Key evidence & numbers
| Reviewed comparison and outcome | Standardized mean effect, g | 95% confidence interval |
|---|---|---|
| Working-memory training: nonverbal ability versus treated controls | 0.05 | −0.02 to 0.13 |
| Working-memory training: nonverbal ability versus untreated controls | 0.20 | 0.11 to 0.28 |
| N-back training: fluid reasoning, mixed control types | 0.16 | 0.08 to 0.24 |
Sources: working-memory review, immediate-transfer table, n-back review, domain analysis. Treated controls did another training activity; untreated controls did not receive comparable training. These are standardized group differences, not IQ points or a range of expected personal gains. The n-back review's reasoning estimate became smaller and uncertain after adjustment for control type.
What affects it?
The broader review includes varied ages and working-memory tasks; the n-back review focuses on healthy adults. Study selection, analysis and control activities help explain differing estimates. Working-memory review, n-back review
Try the related free test
N-back test
Test yourself: n-back. Use it to explore updating information in memory, with no promised IQ increase.
Common questions
Is getting better at the game a real improvement?
It is improvement on that task. Improvement in a different ability needs separate evidence.
Do these figures cover every kind of brain training?
They concern the stated working-memory training and reasoning outcomes. They should not be generalized to every learning activity.
Does an interval including no effect prove an exact absence of benefit?
No. It shows uncertainty around the estimate. It does not support a guaranteed personal gain.
Sources
Put the evidence into everyday context with Helibrain
The app has short tests of reaction time, working memory, self-control, reasoning and creativity. Retake them whenever you like, see your trend, and find habits that may help.
Start free in your browser
