Brain Games vs Cognitive Training: What's the Difference?

Three things that get called brain training

Our beginner's guide explains what brain training is. This page separates three things that the label often lumps together, because each has been tested for different things.

Casual brain games are commercial apps with a varied mix of short games, played at home as often as you like. The commercial program tested in one trial, for example, consisted of online games of two to three minutes each, many of them based on traditional psychological tasks such as n-back, covering working memory, attention, flexibility, problem solving, short-term memory and speed ^[1]. In another large study, the tasks given to one group were described as similar to those commonly found in commercial brain-training products ^[2].

Structured cognitive training is what researchers usually mean by cognitive training. A review of training research in older adults describes it as training people on a set of tasks thought to load heavily on one cognitive process, without teaching an explicit strategy, and then measuring transfer on separate, untrained tasks that rely on the same process ^[3]. The program, including how often and how long people train, is fixed in advance and tested as a whole.

Strategy training teaches a method instead of drilling a process. The same review describes it as identifying tasks people do poorly on and training them in strategies that may help, such as the method of loci for memory ^[3].

The line between the first two columns is blurry. The commercial program in that trial raised the difficulty of its games as performance improved, much as research tasks do, and in the trial everyone played the same games in a fixed rotation ^[1]: the trial tested a structured version of the app, not casual play. The difference that matters is less what the tasks look like than whether a defined program has been tested, for a stated outcome, in the way you are going to use it.

What brain games have been tested for

A six-week online study. In 2010, viewers of a BBC science programme took part in an online experiment ^[2]. Of 52,617 people aged 18 to 60 who registered, 11,430 completed both test sessions and at least two training sessions. They were randomly assigned to practise reasoning and planning tasks, or a broader mix of memory, attention, visuospatial and maths tasks, for at least 10 minutes a day, three times a week, or to a control group that answered obscure general-knowledge questions using online resources ^[2]. Both training groups improved on every task they practised, but there was no evidence of transfer to untrained tests, even closely related ones; the control group improved on the untrained tests about as much ^[2].

A randomised trial against video games. In a 2017 trial, 128 adults aged 18 to 35 trained at home for 10 weeks, 30 minutes a session, five times a week, with either a commercial adaptive brain-training program or ordinary online video games ^[1]. The brain-training group improved on the games they practised, but both groups improved similarly on standard cognitive tests, by about as much as people retested without any training; there were no effects on decision-making or on brain activity during decisions ^[1].

A company-run trial. A 2015 online trial with 4,715 participants compared 10 weeks of a commercial program with crossword puzzles ^[4]. The training group improved more on a combined score from a battery of neuropsychological tests (d = 0.255), and reported greater improvement in their own cognitive functioning, particularly concentration ^[4]. Most of the authors were employees of the company that makes the program, which funded the study, and participants were recruited from people who already had a free account with it ^[4]. Self-reported gains are especially open to expectation effects: an active control group, such as crossword puzzles, only rules them out when its members expect to improve as much as the trained group, which almost no studies check ^[5].

The wider review. A 2016 review examined every peer-reviewed intervention study cited on the websites of leading brain-training companies. It found extensive evidence that training improves the trained tasks, less for closely related tasks, and little for distantly related tasks or everyday cognitive performance; many of the studies had major shortcomings in design or analysis ^[6]. The full evidence is in our review Does brain training work?

What structured cognitive training has been tested for

ACTIVE, a randomised trial of 2,832 adults aged 65 to 94, included a clear example of structured training ^[7]. In its speed-of-processing arm, participants practised visual search tasks on a computer, and the difficulty was raised each time they reached a set level of performance ^[7]. After ten group sessions, with booster sessions for some participants, the gain in the speed ability that had been trained was still there ten years later (effect size 0.66) ^[8]. Performance-based tests of everyday tasks, however, showed no effect of training ^[8].

