Key takeaways
- A Cochrane review of computerised cognitive training lasting 12 weeks or more in cognitively healthy people in late life found low-quality evidence of small benefits immediately after training, of uncertain clinical importance, and no evidence that the effect on global cognitive function persisted 12 months later.
- The 2017 National Academies report placed cognitive training among three intervention classes supported by encouraging although inconclusive evidence, while stating that there is no evidence the long-term effects suggested by the ACTIVE trial apply to computer-based brain training applications.
- A 2014 consensus statement signed by a large group of scientists concluded there is little evidence that playing brain games improves underlying broad cognitive abilities, and singled out claims about preventing or reversing Alzheimer's disease as unsupported.
- Four design features decide whether a drill is usable rather than discouraging: an untimed alternative to every timed round, a genuinely gentle starting level, difficulty that adapts without dropping below a floor, and offline play.
- IQ Test & Brain Training Games, our own app, includes an IQ-style test, a memory test and a reaction time test, and its listing describes their results as estimates based on app activities, not medical, psychological, clinical or professional diagnostic assessments; treat any figure it shows as a practice record, not a verdict on cognitive health.
The systematic evidence for commercial brain games improving general thinking in later life is weak, the effects that do appear are small and do not persist, and the strongest marketing claims in this category have no support at all. That does not make the activity worthless. It makes it an enjoyable practice activity and an educational one, and those are honest reasons to do it — they are simply not health claims.
This article sets out what the reviews found, then covers the practical half that most articles skip: the four design features that decide whether a timed drill is usable for an older adult or quietly discouraging.
What the systematic evidence says
Three sources are worth reading rather than summaries of summaries.
The Cochrane review. Computerised cognitive training for 12 or more weeks for maintaining cognitive function in cognitively healthy people in late life, by Gates and colleagues, examined eight trials involving 1,183 participants aged 65 and over, with training lasting between 12 and 26 weeks. The authors' conclusion is worth quoting at length because its hedges are the substance: "We found low-quality evidence suggesting that immediately after completion of the intervention, small benefits of CCT may be seen for global cognitive function when compared with active controls, and for episodic memory when compared with an inactive control. These benefits are of uncertain clinical importance. We found no evidence that the effect on global cognitive function persisted 12 months later." They add that their confidence in the results was low, reflecting the overall quality of the evidence.
The National Academies report. Preventing Cognitive Decline and Dementia: A Way Forward, published in 2017, identified cognitive training as one of three classes of intervention supported by "encouraging although inconclusive evidence", alongside blood pressure management for people with hypertension and increased physical activity. The committee was equally clear about the limits of that finding as it applies to consumer products: "At present, however, there is no evidence to support the notion that the beneficial long-term cognitive effects suggested by the ACTIVE trial apply to computer-based 'brain training' applications." The ACTIVE trial involved structured, in-person training delivered by certified trainers — a different thing from an app.
The consensus statement. In October 2014 the Stanford Center on Longevity and the Max Planck Institute for Human Development published a consensus statement on the brain training industry signed by a large group of scientists. It acknowledged that "cognitive training produces statistically significant improvement in practiced skills that sometimes extends to improvement on other cognitive tasks administered in the lab", while concluding that there is "little evidence that playing brain games improves underlying broad cognitive abilities". It described claims promoting brain games as "frequently exaggerated and at times misleading", and singled out as "the most pernicious claim, devoid of any scientifically credible evidence, is that brain games prevent or reverse Alzheimer's disease".
Read together, these three give a consistent picture: you get better at what you practise, the evidence for anything wider is thin and contested, and the health claims made in advertising go far beyond what any of it supports.
What the category is honestly for
It is worth keeping four things separate, because the marketing in this space blurs them deliberately.
Practice is repeated work on a defined task, and it reliably improves performance on that task. Entertainment is doing something because it is enjoyable, which needs no further justification. Educational activity is learning a method you did not previously have — a way of calculating a tip, say, or a way of holding a sequence in mind. Standardised psychological assessment is a measurement instrument with a norm group, a manual, published reliability evidence and a qualified administrator.
An arithmetic drill app is the first three. It is not the fourth, and nothing in it should be read as one.
The US Federal Trade Commission's January 2016 action against Lumos Labs is the clearest external marker of where the line sits. The complaint covered claims that training would "delay age-related cognitive decline and protect against mild cognitive impairment, dementia, and Alzheimer's disease", and the Commission's summary was that the company "simply did not have the science to back up its ads". That history is the reason to be sceptical of any product in this category that talks about decline, and it applies to every publisher including us.
