Cognitive training
Brain Games / Puzzles
Brain Games / Puzzles are cognitive-training activities studied for their potential to support thinking, memory and attention-related skills. They have also been examined in relation to clinical conditions, but the findings do not establish them as treatments.
Brain games and puzzles are activities used as a form of cognitive training.
Overview
Brain Games / Puzzles are cognitive-training activities studied for their potential to support thinking, memory and attention-related skills. They have also been examined in relation to clinical conditions, but the findings do not establish them as treatments. Although this is a well-studied area, the overall picture is not settled: research presence alone does not show that puzzle practice reliably improves cognition, and support differs across the mental skills examined.
Well researched: 35 studies. Last checked Oct 9, 2026.
- 9
- human evidence
- 5
- eligible
- 4
- unclassified
- 6
- animal / null result
Best-evidenced uses
- Concentration ImprovementMedium · Clinical
- Working Memory ImprovementMedium · Clinical
- Cognitive Function ImprovementLow · RCT
- 35
- Studies
Evidence checked Oct 9, 2026 · newest study 2026
- A
- 2
- B
- 4
- C
- 24
- D
- 5
350 community reports across 4 platforms
Coverage
- Effects
- 14
- Helps with
- 10
- Side effects
- 5
- Interactions
- 6
How to read the evidence
Evidence tier — overall strength of the evidence for the whole compound
- StrongWell established — backed by strong, consistent human research.
- ModerateSome genuine support, but mostly from small or lower-quality studies. Promising, not proven.
- PreliminaryEarly-stage evidence — a promising hypothesis, not an established effect yet.
- LimitedVery limited evidence — treat this as a hypothesis, not proof.
- InsufficientNot enough good evidence to draw conclusions yet.
Certainty — how sure we can be that the effect is real
- Very highVery sure — strong, consistent evidence
- HighFairly sure — consistent evidence from good studies
- MediumModerately sure — new studies could change this
- LowNot sure — little or mixed evidence
- Very lowVery unsure — almost no usable evidence
Source — where the data comes from
- Meta-analysisPooled analysis of many trials — the strongest evidence
- RCTRandomized controlled trial — a strong human study design
- ClinicalA human clinical study
- Reference knowledgeFrom general health-science or pharmacology references, not a study of this exact claim
- Animal researchStudied in animals, not humans
- Community reportsAggregated user reports — anecdotal signal, not evidence
- TheoreticalMechanism-based reasoning, not yet tested
Study grade — quality of each underlying study (A best, D weakest)
- AHigh-quality — strong, consistent human trials
- BGood — solid evidence with some limitations
- CModerate — limited, small, or mixed-quality studies
- DWeak — preliminary, indirect, or animal-only
Confidence — how strongly the sources back a finding
A 0–100 score from study quality and agreement
Most supplement evidence is graded C–D. Read it as preliminary signal, not proof.
These are research findings, not promises. A practice does not replace medical treatment.
What does research say?
What studies found for each claimed effect, best evidence first.
14 claims:1 some evidence1 mixed7 not enough evidence1 not tested in people4 no benefit found
Concentration ImprovementSome evidence it helpsSize of effect: Not known
Some human studies found a benefit. More research could change this.
All 4 studies with a clear result found a benefit. Strongest study: a randomized controlled trial.
Open the Concentration Improvement pageWorking Memory ImprovementMixed resultsSize of effect: Not known
Studies disagree: some found a benefit, others found none. Do not count on it.
3 of 4 studies found a benefit; 1 found none. Strongest study: a randomized controlled trial.
In a randomized trial of 44 people, working-memory performance on a digit span task improved with aerobic exercise and improved further when cognitive activities were added, compared with control (13%). A second trial of 32 found better working-memory measures with one game program than with another.
Open the Working Memory Improvement pageCognitive Function ImprovementNot enough evidence
Too few or too small studies to know if it works.
15 of 24 studies found a benefit; 9 found none. Strongest study: a pooled analysis of several trials.
Open the Cognitive Function Improvement pageMemory ImprovementNot enough evidence
Too few or too small studies to know if it works.
6 of 9 studies found a benefit; 3 found none. Strongest study: a pooled analysis of several trials.
A meta-analysis of randomized trials found a small improvement in working memory (g = 0.21). In a separate randomized trial of 64 participants, there was no significant within-group change in memory scores in the game group, although the between-group difference at study end was significant; the authors described the effect as little.
Open the Memory Improvement pageAnxiety ReductionNot enough evidence
Too few or too small studies to know if it works.
2 of 4 studies found a benefit; 2 found none. Strongest study: a randomized controlled trial.
Open the Anxiety Reduction pageAntidepressant EffectNot enough evidence
Too few or too small studies to know if it works.
2 of 3 studies found a benefit; 1 found none. Strongest study: a randomized controlled trial.
In a randomized trial of 79 participants, the 15-item GDS score in the ACT group fell from 8.20 (0.22) to 5.00 (0.66). A separate trial of 14 participants also reported a greater reduction in depressive symptoms in one game condition than another (-26.19%).
Open the Antidepressant Effect pagePhysical FunctionNot enough evidence
Too few or too small studies to know if it works.
1 of 2 studies found a benefit; 1 found none. Strongest study: a randomized controlled trial.
In a randomized trial of 8 participants, physical-performance scores improved similarly with the two training approaches, with no difference between them.
Open the Physical Function pageBalance ImprovementNot enough evidence
Too few or too small studies to know if it works.
2 of 3 studies found a benefit; 1 found none. Strongest study: a randomized controlled trial.
Open the Balance Improvement page
Only reported by users, not studied: Mood Improvement, Motivation Increase, Mental Productivity Increase, Discipline Improvement, Sleep Quality Improvement, Learning Speed Improvement, and 6 more.
What to expect
A single-session finding reported Anxiety Reduction. Findings for Working Memory Improvement came from programmes lasting 4–6 weeks; trials reporting broader cognitive and memory benefits ran for 3–8 weeks, while those reporting an Antidepressant Effect ran for 6–7 weeks. For Cognitive Function Improvement, one follow-up found the effect had faded fully 6 weeks after completing the control condition. Reported side effects occurred in programmes lasting 8 or 13 weeks.
Also studied in people with 10 health conditions
How strong the evidence is in each group. This is research, not a treatment recommendation.
DementiaNot enough evidence
Too few or too small studies to know if it works.
All 3 studies with a clear result found a benefit.
In a quasi-experimental study, 14 people with mild to moderate dementia played cognitive games and interacted with a robot; greater movement correlated with higher observational engagement scores. A separate pilot involving 19 people living with dementia tested the intervention only in this group.
Open the Dementia pageKidney Disease (General)Not enough evidence
Too few or too small studies to know if it works.
All 2 studies with a clear result found a benefit.
In a 2026 randomized trial of 64 hemodialysis patients, the memory effect was described as marginal and small. A 2018 pilot randomized trial in 20 hemodialysis patients found that intradialytic cognitive training may prevent decline in psychomotor speed compared with standard care.
Open the Kidney Disease (General) pageAlzheimer's DiseaseNot enough evidence
Too few or too small studies to know if it works.
The one study found a benefit.
A randomized trial in 79 people with Alzheimer's disease found improvements in cognitive functions, depression, and quality of life after 8 weeks of combined training; benefits persisted after 4 weeks of detraining.
Open the Alzheimer's Disease pageAutism Spectrum DisorderNot enough evidence
Too few or too small studies to know if it works.
The one study found a benefit.
A 2023 systematic review of 28 randomized and non-randomized human studies found potential benefits of computerized cognitive games for cognitive rehabilitation in children with Autism Spectrum Disorder.
Open the Autism Spectrum Disorder pageParkinson's DiseaseNot enough evidence
Too few or too small studies to know if it works.
The one study found a benefit.
A randomized trial involving 8 people with mild-to-moderate Parkinson's disease found that gamified DTT was feasible and safe, with preliminary signals of improvement in motor and cognitive function and perceived disability.
Open the Parkinson's Disease pageADHDNot tested in people
Only tested in animals, cells or theory. Results like these often do not carry over to people.
The one study found a benefit.
Working memory and attention-based brain games are described as adjunctive interventions to improve executive function in children and adults with ADHD.
Open the ADHD pageStroke RecoveryNot tested in people
Only tested in animals, cells or theory. Results like these often do not carry over to people.