Across many programs, a meta-analysis of 52 randomised trials (4,885 healthy older adults, each trial with at least four hours of computerised training) found a small overall effect (g = 0.22) ^[9]. Effects were small to moderate for nonverbal memory, working memory, processing speed and visuospatial skills, very small for verbal memory, and not significant for executive functions and attention. Training at home was ineffective compared with group-based training, and more than three sessions a week was ineffective compared with three or fewer ^[9]. The authors note that these results apply to healthy older adults and do not show how long the effects last ^[9].

For working-memory training programs, a meta-analysis of 23 studies found reliable short-term gains on working-memory tasks but no convincing evidence that they generalised to other skills ^[10].

So a program's results belong to the program as it was tested: the tasks, the dose, the supervision and the people who did it. An app played alone at home is a different situation from supervised group training, even when the tasks look alike.

What strategy training has been tested for

Strategy training is one of the oldest approaches in training research with older adults. Reviewing it, Lustig and colleagues found that studies, for example of training in the method of loci, often produced large and long-lasting effects on the trained task, but only limited evidence of transfer ^[3].

ACTIVE also had two strategy arms. Memory training taught techniques for remembering word lists, texts and stories, such as organising lists into categories and forming visual images; reasoning training taught strategies for spotting the pattern in a series, such as letters or numbers, or in everyday tasks such as medication dosing or travel schedules ^[7]. Right after training, 74% of reasoning-trained participants, but only 26% of memory-trained participants, showed a reliable improvement in the ability they had trained ^[7]. At ten years, the reasoning effect remained (effect size 0.23) and the memory effect did not ^[8].

Across memory techniques in general, a meta-analysis of 21 randomised trials in healthy adults aged 50 and over found gains in episodic memory (g = 0.41) that were still present at follow-up, a median of four months later ^[11]. For students, a review of ten common study techniques rated practice testing, one form of retrieval practice, as high utility, because it helped learners of different ages and abilities across many kinds of test, including in real classes ^[12].

A strategy is a tool rather than a workout: it helps with the material you use it on. That is a narrower promise than "brain fitness", but it is one the evidence supports.

When the marketing outran the evidence

In January 2016, the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a complaint against Lumos Labs, the company behind the Lumosity brain-training program ^[13]. The FTC alleged that the company had claimed, without substantiation, that its games would improve performance in everyday tasks, at school, at work and in sport; delay age-related decline in memory and protect against mild cognitive impairment, dementia and Alzheimer's disease; and reduce cognitive impairment linked to conditions such as stroke, traumatic brain injury and ADHD. It also alleged false claims that science proved these benefits, and testimonials gathered through a contest with prizes that was not disclosed ^[13].

The company settled without admitting or denying the allegations ^[13]. The court order imposed a $50 million judgment, suspended once the company paid $2 million, and barred such claims unless they were backed by competent and reliable scientific evidence ^[13]. For the school, work, ageing and health claims, the order defined that evidence as human clinical testing of the product: randomised, adequately controlled and blinded as far as practicable ^[13].

A settlement is a legal outcome, not a scientific finding. But the standard in the order is a useful one for anyone reading an app's claims: the product itself, tested in a controlled trial, on the outcome being promised.

How to tell which kind you are looking at

These questions follow from the research above. They are practical advice, not findings in themselves.

1. Is there a defined program? Which tasks, how often and for how long, or do you simply play?
2. What outcome was tested, and in whom? Most evidence on structured programs comes from healthy older adults ^[9].
3. Was it tested the way you will use it? Supervised group training and training alone at home did not give the same results ^[9].
4. What did the control group do, and who ran the study? An independent trial against video games found no added benefit ^[1]; a company-run trial against crosswords found a small one ^[4].
5. Does it teach a method you can use on your own material? If so, judge it as strategy training, by how well it works on that material.

For how to check your own progress against noise and practice effects, see How to measure progress in brain training.

What the research says

Where LaserMind fits

LaserMind has all three kinds. Its exercises are practice versions of research tasks, some of which adapt to you (n-back raises or lowers N after each block) while others, like the Stroop Test, keep the same difficulty. Its programs are day-by-day plans that combine the exercises, tools and method guides. Its tools teach strategies to use on your own material: Memory Palace for the method of loci, and Recall Cards for testing yourself on flashcards you make. None of them has been tested in a trial of its own.