The four features that decide whether a drill is usable
This is where a product choice actually matters, and it has nothing to do with cognitive claims.
An untimed alternative to every timed round. A countdown turns an arithmetic question into a test of speed, and speed is the dimension most likely to feel unfair. IQ Test & Brain Training Games — our own app, built by Reign Creative — ships untimed accuracy rounds with feedback and an optional hint on each question, which can stand in for a sprint on any topic. If a product's only formats are timed, it is designed for a different reader.
A starting level that is genuinely gentle. Many apps label a level "easy" and then present it at a pace that is not. Look at what the easiest setting physically does. In our memory modes the first of seven levels runs three to four items on a two-by-two grid with a slow reveal, and the levels above it change sequence length, grid size and how long an item stays on screen. Those are mechanical differences you can check, rather than a label.
Difficulty that adapts without dropping through the floor. Adaptive difficulty is useful when it steps gradually and useless when it collapses to trivial after two misses. Our arithmetic and memory modes adjust within a level — lengthening after a run of correct answers, shortening after misses — but cannot fall below the floor of the level you chose, so a bad round does not undo the level you settled on.
Offline play. A session interrupted by a connection problem is a session abandoned. Arithmetic problems and memory rounds in our app are generated on the device and progress is stored locally, so the drills themselves do not need a connection; advertising and purchases do, and those degrade to unavailable without one.
A fifth consideration is length. Short sessions are better supported by the evidence on practice than long ones, and easier to sustain: how long a brain training session should be covers the dose question, and the answer — five to fifteen minutes — is as true at seventy as at thirty.
What this app's results do not tell you
Stated plainly, because inference is not good enough on this subject.
IQ Test & Brain Training Games includes an IQ-style test, a memory test, a reaction time test and a personality questionnaire with a Big Five profile, alongside its games. Its Google Play listing states that the IQ test, personality test, memory test and other results are estimates based on app activities, not medical, psychological, clinical, educational-placement, employment or professional diagnostic assessments. Its drills record score, accuracy, streak, response time and personal bests, and the app keeps a history of results to compare against. Whatever figure it shows, treat it as a record of how you did on the app's own questions that day — not a measurement of cognitive health, and never a substitute for one. How to track practice progress without fooling yourself covers what those numbers can and cannot support.
If you want a cognitive concern assessed, that is a conversation with a qualified professional, and no app is a substitute for it.
Choosing, and setting expectations
If you are choosing something for yourself or for a relative, three suggestions.
Start untimed and accurate rather than timed and fast; accuracy before speed explains why that order holds generally. Pick a product whose feature list matches what you actually want to practise rather than the one with the longest list — brain training apps compared sets out what each publisher documents. And treat the consensus statement's point about opportunity cost seriously: it recommends considering that "if an hour spent doing solo software drills is an hour not spent hiking, learning Italian, making a new recipe, or playing with your grandchildren, it may not be worth it."
That is not an argument against doing it. It is an argument for doing it because you enjoy it and because getting quicker with numbers is genuinely useful in shops, kitchens and conversations — and for not expecting it to do anything more. The cornerstone article do brain training apps work covers the general evidence in more depth, the rest of the practical writing is in the brain training games hub and the education and brain category, and the app itself is described on the IQ Test & Brain Training Games app page.
Good to know
Frequently asked questions
Do brain games help older adults?
Is there any evidence that commercial brain training apps work?
What should I look for in a brain game for an older relative?
What claims should make me suspicious?
Sources
- Computerised cognitive training for 12 or more weeks for maintaining cognitive function in cognitively healthy people in late life (opens in a new tab)Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews — accessed
- Preventing Cognitive Decline and Dementia: A Way Forward (opens in a new tab)National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (The National Academies Press, 2017) — accessed
- A Consensus on the Brain Training Industry from the Scientific Community (opens in a new tab)Stanford Center on Longevity and Max Planck Institute for Human Development — accessed
- Lumosity to Pay $2 Million to Settle FTC Deceptive Advertising Charges for Its "Brain Training" Program (opens in a new tab)U.S. Federal Trade Commission — accessed
About the author
Reign Creative LLC — The independent app studio that builds the apps covered on this site and publishes every article here. On Google Play it publishes as Reign Collective Apps.
We use AI tools to help research, draft and edit our articles. Each article lists the sources its factual claims rely on, and details about our apps come from their live Google Play listings. No article on this site has been reviewed by an independent expert unless the reviewer is named on it.
Spotted an error? Tell us — how corrections are handled is set out in our editorial policy.