The one study found a benefit.
Cognitive training is recommended in post-stroke rehabilitation to support recovery of attention, memory, and executive function.
Open the Stroke Recovery pageTraumatic Brain InjuryNot tested in people
Only tested in animals, cells or theory. Results like these often do not carry over to people.
The one study found a benefit.
Brain games are used as part of cognitive rehabilitation after traumatic brain injury to help restore attention, memory, and executive function.
Open the Traumatic Brain Injury page
Before you try it
What studies and reports say about side effects and who it may not suit.
- Side effects
With weak evidence: Muscle Ache (Myalgia), Joint Pain (Arthralgia), Pain, Dizziness, and Blood Pressure Increase.
- May not suit you if you have
- Epilepsy
- Some trials left out people with
- Dementia, Depression, and Mild Cognitive Impairment
- Reported by users
- Dependence, Physical Fatigue, Headache, Irritability, and 1 more
General wellness information, not medical advice. Ask a doctor before you start, especially if you take medicines or have a health condition.
How people do it
A gentle start, then what the studies used.
- Start with
- 10 minutes, 2 times a week (Daily Handheld Brain Age)A gentle start based on the easiest variation, not on a study.
- Build up to
- 30 minutes, 3 times a week, moderate intensity (what the studies used)
- What the studies ran
- 90 minutes a week for 8 weeks
The expert view shows every study, dose protocol and source.
Effects
14 listedStart here
Most likely to help, from the evidence we have
- →Concentration ImprovementCertaintyMediumSourceClinical4 cited studies · 1 other source
Among children, a randomized trial involving 626 reported small improvements in assessor-rated attention and impulsivity (SMD 0.27). A review also described improvements in children’s ability to pay attention and process information in parallel.
What the sources found
5 positive · 0 neutral · 0 negativeconfidence 51/100
How big is the effect
No study gave a number we could compare, so the size is not known.
Who was studied
- Healthy people and patients
- Autism Spectrum Disorder
Where the evidence comes from
- Article4
- Community reports1
Protocol behind this outcome
3 protocolsMeasuredWhat the studies reporting this result did.
35 min · 2.5×/week
- Course
- 9 weeks
- Per week
- 90 min
- Intensity
- Moderate
- Format
- Individual
- Supervision
- Instructor-led
A repeated course
Open Concentration ImprovementShow studies (5)
Systematic reviewCpositive55% confidence2023The designed game improves the ability of children of both groups to pay attention, remember, react to random processes, and process parallel information.
Top journalStudies disagreeRCTCpositiven=62665% confidence2021improvements in children’s assessor-reported attention and impulsivity ... ES=0.27
SMD 0.27Small effectWeak journalStudies disagreeMain outcomeBlinded assessorInactive controlCompleters onlyQuasi ExperimentalCpositiven=3550% confidence2021attention (median latency P=.009)
Top journalMain outcomeOpen-labelInactive controlCompleters onlyPilot studyDpositiven=2135% confidence2019In the digit forward task of the WMS-R, a significant increase in the performance score was found (z = −2.859, p = 0.002, r = 0.52)
Weak journalOpen-labelNo control groupCompleters only29% dropped outCommunity reportsmoderate effectpositive50% confidenceThis effect was mentioned in 60 of 350 community reports discussing it (Reddit 44, YouTube 11, Hacker News 3, Bluesky 2).
60 mentions - →Working Memory ImprovementCertaintyMediumSourceClinicallong-term3 cited studies · 1 other source
In a randomized trial of 44 people, working-memory performance on a digit span task improved with aerobic exercise and improved further when cognitive activities were added, compared with control (13%). A second trial of 32 found better working-memory measures with one game program than with another.
What the sources found
3 positive · 1 neutral · 0 negativeconfidence 55/100
How big is the effect
No study gave a number we could compare, so the size is not known.
Who was studied
- Healthy people and patients
- Mild Cognitive Impairment
Where the evidence comes from
- Article3
- Expert opinion1
Protocol behind this outcome
2 protocolsEstimatedWhat the studies reporting this result did.
- Intensity
- Moderate
- Format
- Individual
A repeated course
What worked in trials2 trials and meta-analyses
Randomized trials and meta-analyses that found this benefit: the smallest and the typical amount. Not a target and not a limit.
Smallest Typical Session 15 min 23 min How often 2×/week 3.5×/week Per week 60 min 68 min Timing
Trials that found it ran as little as 4 weeks, typically 6
Open Working Memory ImprovementShow studies (4)
RCTCpositiven=4470% confidence2024the assessment of working memory using the digit span task revealed a positive effect of aerobic exercises, which further improved when combined with cognitive activities compared with the control group.
13%Moderate effectWeak journalMain outcomeOpen-labelBorderline p-valueRCTCpositiven=3275% confidence2013Results showed that the Brain Age group improved all measures of the working memory (OpS, F(1, 27)=9.48, η^2=0.15, p=0.003; LNS, F(1, 27)=9.19, η^2=0.14, p=0.005; Ari, F(1, 27)=7.43, η^2=0.21, p=0.008) compared to the Tetris group.
Weak journalSham-controlledPilot studyDneutraln=2125% confidence2019Digit backward task: 5 (5; 6) to 6 (6; 7), z = −0.890, p = 0.434
Weak journalOpen-labelNo control groupCompleters only29% dropped outExpert opinionpositive50% confidenceWorking memory training via digital brain games produces moderate effect sizes in both healthy individuals and clinical populations, especially when adaptive difficulty is used.
Expert knowledge synthesis
Low probability(8)
- →Cognitive Function ImprovementCertaintyLowSourceRCTTrivial effectlong-term23 cited studies · 2 other sources
A pooled analysis of randomized trials involving 909 people in its overall cognitive-function analysis found no significant effect (SMD 0.08 [-0.24, 0.41]). Other research reported improvements on specific training tasks, so results for task performance do not establish an overall cognitive benefit.
What the sources found
16 positive · 9 neutral · 0 negativeconfidence 55/100
How big is the effect
Trivial effectReal in studies, but too small for most people to notice.
Why this rating
- A reviewer set it to Low · Two meta-analyses of RCTs in healthy older adults (32943742, 40655810) show small gains on cognitive tests, but the brain-games meta-analysis in cognitive impairment (PMC7743275) and the largest RCT (34522910, n=372) found no between-group effect, and gains are mostly on trained or near tasks: low, not medium or very_low
- A reviewer set it to Low · Still small, near-task gains with key nulls: 2 meta-analyses in healthy older adults show small gains (32943742 SMD 0.21-0.40; 40655810), but the meta-analysis in cognitive impairment (PMC7743275, SMD 0.08, ns) and the largest RCT (34522910, n=372) found no between-group effect, and rows added since 10-09 are weak or measure the trained game itself (29674605 Lumosity index, 26034522 essay on practiced-task gains, 36597046 training-task levels, 27615029 quasi-experimental, 34658989 mixed with a negative global-EF model): low, as decided on 10-09
Who was studied
- Healthy people and patients
- Alzheimer's Disease
- Autism Spectrum Disorder
- Dementia
- Kidney Failure
- Mild Cognitive Impairment
- Multiple Sclerosis
Where the evidence comes from
- Article23
- Expert opinion1
- Community reports1
Protocol behind this outcome
14 protocolsEstimatedWhat the studies reporting this result did.
- Per week
- 75 min
- Intensity
- Moderate
- Format
- Individual
A repeated course
What worked in trials7 trials and meta-analyses
Randomized trials and meta-analyses that found this benefit: the smallest and the typical amount. Not a target and not a limit.
Smallest Typical Session 15 min 30 min How often 2×/week 3×/week Trials that found no benefit ran7 trials and meta-analyses
Smallest Typical Session 15 min 35 min How often 2.5×/week 3×/week Per week 75 min 90 min Course 4 weeks 8 weeks Timing
Trials that found it ran as little as 3 weeks, typically 8
After stopping, the benefit faded (1 study) · See “When you stop”
Follow-up: 6 weeks (after completing the control condition)
Derived from (1)
Open Cognitive Function ImprovementShow studies (25)
Meta-analysisAneutraln=154375% confidence2020The use of commercial computerised cognitive games in older adults: a meta-analysis.
