical activity, social engagement, CogniFit-style programs

"The brain retains its capacity to change throughout life, but the rate and magnitude of that change diminishes with age. The best time to invest in your brain is always now."
-- Michael Merzenich, neuroscientist, pioneer of neuroplasticity research

For older adults specifically, the ACTIVE study (Advanced Cognitive Training for Independent and Vital Elderly) -- one of the largest randomized cognitive training trials ever conducted -- found that specific types of training (speed of processing, reasoning, and memory) produced improvements that persisted for up to 10 years in the trained domains. However, only speed-of-processing training transferred to reduced risk of dementia.

Common Misconceptions About Brain Training

Misconception 1: "Any brain game will make you smarter"

False. Most brain games only make you better at that specific game. Playing Candy Crush will make you faster at Candy Crush -- it will not raise your IQ. The design, adaptability, and cognitive demands of the game matter enormously.

Misconception 2: "Brain training can replace education"

False. Formal education has vastly more evidence for improving cognitive ability than any brain training program. Research by Ritchie and Tucker-Drob (2018) found that each additional year of education is associated with a 1-5 point increase in IQ, with effects that persist throughout life.

Misconception 3: "More screen time on brain games equals a bigger brain boost"

Diminishing returns are real. Most studies showing benefits used training durations of 15-25 minutes per day. Beyond that, additional training time shows minimal incremental benefit and may actually reduce motivation and compliance.

Misconception 4: "Brain training apps are backed by rigorous science"

Often misleading. Many apps cite "neuroscience-based" or "clinically proven" without having undergone rigorous, independent, peer-reviewed testing. Always check whether claims are based on the company's own studies (which may be biased) or independent research.

How to Evaluate Brain Training Claims

Before investing time or money in any brain training program, ask these questions:

  1. Has it been tested in a randomized controlled trial with an active control group? Comparing brain training to doing nothing will always show the training group improving -- the comparison needs to be against another engaging activity.
  1. Has it been replicated by independent researchers? Industry-funded studies of their own products should be viewed with skepticism until replicated independently.
  1. What kind of transfer was demonstrated? Near transfer (improving on similar tasks) is expected. Far transfer (improving general IQ) is what matters and is much harder to demonstrate.
  1. What was the effect size? Even statistically significant results can be trivially small. An effect size of d = 0.20 translates to roughly a 3-point IQ gain -- real but modest.
  1. Who were the participants? Results from college students may not generalize to older adults or children.

To establish your own cognitive baseline, take our full IQ test before starting any brain training program, and reassess periodically using our quick IQ assessment or practice IQ test.

References

  1. Simons, D. J., Boot, W. R., Charness, N., Gathercole, S. E., Chabris, C. F., Hambrick, D. Z., & Stine-Morrow, E. A. (2016). Do "brain-training" programs work? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 17(3), 103-186.
  1. Jaeggi, S. M., Buschkuehl, M., Jonides, J., & Perrig, W. J. (2008). Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(19), 6829-6833.
  1. Au, J., Sheehan, E., Tsai, N., Duncan, G. J., Buschkuehl, M., & Jaeggi, S. M. (2015). Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 22(2), 366-377.
  1. Soveri, A., Antfolk, J., Karlsson, L., Salo, B., & Laine, M. (2017). Working memory training revisited: A multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 24(4), 1077-1096.
  1. Hardy, J. L., Nelson, R. A., Thomason, M. E., Sternberg, D. A., Katovich, K., Farzin, F., & Scanlon, M. (2015). Enhancing cognitive abilities with comprehensive training: A large, online, randomized, active-controlled trial. PLOS ONE, 10(9), e0134467.
  1. Ritchie, S. J., & Tucker-Drob, E. M. (2018). How much does education improve intelligence? A meta-analysis. Psychological Science, 29(8), 1358-1369.
  1. Smith, P. J., Blumenthal, J. A., Hoffman, B. M., Cooper, H., Strauman, T. A., Welsh-Bohmer, K., ... & Sherwood, A. (2010). Aerobic exercise and neurocognitive performance: A meta-analytic review of randomized controlled trials. Psychosomatic Medicine, 72(3), 239-252.
  1. Schellenberg, E. G. (2004). Music lessons enhance IQ. Psychological Science, 15(8), 511-514.
  1. Ball, K., Berch, D. B., Helmers, K. F., et al. (2002). Effects of cognitive training interventions with older adults: A randomized controlled trial (ACTIVE study). JAMA, 288(18), 2271-2281.
  1. Ratey, J. J. (2008). Spark: The Revolutionary New Science of Exercise and the Brain. Little, Brown and Company.