We grade computerised cognitive training E2 (conditional evidence) for "some domains, mostly older adults; app-specific", and we grade each method separately for a stated outcome. Your progress is compared with your own history; adult accounts can also join optional leaderboards, which rank practice scores on one exercise per device type and are not a measure of ability. For the narrower question of intelligence, see our review of brain games and IQ.

Frequently asked questions

Are crosswords and sudoku brain training? They are puzzles worth doing if you enjoy them. In one large trial, crossword puzzles were the comparison activity for a brain-training program ^[4]; that trial was not designed to test what crosswords themselves do.

Which kind should I choose? If you want a specific result, such as remembering what you study, a strategy used on that material is the most direct route ^[12]. If you enjoy games, play them for that, and expect to get better at the games ^[6].

Is LaserMind a brain-game app? It has game-like exercises, but each one is based on a standard research task, graded for what the evidence shows, and kept separate from the strategy tools. It does not claim effects beyond those grades.

References

1. Kable, J. W., Caulfield, M. K., Falcone, M., McConnell, M., Bernardo, L., Parthasarathi, T., Cooper, N., Ashare, R., Audrain-McGovern, J., Hornik, R., Diefenbach, P., Lee, F. J., & Lerman, C. (2017). No Effect of Commercial Cognitive Training on Brain Activity, Choice Behavior, or Cognitive Performance. The Journal of Neuroscience, 37(31), 7390–7402. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2832-16.2017
2. Owen, A. M., Hampshire, A., Grahn, J. A., Stenton, R., Dajani, S., Burns, A. S., Howard, R. J., & Ballard, C. G. (2010). Putting brain training to the test. Nature, 465(7299), 775–778. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09042
3. Lustig, C., Shah, P., Seidler, R., & Reuter-Lorenz, P. A. (2009). Aging, Training, and the Brain: A Review and Future Directions. Neuropsychology Review, 19(4), 504–522. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-009-9119-9
4. 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134467
5. Boot, W. R., Simons, D. J., Stothart, C., & Stutts, C. (2013). The Pervasive Problem With Placebos in Psychology: Why Active Control Groups Are Not Sufficient to Rule Out Placebo Effects. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(4), 445–454. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613491271
6. Simons, D. J., Boot, W. R., Charness, N., Gathercole, S. E., Chabris, C. F., Hambrick, D. Z., & Stine-Morrow, E. A. L. (2016). Do "brain-training" programs work? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 17(3), 103–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100616661983
7. Ball, K., Berch, D. B., Helmers, K. F., et al. (2002). Effects of cognitive training interventions with older adults: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA, 288(18), 2271–2281. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.288.18.2271
8. Rebok, G. W., Ball, K., Guey, L. T., et al. (2014). Ten-year effects of the Advanced Cognitive Training for Independent and Vital Elderly cognitive training trial on cognition and everyday functioning in older adults. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 62(1), 16–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.12607
9. Lampit, A., Hallock, H., & Valenzuela, M. (2014). Computerized cognitive training in cognitively healthy older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis of effect modifiers. PLoS Medicine, 11(11), e1001756. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001756
10. Melby-Lervåg, M., & Hulme, C. (2013). Is working memory training effective? A meta-analytic review. Developmental Psychology, 49(2), 270–291. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028228
11. Chen, S., Cai, Z., Hou, J., Lang, M., Zheng, Z., Zhu, X., & Li, J. (2022). Long-term effects of mnemonic training in healthy older adults: A meta-analysis. Psychology and Aging, 37(8), 954–971. https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000712
12. Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students' learning with effective learning techniques. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612453266
13. Federal Trade Commission v. Lumos Labs, Inc., No. 3:16-cv-00001 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2016) (stipulated final judgment and order for permanent injunction and other equitable relief; complaint filed Jan. 4, 2016). https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings/lumos-labs-inc-lumosity-mobile-online-cognitive-game
14. Sala, G., & Gobet, F. (2019). Cognitive training does not enhance general cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(1), 9–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.10.004