The effect of ccCG on attention is not significant (g = 0.06 [−0.16–0.29], p = 0.59)
SMD 0.06 [-0.16, 0.29]Trivial effectWeak journalPooled RCTsMain outcomeOpen-labelCompleters onlyToo small to detect itMeta-analysisBpositive70% confidence2025brain training games have reported statistically significant (*P* < 0.05) findings from the baseline
Low-quality journalPooled RCTsStudies disagreeMain outcomeMeta-analysisCneutraln=90960% confidence2020Brain Games for Dementia: Do They Help?
The meta-analysis showed no significant effects of BG on overall cognitive function (pooled SMD = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.24 – 0.41], p = 0.61, I2 = 77%.
SMD 0.08 [-0.24, 0.41]Trivial effectTop journalPooled RCTsStudies disagree (I² 77%)Main outcomeToo small to detect itSystematic reviewCpositive55% confidence2023Children in the WM and flexibility intervention-conditions improved significantly in sequence lengths in the WM-training tasks, and level in the flexibility-training task (p's < .001).
Top journalStudies disagreeRCTBneutraln=37270% confidence2021within-group, but no between-group, differences were seen on executive function tests
Top journalBlinded assessor+19 more in SourcesRCTBpositiven=10075% confidence2021The Training group demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in executive function after 3 and after 6 months (paired T-test, p=0.0035 and p=0.0007, respectively).
Top journalMain outcomeOpen-labelNo control groupCompleters only - →Memory ImprovementCertaintyLowSourceRCTSmall effect8 cited studies · 2 other sources
A meta-analysis of randomized trials found a small improvement in working memory (g = 0.21 [0.08–0.34]). In a separate randomized trial of 64 participants, there was no significant within-group change in memory scores in the game group, although the between-group difference at study end was significant (p = 0.048); the authors described the effect as little.
What the sources found
7 positive · 3 neutral · 0 negativeconfidence 55/100
How big is the effect
Small effectA small but noticeable difference on average.
Why this rating
- A reviewer set it to Low · Re-confirmed low on today's evidence. Only one meta-analysis shows memory gains, and they are small (32943742: working memory g=0.21, verbal memory g=0.12). The other support is small trials: one mixed with aerobic exercise (38910946), one borderline (41077610, p=0.048 with no within-group change), and one neutral RCT (29189046).
Who was studied
- Healthy people and patients
- Alzheimer's Disease
- Kidney Failure
Where the evidence comes from
- Article8
- Expert opinion1
- Community reports1
Protocol behind this outcome
4 protocolsEstimatedWhat the studies reporting this result did.
- Per week
- 70 min
- Intensity
- Moderate
- Format
- Individual
- Supervision
- Instructor-led
A repeated course
What worked in trials4 trials and meta-analyses
Randomized trials and meta-analyses that found this benefit: the smallest and the typical amount. Not a target and not a limit.
Smallest Typical Session 20 min 35 min How often 2×/week 3×/week Trials that found no benefit ran2 trials and meta-analyses
Smallest Typical Session 15 min 38 min How often 3×/week 4×/week Per week 75 min 128 min Course 4 weeks 5 weeks Timing
Trials that found it ran as little as 4 weeks, typically 8
Open Memory ImprovementShow studies (10)
Meta-analysisApositiven=154385% confidence2020The use of commercial computerised cognitive games in older adults: a meta-analysis.
The effect of ccCG on working memory is small and statistically significant (g = 0.21 [0.08–0.34], p = 0.001)
SMD 0.21 [0.08, 0.34]Small effectWeak journalPooled RCTsMain outcomeOpen-labelCompleters onlyRCTCneutraln=62655% confidence2021no significant impacts on ... short term and working memory
Weak journalMain outcomeBlinded assessorInactive controlCompleters onlyRCTCpositiven=7965% confidence2024greater improvements in working-memory and problem-solving in ACT-group (p<0.05)
19%Moderate effectMain outcomeOpen-labelBorderline p-valueRCTCpositiven=6440% confidence2026Wechsler Memory Scale (WMS): no statistically significant within-group change in the Sudoku group; covariance test showed a significant between-group difference at study end (p = 0.048). Authors describe the memory effect as little.
Open-labelInactive controlRCTCneutraln=3275% confidence2013However, playing Brain Age or Tetris did not improve ... any measure of short-term memory (DS-F, F(1, 27)=0.26, η^2=0.00, p=0.626; DS-B, F(1, 27)=0.01, η^2=0.00, p=0.923; SpS-F, F(1, 27)=0.20, η^2=0.00, p=0.554; SpS-B, F(1, 27)=0.00, η^2=0.00, p=0.863)
Weak journalSham-controlled+4 more in SourcesRCTCpositiven=3160% confidence2019working memory: F(1) = 5.872, p = 0.015, np2 = 0.02
Weak journalOpen-labelInactive controlCompleters only - →Anxiety ReductionCertaintyLowSourceClinical4 cited studies · 1 other source
In a randomized trial of 64 participants, anxiety scores in the Sudoku group fell from 82.71 ± 5.1 to 70.93 ± 18.0, while scores in the control group changed from 82.43 ± 5.77 to 82.06 ± 4.55; the post-test difference between groups was significant.
What the sources found
3 positive · 2 neutral · 0 negativeconfidence 53/100
How big is the effect
No study gave a number we could compare, so the size is not known.
Who was studied
- Healthy people and patients
- Breast Cancer
- Kidney Failure
Where the evidence comes from
- Article4
- Community reports1
What worked in trials2 trials and meta-analyses
Randomized trials and meta-analyses that found this benefit: the smallest and the typical amount. Not a target and not a limit.
Smallest Typical Session 20 min 70 min Trials that found no benefit ran2 trials and meta-analyses
Smallest Typical Session 50 min 55 min How often 3×/week Per week 150 min 165 min Course 6 weeks 7 weeks Timing
A trial found it after a single session
Open Anxiety ReductionShow studies (5)
RCTBneutraln=37270% confidence2021no significant between-group differences in ... anxiety symptoms ... (table 3)
Top journalBlinded assessorRCTCpositiven=7055% confidence2024Significant difference between pre-test and post-test anxiety scores in the Sudoku group (P = 0.0001); mean pre-post difference 6.09 ± 4.02 on the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI, an inverted instrument where a decrease is improvement).
MD -6.09Low-quality journalMain outcomeOpen-labelRCTCpositiven=6455% confidence2026Spielberger State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-S): anxiety score 82.71 ± 5.1 to 70.93 ± 18.0 in the Sudoku group (p = 0.001) vs 82.43 ± 5.77 to 82.06 ± 4.55 in the control group (p = 0.778); significant post-test difference between groups.
Main outcomeOpen-labelInactive controlRCTCneutraln=1435% confidence2018A similar nonsignificant pattern was observed with the anxiety index, with participants generally reporting fewer symptoms following the GP condition relative to the TQ condition, t(13) = −1.77, P = 0.100
-47.42%Large effectTop journalOpen-labelCompleters onlyCommunity reportsmoderate effectpositive50% confidenceThis effect was mentioned in 14 of 221 community reports discussing it (Reddit 12, YouTube 2).
14 mentions - →Antidepressant EffectCertaintyLowSourceClinical3 cited studies
In a randomized trial of 79 participants, the 15-item GDS score in the ACT group fell from 8.20 (0.22) to 5.00 (0.66) (p<0.001). A separate trial of 14 participants also reported a greater reduction in depressive symptoms in one game condition than another (-26.19%).
What the sources found
2 positive · 1 neutral · 0 negativeconfidence 60/100
How big is the effect
No study gave a number we could compare, so the size is not known.
Rating adjusted
Lowered from Medium to Low after checking study quality: journal, risk of bias, trial size and design.
Who was studied
- Healthy people and patients
- Alzheimer's Disease
Where the evidence comes from
- Article3
Protocol behind this outcome
3 protocolsMeasuredWhat the studies reporting this result did.
- Intensity
- Moderate
- Format
- Individual
- Supervision
- Instructor-led
A repeated course
What worked in trials2 trials and meta-analyses
Randomized trials and meta-analyses that found this benefit: the smallest and the typical amount. Not a target and not a limit.
