Does brain training work? Skills, IQ and everyday life

This review concerns brain performance and the outcomes named below. It is educational information, not medical advice. Helibrain sells none of the supplements or treatments rated here.

Evidence at a glance

How to read the table. The grade is our GRADE-style certainty in the stated outcome, using the existing Helibrain evidence base: High means strong confidence, Moderate means the conclusion is likely to hold, Low means it may change with better research, and Very low means it is very uncertain. A high grade can support little or no benefit. Grades apply to the named population, comparator and outcome, not to an ingredient or habit in every setting. [3]

Size and certainty are different. Hedges’ g, Cohen’s d and SMD express a difference in units of the variation between people. Around 0.2 is conventionally small, 0.5 moderate and 0.8 large; these are descriptions, not thresholds for a worthwhile personal benefit. A g of 0.2 does not mean 20% improvement. We preserve the source metric: a z-score difference, risk ratio (RR), odds ratio (OR) or hazard ratio (HR) is labelled separately. These measures cannot be ranked as though they were all the same. Intervals are 95% unless marked otherwise. Statistical intervals do not capture every source of bias. [4]

Practice, near transfer and far transfer are different

Improving a practised game is expected. Near transfer means improvement on a related task; far transfer means improvement on a meaningfully different ability or daily outcome. Working-memory reviews find more support for the former than the latter. A placebo-controlled intelligence trial did not find the hoped-for broad improvement. [6] [14] [15]

Large online trials and a commercial-training study are valuable because an apparent gain needs comparison with what happens after other engaging activities or repeated testing. Their findings do not support treating a higher game score as a general ability upgrade. [16] [17]

What the older-adult research does support

ACTIVE showed durable improvement in targeted abilities, particularly processing speed. Its original report and long-term follow-up concern a specified training programme in older adults. The useful-field-of-view review addresses a related trained skill; neither can be applied automatically to an unrelated phone game. [18] [5] [19]

Reviews of longer computerised programmes in healthy older adults and of commercial programmes reach more guarded conclusions about broad benefits. Adherence can influence results, but an association between completing training and doing better is not itself a randomized dose comparison. [20] [2] [21]

Does brain training prevent dementia?

The ACTIVE follow-up is important and deserves attention, but the whole speed-arm result and the more encouraging booster-subgroup result answer different questions. The latter is affected by selection after initial randomisation. A published reanalysis is further reason to describe the claim cautiously rather than use a headline reduction for every game. [10] [22]

The earlier dementia report used a shorter follow-up and a different ascertainment approach. In people already diagnosed with MCI, Cochrane and a games-versus-crosswords trial also caution against assuming that a commercial training package is the best choice. [23] [24] [25]

Why attractive game claims can outrun evidence

Action-game reviews produce different pooled estimates. Publication bias, overlapping samples, comparator quality and which outcomes are combined help explain why no single positive result settles the question. [12] [13] [26]

Children’s working-memory findings and a broader review of far transfer reinforce the need for a direct outcome match. It is reasonable to enjoy games, but Helibrain’s tests and games should not be taken as proven ways to become smarter. [8] [27]

Frequently asked questions

Can brain training increase IQ?

A reliable meaningful IQ increase from ordinary commercial brain games is not established. Small pooled far-transfer effects often shrink with better comparison groups.

Why am I getting better at n-back?

Repeated practice can improve task familiarity and task-specific strategies. That is evidence of learning the task, not proof that general intelligence or everyday memory improved.

Does the ACTIVE trial prove all brain games prevent dementia?

No. ACTIVE tested specified programmes in older adults. Its long-term whole-arm and booster-subgroup results cannot validate unrelated games or guarantee dementia prevention.

Explore related pages

Explore intelligence, try the n-back task, and read brain training and IQ. The spaced repetition planner supports learning selected material; it is not a general intelligence intervention.

These activities can help you observe or organise a task. Repeated scores are affected by practice and conditions; they are not a diagnosis or proof that an intervention improved your brain.

How we reviewed the evidence

We started with the Helibrain evidence base and research library, checked the original study or review behind each estimate, and compared supportive and contrary findings. The tables retain the existing outcome-specific grades. Some outcomes have only abstract-level access; access limits and study-quality concerns are recorded in the review notes. We do not treat lack of access alone as a reason to lower a grade. Sources below support different parts of the review and are not all independent studies. Last reviewed: 5 November 2026.