What's Your IQ

LAST 30 DAYS · 40 GAMES

Every game, by plays and typical score

GAMEAREAPLAYSMEDIANREPEAT

Median is in each game's own unit (level, items, ms). Repeat = share of players who came back for at least a second session. Click a game for its detail below.

MEMORY · 1.3k PLAYS

Dual N-Back

Track positions and letters N steps back at once.Your result: 2.6level

50percentile of first sessions

Play Dual N-Back →

PRACTICE CURVE · MEDIAN BY SESSION NUMBER

2.6

2.8

2.9

3

3.1

3.2

3.3

12345678910

Median rises from 2.6 to 3.3 level over ten sessions: about 27% better. Most of the gain comes in the first three or four sessions, the classic practice curve.

WHERE PRACTICE PAYS MOST

Gain from session 1 to session 10, by area

Memory+22%Span tasks improve most: people learn chunking and rehearsal strategies.

Attention+8%Mostly fewer lapses; raw speed changes little.

Speed+9%Real but modest; floor effects limit how fast anyone gets.

Reasoning+11%Gains reflect learning item types; new item sets drop back.

Average percent improvement in median score among players who reached session 10, with speed games inverted so faster = better. Players who stick around are a selected group, so this overstates the gain a new player should expect.

READ THESE CURVES HONESTLY

Getting better at a game is not the same as getting smarter

Every curve above rises: people learn the game. The research question is transfer: does practice on one task improve different, untrained tasks? Meta-analyses of working-memory training (Melby-Lervåg and Hulme 2013, and later updates) found reliable gains on the trained task and close variants, but little or no lasting effect on fluid intelligence or school outcomes. A large 2016 review by Simons and colleagues reached a similar conclusion for commercial brain training.

Use these games to practise focus, speed and memory, and enjoy watching the curve. Don't expect a higher IQ score from them.

Trained task

large

Similar tasks

moderate

Different abilities, IQ

little or none

Qualitative summary of the meta-analytic pattern, not effect sizes.

HOW THESE NUMBERS ARE MADE

Completed sessions onlyAbandoned or interrupted sessions are dropped.

Medians, not meansA few extreme sessions can't drag the typical score around.

Kept on this deviceThis record lives in your browser only. It is never uploaded, and clearing site data clears it.

Compared with other playersPercentiles come from people who chose these games, so read them as relative to other players rather than the population.

REFERENCES

Melby-Lervåg, M., & Hulme, C. (2013). Is working memory training effective? A meta-analytic review. Developmental Psychology, 49(2), 270–291.

Melby-Lervåg, M., Redick, T. S., & Hulme, C. (2016). Working memory training does not improve performance on measures of intelligence or other measures of 'far transfer'. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(4), 512–534.

Simons, D. J., et al. (2016). Do 'brain-training' programs work? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 17(3), 103–186.

Au, J., et al. (2015). Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(2), 366–377. (A more positive estimate, debated.)

Training stats: your practice so far.

Every game, by plays and typical score

Dual N-Back

Gain from session 1 to session 10, by area

Getting better at a game is not the same as getting smarter

Add a point to the curve