Smallest Typical Session 35 min 48 min How often 2×/week 2.5×/week Per week 70 min 125 min Timing
Trials that found it ran as little as 6 weeks, typically 7
Open Antidepressant EffectShow studies (3)
RCTBneutraln=37270% confidence2021no significant between-group differences in ... depressive symptoms ... (table 3)
Top journalBlinded assessorRCTCpositiven=7965% confidence2024GDS 15 items: 8.20 (0.22) to 5.00 (0.66) in ACT group, p<0.001
Open-labelRCTCpositiven=1445% confidence2018participants showed a greater reduction in depressive symptoms following the GP condition relative to the TQ condition, t(13) = −2.79, P = 0.015
-26.19%Large effectTop journalOpen-labelCompleters onlyBorderline p-value - →Physical FunctionCertaintyLowSourceClinical2 cited studies
In a randomized trial of 8 participants, physical-performance scores improved similarly with the two training approaches, with no difference between them.
What the sources found
1 positive · 1 neutral · 0 negativeconfidence 65/100
How big is the effect
No study gave a number we could compare, so the size is not known.
Who was studied
- People with a condition
Where the evidence comes from
- Article2
Protocol behind this outcome
1 protocolEstimatedWhat the studies reporting this result did.
60 min · 2.5×/week
- Course
- 9 weeks
- Per week
- 150 min
- Intensity
- Moderate
- Format
- Individual
- Supervision
- Instructor-led
A repeated course
Open Physical FunctionShow studies (2)
RCTBneutraln=37270% confidence2021both groups showed within-group improvements in SPPB... but there were no significant differences between the intervention and control groups for any of the secondary endpoints
Top journalBlinded assessorRCTCpositiven=860% confidence2021The improvement in the M-PPT scores across the participants was not different between the DTT paradigm (M_normalized = 1.00 ± 0.62, 84%CI (0.65, 1.35)) and the STT paradigm (M_normalized = 0.88 ± 0.62, 84%CI [0.53, 1.22]).
MD 1 [0.65, 1.35]Low-quality journalMain outcomeOpen-labelCompleters only - →Balance ImprovementCertaintyLowSourceClinical3 cited studies
A randomized trial of 36 healthy participants found differences in balance scores between game groups after training (SMD 0.59). Results were not uniform: another randomized trial of 31 found no significant training effects on physical functions or brain volume.
What the sources found
2 positive · 1 neutral · 0 negativeconfidence 48/100
How big is the effect
No study gave a number we could compare, so the size is not known.
Rating adjusted
Lowered from Medium to Low after checking study quality: journal, risk of bias, trial size and design.
Who was studied
- Healthy people
Where the evidence comes from
- Article3
Protocol behind this outcome
1 protocolMeasuredWhat the studies reporting this result did.
30 min · 3×/week
- Course
- 8 weeks
- Per week
- 90 min
- Intensity
- Mixed
- Format
- Individual
- Supervision
- Instructor-led
A repeated course
Open Balance ImprovementShow studies (3)
RCTCpositiven=3665% confidence2024there was a significant difference between the groups scores in the posttest phase (F_2, 32=6.09, *P* = 0.006, η^2 = 0.27, Cohen's d = 0.59). The pairwise comparisons revealed significant differences between the Neurolight and Maghzineh groups (*P* = 0.021), as well as between the Neurolight and con
SMD 0.59Moderate effectTop journalMain outcomeOpen-labelToo small to detect itRCTCneutraln=3145% confidence2019No significant training effects were evident for physical functions or brain volume.
Weak journalOpen-labelInactive controlCompleters onlyPilot studyDpositiven=2135% confidence2019minimal toe clearance under single-task walking condition increased significantly (z = −2.158, p = 0.030, r = 0.39)
Weak journalOpen-labelNo control groupCompleters only29% dropped out - →Reaction Speed IncreaseCertaintyLowSourceClinical2 cited studies
A randomized trial of 32 found improvement on one of two attention measures in one game group compared with the other. A 21-person pilot found faster reaction time on the first visual-search task after training.
What the sources found
2 positive · 0 neutral · 0 negativeconfidence 55/100
How big is the effect
No study gave a number we could compare, so the size is not known.
Rating adjusted
Lowered from Medium to Low after checking study quality: journal, risk of bias, trial size and design.
Who was studied
- Healthy people
Where the evidence comes from
- Article2
Protocol behind this outcome
1 protocolMeasuredWhat the studies reporting this result did.
40 min · 3×/week
- Course
- 8 weeks
- Per week
- 120 min
- Intensity
- Moderate
- Format
- Individual
- Supervision
- Instructor-led
A repeated course
Open Reaction Speed IncreaseShow studies (2)
RCTCpositiven=3275% confidence2013On the other hand, the Tetris group improved one of two measures of attention (SRT, F(1, 27)=6.08, η^2=0.10, p=0.012) ... compared to the Brain Age group.
Weak journalSham-controlledPilot studyDpositiven=2135% confidence2019reaction time in the first task of the VST (VST 1) was significantly faster (z = −2.727, p = 0.004, r = 0.50) after the training intervention
Weak journalOpen-labelNo control groupCompleters only29% dropped out - →Neuroplasticity ImprovementCertaintyLowSourceTheoreticalnot used for recommendations1 other source
A proposed rationale is that novel, challenging cognitive tasks may promote neuroplasticity and strengthen neural networks; this is an expert-knowledge rationale, not a reported trial finding.
What the sources found
1 positive · 0 neutral · 0 negativeconfidence 45/100
How big is the effect
No study gave a number we could compare, so the size is not known.
Where the evidence comes from
- Expert opinion1
Why it isn't used for recommendations
No supporting study on file
Open Neuroplasticity ImprovementShow studies (1)
Expert opinionpositive45% confidenceEngaging in novel, challenging cognitive tasks may promote neuroplasticity and strengthen neural networks.
Expert knowledge synthesis
Very low probability(4)
- →Physical Endurance IncreaseCertaintyVery lowSourceRCTnot used for recommendations3 cited studies
Studies did not support an increase in physical endurance; a randomized trial of 31 found no significant training effects on physical functions or brain volume.
What the sources found
0 positive · 3 neutral · 0 negativeconfidence 47/100
How big is the effect
No study gave a number we could compare, so the size is not known.
Who was studied
- Healthy people and patients
Where the evidence comes from
- Article3
Trials that found no benefit ran2 trials and meta-analyses
Smallest Typical Session 35 min 43 min How often 3×/week Per week 105 min 128 min Course 8 weeks 13 weeks Why it isn't used for recommendations
Studied, with no positive result
Open Physical Endurance IncreaseShow studies (3)
RCTBneutraln=37270% confidence2021no significant difference in normal walking speed (−1·03 cm/s [SD 1·30]; 95% CI −3·60 to 1·54) between the intervention and control groups
MD -1.03 [-3.6, 1.54]Top journalMain outcomeBlinded assessorRCTCneutraln=3145% confidence2019No significant training effects were evident for physical functions or brain volume.
Weak journalOpen-labelInactive controlCompleters onlyPilot studyDneutraln=2125% confidence2019No significant changes were found for gait speed, cadence, or stride length in either single-task or dual-task conditions (all p > 0.05).
Weak journalOpen-labelNo control groupCompleters only29% dropped out - →Neuroprotective EffectCertaintyVery lowSourceClinicalnot used for recommendations1 cited study
The studies did not support a neuroprotective effect: a randomized trial found no significant training effects on physical function or brain volume, and both groups showed a decrease in gray matter volume in frontal areas and the hippocampus over time.
What the sources found
0 positive · 1 neutral · 0 negativeconfidence 45/100
How big is the effect
No study gave a number we could compare, so the size is not known.
Who was studied
- Healthy people
Where the evidence comes from
- Article1
Why it isn't used for recommendations
Studied, with no positive result
Open Neuroprotective EffectShow studies (1)
RCTCneutraln=3145% confidence2019No significant training effects were evident for physical functions or brain volume. Both groups exhibited a significant decrease in gray matter volume of frontal areas and the hippocampus over time.
Weak journalOpen-labelInactive controlCompleters only - →Physical Strength IncreaseCertaintyVery lowSourceClinicalnot used for recommendations2 cited studies
The studies did not support a physical-strength benefit: a randomized trial in 31 participants found no significant training effects on physical function or brain volume.
What the sources found
0 positive · 2 neutral · 0 negativeconfidence 35/100
How big is the effect
No study gave a number we could compare, so the size is not known.
Who was studied
- Healthy people
Where the evidence comes from
- Article2
Why it isn't used for recommendations
Studied, with no positive result
Open Physical Strength IncreaseShow studies (2)
RCTCneutraln=3145% confidence2019No significant training effects were evident for physical functions or brain volume.
Weak journalOpen-labelInactive controlCompleters onlyPilot studyDneutraln=2125% confidence201930 s chair rises test: 15 (13; 20) to 18 (15; 22), z = −1.603, p = 0.110; 2 min stepping test: 94 (74; 114) to 100 (79; 113), z = −1.137, p = 0.270
Weak journalOpen-labelNo control groupCompleters only29% dropped out
1 more mentioned only by users
What to expect
A single-session finding reported Anxiety Reduction. Findings for Working Memory Improvement came from programmes lasting 4–6 weeks; trials reporting broader cognitive and memory benefits ran for 3–8 weeks, while those reporting an Antidepressant Effect ran for 6–7 weeks. For Cognitive Function Improvement, one follow-up found the effect had faded fully 6 weeks after completing the control condition. Reported side effects occurred in programmes lasting 8 or 13 weeks.
Conditions it's used for
Complaints and diagnoses people take it for10 listedThe best we have, but the evidence is still weak
- →DementiaCertaintyLowSourceClinical3 cited studies
In a quasi-experimental study, 14 people with mild to moderate dementia played cognitive games and interacted with a robot; greater movement correlated with higher observational engagement scores. A separate pilot involving 19 people living with dementia tested the intervention only in this group.
How big is the effect
No study gave a number we could compare, so the size is not known.
Who was studied
- People with a condition
- Dementia
Protocol behind this outcome
2 protocolsMeasuredWhat the studies reporting this result did.
25 min
- Course
- 8 weeks
- Intensity
- Low
- Format
- Group
- Supervision
- Instructor-led
A repeated course
Open DementiaShow studies (3)
Pilot studyCn=1920% confidence2025Study population was people living with dementia; the intervention was tested in this group only.
Open-labelNo control groupQuasi ExperimentalDn=1430% confidence2018The study involved participants with mild to moderate dementia who engaged in cognitive games and robot play. Engagement was measured, and quantity of movement correlated with observational engagement scales.
Top journalOpen-labelNo control groupPilot studyDn=1125% confidence2025The study developed the app specifically for this population and usability testing showed high scores, but no efficacy data were collected.
Weak journalOpen-labelNo control group - →Kidney Disease (General)CertaintyLowSourceClinical2 cited studies
In a 2026 randomized trial of 64 hemodialysis patients, the memory effect was described as marginal and small. A 2018 pilot randomized trial in 20 hemodialysis patients found that intradialytic cognitive training may prevent decline in psychomotor speed compared with standard care.
How big is the effect
No study gave a number we could compare, so the size is not known.
Rating adjusted
Lowered from Medium to Low after checking study quality: journal, risk of bias, trial size and design.
Who was studied
- People with a condition
- Chronic Kidney Disease
Protocol behind this outcome
1 protocolMeasuredWhat the studies reporting this result did.
20 min · 3×/week
- Course
- 4 weeks
- Per week
- 60 min
A repeated course
Subsumes: chronic_kidney_disease
Open Kidney Disease (General)Show studies (2)
RCTCn=6440% confidence2026Study population of hemodialysis patients; memory effect was marginal and small.
Open-labelInactive controlRCTCn=2045% confidence2018Intradialytic Cognitive and Exercise Training May Preserve Cognitive Function.
Pilot RCT showing intradialytic cognitive training may prevent decline in psychomotor speed (TMTB) compared with standard of care in hemodialysis patients.
Top journalOpen-labelInactive control - →Alzheimer's DiseaseCertaintyLowSourceClinical1 cited study
A randomized trial in 79 people with Alzheimer's disease found improvements in cognitive functions, depression, and quality of life after 8 weeks of combined training; benefits persisted after 4 weeks of detraining.
How big is the effect
No study gave a number we could compare, so the size is not known.
Who was studied
- People with a condition
- Alzheimer's Disease
Protocol behind this outcome
1 protocolMeasuredWhat the studies reporting this result did.
35 min · 2×/week
- Course
- 8 weeks
- Per week
- 70 min
- Intensity
- Moderate
- Format
- Group
- Supervision
- Instructor-led
A repeated course
Open Alzheimer's DiseaseShow studies (1)
RCTCn=7965% confidence2024RCT showing significant improvements in cognitive functions, depression, and quality of life after 8 weeks of combined training, with benefits persisting after 4 weeks of detraining.
Open-label - →Autism Spectrum DisorderCertaintyLowSourceClinical1 cited study
A 2023 systematic review of 28 randomized and non-randomized human studies found potential benefits of computerized cognitive games for cognitive rehabilitation in children with Autism Spectrum Disorder.
How big is the effect
No study gave a number we could compare, so the size is not known.
Who was studied
- People with a condition
- Autism Spectrum Disorder
Open Autism Spectrum DisorderShow studies (1)
Systematic reviewC60% confidence2023Systematic review of 28 studies showing potential benefits of computerized cognitive games for cognitive rehabilitation in children with ASD.
Top journal - →Parkinson's DiseaseCertaintyLowSourceClinical1 cited study
A randomized trial involving 8 people with mild-to-moderate Parkinson's disease found that gamified DTT was feasible and safe, with preliminary signals of improvement in motor and cognitive function and perceived disability.
How big is the effect
No study gave a number we could compare, so the size is not known.
Who was studied
- People with a condition
- Parkinson's Disease
Protocol behind this outcome
1 protocolEstimatedWhat the studies reporting this result did.
60 min · 2.5×/week
- Course
- 9 weeks
- Per week
- 150 min
- Intensity
- Moderate
- Format
- Individual
- Supervision
- Instructor-led
A repeated course
Open Parkinson's DiseaseShow studies (1)
RCTCn=860% confidence2021Gamified DTT was feasible and safe, and showed preliminary signals of efficacy in improving motor and cognitive function as well as perceived disability in individuals with mild-to-moderate Parkinson disease.
Low-quality journalOpen-labelCompleters only - →ADHDCertaintyLowSourceTheoreticalnot used for recommendations1 other source
Working memory and attention-based brain games are described as adjunctive interventions to improve executive function in children and adults with ADHD.
How big is the effect
No study gave a number we could compare, so the size is not known.
Where the evidence comes from
- Expert opinion
Why it isn't used for recommendations
No supporting study on file
Open ADHDShow studies (1)
Expert opinion50% confidenceWorking memory and attention-based brain games are evidence-supported adjunctive interventions for improving executive function in children and adults with ADHD.
- →Stroke RecoveryCertaintyLowSourceTheoreticalnot used for recommendations1 other source
Cognitive training is recommended in post-stroke rehabilitation to support recovery of attention, memory, and executive function.
How big is the effect
No study gave a number we could compare, so the size is not known.
Where the evidence comes from
- Expert opinion
Why it isn't used for recommendations
No supporting study on file
Open Stroke RecoveryShow studies (1)
Expert opinion50% confidenceCognitive training is recommended in post-stroke rehabilitation to support recovery of attention, memory, and executive function.
Low probability(1)
- →Traumatic Brain InjuryCertaintyLowSourceTheoreticalnot used for recommendations1 other source
Brain games are used as part of cognitive rehabilitation after traumatic brain injury to help restore attention, memory, and executive function.
How big is the effect
No study gave a number we could compare, so the size is not known.
Where the evidence comes from
- Expert opinion
Why it isn't used for recommendations
No supporting study on file
Open Traumatic Brain InjuryShow studies (1)
Expert opinion50% confidenceBrain games are used as part of cognitive rehabilitation to help restore attention, memory, and executive function after traumatic brain injury.
Very low probability(2)
- →DepressionCertaintyVery lowSourceClinicalnot used for recommendations1 cited study
Studies did not support a benefit for depression. In a quasi-experimental study of 14 participants, people with motivational disorders showed lower engagement and moved considerably less during both activities than participants without those disorders.
How big is the effect
No study gave a number we could compare, so the size is not known.
Who was studied
- People with a condition
- Dementia
Why it isn't used for recommendations
Studied, with no positive result
Open DepressionShow studies (1)
Quasi ExperimentalDno effectn=1430% confidence2018Participants with motivational disorders showed lower engagement and moved considerably less in both activities compared to those without such disorders.
Top journalOpen-labelNo control group - →SchizophreniaCertaintyVery lowSourceClinicalnot used for recommendations1 cited study
This practice has been studied in people with schizophrenia.
How big is the effect
No study gave a number we could compare, so the size is not known.
Who was studied
- People with a condition
- Schizophrenia
Why it isn't used for recommendations
Studied, with no positive result
Open SchizophreniaShow studies (1)
RCTCno effectn=7760% confidence2018The study found no significant difference in employment rates at 12 months between portable brain games and cognitive remediation, but portable brain games led to earlier job attainment during training. Neurocognitive and quality of life outcomes favored cognitive remediation.
Weak journalBlinded assessor26% dropped out
Side effects
5 listedHighest probability
- →Muscle Ache (Myalgia)CertaintyLowSourceClinical2 cited studies
A meta-analysis of randomized trials reported training-related adverse effects that included musculoskeletal pain. A separate randomized trial involving 372 people reported leg pain.
What the sources found
0 not observed · 0 unclear · 2 reportedconfidence 45/100
How big is the effect
No study gave a number we could compare, so the size is not known.
Rating adjusted
Lowered from Medium to Low after checking study quality: journal, risk of bias, trial size and design.
Who was studied
- Healthy people and patients
Where the evidence comes from
- Article2
Protocol behind this outcome
2 protocolsMeasuredWhat the studies reporting this result did.
45 min · 3×/week
- Course
- 8 weeks
- Per week
- 150 min
- Intensity
- Mixed
- Format
- Small group
- Supervision
- Instructor-led
A repeated course
Open Muscle Ache (Myalgia)Show studies (2)
Meta-analysisAnegativen=154345% confidence2020The use of commercial computerised cognitive games in older adults: a meta-analysis.
Training-related adverse effects (musculoskeletal pain, fatigue, headache, anxiety, boredom, depressed mood)
Weak journalPooled RCTsOpen-labelCompleters onlyRCTBnegativen=37245% confidence2021leg pain
Top journalBlinded assessor - →Joint Pain (Arthralgia)CertaintyLowSourceClinical2 cited studies
A randomized trial involving 372 people reported arthritis; another randomized trial in 31 participants reported slight knee and/or back pain during training.
What the sources found
0 not observed · 0 unclear · 2 reportedconfidence 45/100
How big is the effect
No study gave a number we could compare, so the size is not known.
Rating adjusted
Lowered from Medium to Low after checking study quality: journal, risk of bias, trial size and design.
Who was studied
- Healthy people and patients
Where the evidence comes from
- Article2
Protocol behind this outcome
2 protocolsEstimatedWhat the studies reporting this result did.
43 min · 3×/week
- Course
- 13 weeks
- Per week
- 128 min
- Intensity
- Moderate
- Format
- Individual
A repeated course
Open Joint Pain (Arthralgia)Show studies (2)
RCTBnegativen=37245% confidence2021arthritis
Top journalBlinded assessorRCTCnegativen=3145% confidence2019Slight pain during training (knee and/or back pain)
Weak journalOpen-labelInactive controlCompleters only - →PainCertaintyLowSourceClinical2 cited studies
In healthy participants, a randomized trial involving 31 people reported slight knee and/or back pain during training; a pilot study involving 21 people reported similar pain.
What the sources found
0 not observed · 0 unclear · 2 reportedconfidence 45/100
How big is the effect
No study gave a number we could compare, so the size is not known.
Rating adjusted
Lowered from Medium to Low after checking study quality: journal, risk of bias, trial size and design.
Who was studied
- Healthy people
Where the evidence comes from
- Article2
Protocol behind this outcome
1 protocolMeasuredWhat the studies reporting this result did.
40 min · 3×/week
- Course
- 8 weeks
- Per week
- 120 min
- Intensity
- Moderate
- Format
- Individual
- Supervision
- Instructor-led
A repeated course
Open PainShow studies (2)
RCTCnegativen=3145% confidence2019Slight pain during training (knee and/or back pain)
Weak journalOpen-labelInactive controlCompleters onlyPilot studyDnegativen=2145% confidence2019Slight pain during training (knee/back)
Weak journalOpen-labelNo control groupCompleters only29% dropped out - →DizzinessCertaintyLowSourceClinical2 cited studies
A randomized trial in 31 healthy participants reported dizziness during training; a 21-person pilot also reported light dizziness during training.
What the sources found
0 not observed · 0 unclear · 2 reportedconfidence 43/100
How big is the effect
No study gave a number we could compare, so the size is not known.
Rating adjusted
Lowered from Medium to Low after checking study quality: journal, risk of bias, trial size and design.
Who was studied
- Healthy people
Where the evidence comes from
- Article2
Protocol behind this outcome
2 protocolsEstimatedWhat the studies reporting this result did.
38 min · 3×/week
- Course
- 13 weeks
- Per week
- 113 min
- Intensity
- Moderate
- Format
- Individual
A repeated course
Open DizzinessShow studies (2)
RCTCnegativen=3145% confidence2019Dizziness during training
Weak journalOpen-labelInactive controlCompleters onlyPilot studyDnegativen=2140% confidence2019Light dizziness during training
Weak journalOpen-labelNo control groupCompleters only29% dropped out - →Blood Pressure IncreaseCertaintyLowSourceClinical1 cited study
A randomized trial involving 372 people with a clinical condition reported high blood pressure.
What the sources found
0 not observed · 0 unclear · 1 reportedconfidence 45/100
How big is the effect
No study gave a number we could compare, so the size is not known.
Who was studied
- People with a condition
Where the evidence comes from
- Article1
Protocol behind this outcome
1 protocolMeasuredWhat the studies reporting this result did.
50 min · 3×/week
- Course
- 8 weeks
- Per week
- 150 min
- Intensity
- Mixed
- Format
- Small group
- Supervision
- Instructor-led
A repeated course
Open Blood Pressure IncreaseShow studies (1)
RCTBnegativen=37245% confidence2021high blood pressure
Top journalBlinded assessor
Don't do it if
When to skip it or get medical advice first1 listedHighest probability
- →EpilepsyCertaintyLowSourceReference knowledgeTheoretical
For people with photosensitive epilepsy, digital brain games with flashing lights, rapid pattern changes, or high-contrast visuals may trigger seizures.
In the trials
1 trial of this practice also left out people with this condition. That does not show harm.
PubMed links (1)
Where the evidence comes from
- Reference knowledge
Confidence
confidence 75/100
Open EpilepsyRationale
Digital brain games with flashing lights, rapid pattern changes, or high-contrast visuals may trigger seizures in individuals with photosensitive epilepsy.
Who the trials left out
Some trials of this practice did not take people with these conditions, so the studies say less about them. This is not a warning and does not show harm. Ask a clinician first.13 listed- Dementialeft out by 2 trials
PubMed links (2)
- Depressionleft out by 2 trials
PubMed links (2)
- Mild Cognitive Impairmentleft out by 2 trials
PubMed links (2)
Left out by one trial each (10)
- Alzheimer's Diseaseleft out by 1 trial
PubMed links (1)
- Anginaleft out by 1 trial
PubMed links (1)
- Diabetes (General)left out by 1 trial
PubMed links (1)
PubMed links (1)
- Heart Disease (General)left out by 1 trial
PubMed links (1)
- Hypertension (High Blood Pressure)left out by 1 trial
PubMed links (1)
- Implanted Electronic Deviceleft out by 1 trial
PubMed links (1)
- Peripheral Neuropathyleft out by 1 trial
PubMed links (1)
- Parkinson's Diseaseleft out by 1 trial
PubMed links (1)
- Strokeleft out by 1 trial
PubMed links (1)
When you stop
Rebound and withdrawal after discontinuing1 listedHighest probability
- →Cognitive Function ImprovementCertaintyLowSourceClinicalloss of benefit1 cited study
In a randomized trial of 14 healthy participants, initial improvements in executive attention and attention/language returned to baseline after participants completed the control condition.
What the sources found
0 not observed · 0 unclear · 1 reportedconfidence 35/100
How big is the effect
No study gave a number we could compare, so the size is not known.
Who was studied
- Healthy people
Where the evidence comes from
- Article1
Protocol behind this outcome
1 protocolMeasuredWhat the studies reporting this result did.
60 min · 3×/week
- Course
- 6 weeks
- Per week
- 180 min
- Format
- Individual
- Supervision
- Self-guided
A repeated course
Open Cognitive Function ImprovementShow studies (1)
RCTCnegativen=1435% confidence2018the initial improvements seen in the participants who completed the brain training condition first were diminished after completing the control condition (see GP-TQ group performance in Table 2). Specifically, executive attention and attention/language performance returned to baseline levels, with s
Top journal
Interactions
Okay to combine with
Highest probability of useful synergy
- →SupplementsCaffeineCertaintyMediumSourceReference knowledgePotentiating
Caffeine enhances alertness, attention, and reaction time, which may potentiate the acute cognitive effects of brain games.
- →SupplementsOmega-3CertaintyMediumSourceReference knowledgePotentiating
Omega-3 fatty acids, particularly DHA, may support synaptic plasticity and amplify cognitive gains from brain games, especially in older adults with low baseline intake.
- →PracticesMeditationCertaintyMediumSourceReference knowledgeComplementary
Meditation may complement the focus needed for brain games by enhancing attentional control and reducing mind-wandering, potentially supporting greater cognitive gains when combined.
- →PracticesCardioCertaintyMediumSourceTheoreticalComplementary
Aerobic exercise may enhance the cognitive benefits of brain games by increasing BDNF and cerebral blood flow.
Weakens or is weakened by
Highest probability
- →SupplementsEthanol (Alcohol)CertaintyMediumSourceReference knowledgeDepleting
Chronic alcohol consumption can impair neuroplasticity and executive function, potentially counteracting the cognitive benefits of Brain Games / Puzzles and reducing training efficacy.
- →SupplementsValerian RootCertaintyMediumSourceReference knowledgeCompetitive
Valerian Root’s sedative and CNS-depressant effects can impair alertness, concentration, and cognitive processing speed, potentially reducing the benefits of Brain Games / Puzzles.
How it works
The mechanisms this practice works through25 listed · 0 established- Attention and motor speedCognitive trainingproposed
Brain training games may improve cognitive functions through practice and engagement, potentially enhancing neural plasticity.
- Cerebral perfusionCerebral blood flowproposed
Aerobic exercise increases cerebral blood flow, potentially preventing or decelerating cognitive decline in MCI.
- Cognitive functionCognitive trainingproposed
The app includes cognitive games, videos, and schedule management designed to stimulate various cognitive domains (concentration, memory, verbal thinking, space, time, calculation).
- DMN within-network connectivityDefault mode network functional connectivityproposed
Crossword puzzles increased DMN within-network connectivity in LMCI subjects, while CCT games decreased it.
- DMN-SLN connectivityBetween-network functional connectivityproposed
Crossword puzzles increased between-network connectivity between DMN and salience network, while CCT games decreased it.
- Executive function neural systemsNeuroplasticityproposed
Brain training games designed to activate and strengthen neural systems supporting executive function, leading to improved academic performance.
- Executive functions and processing speedPrefrontal cortex activationproposed
The transfer effect of Brain Age training on executive functions and processing speed may be mediated by shared prefrontal cortex regions involved in both training tasks and transfer tasks.
- Executive functions, working memory, processing speedNear transfer effectproposed
Playing Brain Age improved cognitive functions that are closely related to the trained cognitive processes, likely mediated by shared brain regions such as the prefrontal cortex and precuneus.
- Health monitoringHealth managementproposed
The app includes health notes for tracking blood pressure, pulse, oxygen saturation, blood sugar, steps, and weight.
- Hippocampal neurogenesis and synaptic plasticityNeuroplasticityproposed
Physical exercise may upregulate BDNF and stimulate hippocampal neurogenesis, contributing to cognitive improvements.
- Mood and social interactionEmotional supportproposed
The app includes video calls, music, and social networking to maintain social interaction and emotional support.
- Prefrontal cortex executive functionsCognitive stimulation hypothesisproposed
Physical activities coordinated with cognitive demands activate the same brain regions used for higher-level cognitive control processes, leading to improved neural efficiency and faster information processing.
- Processing speed, working memory, executive function, verbal memoryCognitive training-induced neuroplasticityproposed
Commercially available computerised cognitive games improve specific cognitive domains in healthy older adults, likely through training-induced neural changes.
- Serotonin and dopamineNeurotransmitter regulationproposed
Exercise contributes to the production of neurotransmitters such as serotonin and dopamine, which play roles in depression treatment.
- Striatal motor pathwayMotor-cognitive integrationproposed
Gamified DTT may promote automatic movement and reduce interference of a secondary task on primary motor task performance, potentially promoting restitution of the impaired striatal motor pathway.
- Working memory and inhibitionCombined cognitive-physical trainingproposed
Simultaneous cognitive and physical challenges enhance executive functions through complementary effects on brain structure and function.
- anxiety reductioncognitive self-efficacyproposed
The authors propose that brain training may promote cognitive self-efficacy, which subsequently reduces anxiety and leads to improved executive attention performance.
- attentionneurofeedbackproposed
Training aimed to enhance beta power and reduce alpha power during active mental tasks to improve attention.
- dopamine, acetylcholine, serotonin, BDNFneurochemicalproposed
Neurotransmitters such as dopamine, acetylcholine, and serotonin play essential roles; BDNF promotes neuronal growth, survival, and synaptic plasticity.
- executive functioncognitive trainingproposed
CT prevents age-related declines in key areas of executive function, including abstraction, working memory, verbal reasoning, and inhibition, by improving the neural structures that mediate executive function.
- executive functionscognitiveproposed
Improvement in inhibition and working memory after exergame training, suggesting training-induced plasticity in frontal brain areas.
- grey matter volume and cortical thicknessstructural brain changesproposed
Long-term involvement in brain training can induce structural changes in the brain, such as increased grey matter volume and cortical thickness.
- neuronal growthneurogenesisproposed
Brain training promotes neurogenesis and influences functional connectivity, enhancing communication and coordination between brain regions.
- synaptic plasticityneuroplasticityproposed
Brain training enhances synaptic plasticity, involving changes in the strength and efficiency of synaptic connections, leading to better cognitive performance.
- upper alphaEEG alpha activityproposed
Increased upper alpha activity in resting state (open-eyed) in occipital area, indicating improvement in cognitive domain.
Variations
5 documentedTypical protocol
31 protocolsEstimatedAcross every study of this practice, whatever the variation.
30 min · 3×/week
- Course
- 8 weeks
- Per week
- 90 min
- Rounds
- 3
- % of max heart rate
- 60% of max
- Intensity
- Moderate
- Format
- Individual
- Supervision
- Instructor-led
Courses and single sessions · 27 repeated-course and 2 single-session protocols
89% of the corpus contributed
Standard Computerized Training
Intermediate9/1020–40 min · 3 times a week
Standard Computerized Training
Intermediate9/1020–40 min · 3 times a week20–40 min · 3 times a week
Editorial- How often
- 3 times a week
- Intensity
- Moderate
- Time of day
- Any time
- Where
- Indoors
- Research depth
- Minimal
Training rotates among memory, attention, and processing-speed tasks, with difficulty adjusted as you play. The directions emphasize accuracy before speed and reviewing scores to track performance over time.
Equipment: Computer or tablet, Internet connection, Cognitive training software subscription (e.g., Lumosity, CogniFit, HappyNeuron)
How it's done6 steps · 3 cues · 3 common mistakes
A general description of the practice, not instruction or medical advice.
Steps
- Set up your device in a quiet, distraction-free environment.
- Log in to your chosen cognitive training platform.
- Complete the assigned daily session, which usually consists of 3-5 different games.
- Focus intently on each task, aiming for both speed and accuracy.
- Take short 30-second breaks between games if needed to maintain concentration.
- Review your session scores to track progress over time.
Cues
- · Sit upright to maintain alertness.
- · Keep your eyes level with the screen to reduce strain.
- · Don't rush; prioritize accuracy first, speed will follow.
Common mistakes
- Multitasking during the session, which reduces training effectiveness.
- Getting frustrated and quitting a difficult game early.
- Training in a noisy environment, which divides attention.
Studied protocols2 on file
- 30 min· 4×/week· 78 weeks· n=240· A repeated coursePMID 40852373
- 35 min· 2×/week· 6 weeks· n=19· A repeated coursePMID 41890699
Daily Handheld Brain Age
Beginner8/1010–20 min · Daily
Daily Handheld Brain Age
Beginner8/1010–20 min · Daily10–20 min · Daily
Editorial- How often
- Daily
- Intensity
- Low
- Time of day
- Morning
- Where
- Indoors
- Research depth
- Minimal
The routine combines quick mental arithmetic and reading aloud, with additional short games such as Low to High or Syllable Count. Its daily score is presented as a way to check performance, not as a direct measure of overall cognitive ability.
Equipment: Handheld gaming console (e.g., Nintendo DS/DSi), Brain training game cartridge (e.g., Brain Age)
As studied
3 protocolsEstimatedThe protocol the studies of this variation actually used.
15 min
- Course
- 4 weeks
- Format
- Individual
- Supervision
- Self-guided
A repeated course
How it's done6 steps · 3 cues · 3 common mistakes
A general description of the practice, not instruction or medical advice.
Steps
- Turn on your handheld console and launch the brain training software.
- Complete the daily stamp activities, which typically include Calculation x20 and Reading Aloud.
- Perform the quick mental math exercises, writing answers on the touch screen as fast as possible.
- Read the literary passage aloud clearly and at a natural pace into the microphone.
- Play 1-2 additional mini-games like Low to High or Syllable Count to round out the session.
- Check your 'brain age' score to see your daily performance.
Cues
- · Hold the device comfortably with both hands.
- · Speak clearly for voice recognition tasks.
- · Use the stylus for precise writing.
Common mistakes
- Skipping the reading aloud component, which is key for working memory.
- Rushing through math problems and making careless errors.
- Training in a loud place where the microphone can't pick up your voice.
Studied protocols2 on file
- 15 min· 5×/week· 4 weeks· n=32· A repeated coursePMID 22253758
- 15 min· 7×/week· 3 weeks· n=72· A repeated coursePMID 29674605
Exergame Cognitive-Physical Combo
Advanced7/10supervision recommended30–60 min · 3 times a week
Exergame Cognitive-Physical Combo
Advanced7/10supervision recommended30–60 min · 3 times a week30–60 min · 3 times a week
From studies- How often*
- 3 times a week
- Intensity
- High
- Time of day
- First half of the day
- Where
- Indoors
- Research depth
- Moderate
This format asks participants to respond to on-screen cognitive prompts while cycling or stepping, so movement and thinking happen at the same time. The directions advise focusing on the cognitive task if unsteady and using safety supports when balance is a concern.
Equipment: Exergame system (e.g., SMARTfit, Active@Home), Stationary bike or step pad, Heart rate monitor, Large display screen
not for children,caution for older adults
As studied
16 protocolsEstimatedThe protocol the studies of this variation actually used.
20–60 min · 3×/week
- Course
- 8 weeks
- Per week
- 98 min
- Rounds
- 3
- % of max heart rate
- 60% of max
- Format
- Individual
- Supervision
- Instructor-led
A repeated course
Derived from2761502929148293291890462934031729379114+11 more in Sources
How it's done6 steps · 3 cues · 3 common mistakes
A general description of the practice, not instruction or medical advice.
Steps
- Set up the exergame equipment and ensure the play area is clear of obstacles.
- Put on a heart rate monitor to track exercise intensity, aiming for 50-70% of maximum heart rate.
- Begin with a 5-minute warm-up of light physical activity without cognitive tasks.
- Start the main training: perform the physical exercise (e.g., cycling or stepping) while simultaneously responding to cognitive prompts on the screen.
- Maintain the dual-task activity for 20-30 minutes, adjusting difficulty to stay challenged but not overwhelmed.
- Conclude with a 5-10 minute cool-down of gentle movement and stretching.
Cues
- · Keep your posture upright and core engaged.
- · Breathe rhythmically; don't hold your breath during cognitive challenges.
- · Focus on the cognitive task first if you feel unsteady, then resume full movement.
Common mistakes
- Prioritizing the physical task and ignoring the cognitive prompts.
- Exercising at too high an intensity, making cognitive performance impossible.
- Not using safety supports if balance is a concern.
Studied protocols16 on file
- 60 min· 3×/week· 6 weeks· n=14· A repeated coursePMID 29189046
- 60 min· 5×/week· 26 weeks· n=77· A repeated coursePMID 29379114
- 40 min· 3×/week· 8 weeks· n=21· A repeated coursePMID 31824295
- 50 min· 3×/week· 8 weeks· n=372· A repeated coursePMID 34522910
- 30 min· 3×/week· 12 weeks· n=13· A repeated coursePMID 37009304
- 30 min· 2×/week· 8 weeks· Rounds 3, 60% of max· n=44· A repeated coursePMID 38391486
Classroom Group Games
Beginner6/10supervision recommended15–30 min · Daily
Classroom Group Games
Beginner6/10supervision recommended15–30 min · Daily15–30 min · Daily
Editorial- How often
- Daily
- Intensity
- Low
- Time of day
- First half of the day
- Where
- Indoors or outdoors
- Research depth
- Minimal
Games can include memory-card matching or Simon Says-style activities, with participants taking turns or playing together. A group discussion at the end gives participants a chance to describe the strategies they used.
No equipment needed.
How it's done6 steps · 3 cues · 3 common mistakes
A general description of the practice, not instruction or medical advice.
Steps
- Gather the group in a circle or designated play area.
- The facilitator explains the rules of the first game, such as a memory card matching game or a 'Simon Says' variant for inhibitory control.
- Participants take turns or play simultaneously, depending on the game structure.
- The facilitator introduces new games or increases complexity (e.g., adding a time limit) to keep the group engaged.
- Rotate through 2-3 different games targeting different cognitive skills in a single session.
- End with a brief group discussion about strategies used.
Cues
- · Listen carefully to instructions before acting.
- · Encourage and support your peers.
- · Take a deep breath if you feel frustrated by a mistake.
Common mistakes
- Calling out answers out of turn, disrupting the game flow.
- Becoming overly competitive and losing focus on the cognitive skill.
- Not paying attention when others are taking their turn.
Studied protocols1 on file
- 20 min· 3×/week· 4 weeks· n=64· A repeated coursePMID 41077610
Neurofeedback-Enhanced Training
Expert5/10supervision recommended20–30 min · 2 times a week
Neurofeedback-Enhanced Training
Expert5/10supervision recommended20–30 min · 2 times a week20–30 min · 2 times a week
Editorial- How often
- 2 times a week
- Intensity
- Moderate
- Time of day
- Any time
- Where
- Indoors
- Research depth
- Minimal
An EEG headset provides feedback during games, and the directions include a baseline calibration before play. Muscle tension can interfere with the signal, and learning to control the feedback is described as requiring practice.
Equipment: EEG headset with dry sensors, Neurofeedback software platform, Computer or tablet
not for children
How it's done6 steps · 3 cues · 3 common mistakes
A general description of the practice, not instruction or medical advice.
Steps
- Fit the EEG headset according to the manufacturer's instructions, ensuring good sensor contact.
- Launch the neurofeedback game and complete a baseline calibration task.
- Begin the first game, which might involve moving an object on screen by sustaining a focused mental state.
- Observe real-time feedback on your brainwave activity; the game becomes easier when you are in the target state.
- Play 4-5 different short games, each lasting 2-3 minutes, with breaks in between.
- After the session, review your neurofeedback metrics to understand your performance.
Cues
- · Relax your facial muscles and jaw.
- · Find a 'quiet focus'—not a strained, forced concentration.
- · Blink naturally; don't stare.
Common mistakes
- Over-tensing muscles, which creates electrical noise in the EEG signal.
- Getting distracted by the sensor feel and forgetting the cognitive task.
- Expecting immediate control; it requires practice to modulate brainwaves.
Studied protocols1 on file
- 30 min· 2×/week· 10 weeks· n=35· A repeated coursePMID 34128816
How to start
Community experience
Based on 350 public posts from Reddit, Bluesky, YouTube, and Hacker News.
What people report it did
21 outcomes mentioned across 350 public reports. A report often mentions several, so these counts do not add up to the total.
Reported benefits16
- Concentration Improvement60 mentions
- Cognitive Function Improvement58 mentions
- Mood Improvement33 mentionsnot studied
- Motivation Increase19 mentions
- Mental Productivity Increase16 mentions
- Anxiety Reduction14 mentions
- Discipline Improvement9 mentions
- Sleep Quality Improvement9 mentions
- Learning Speed Improvement8 mentions
- Physical Energy Increase8 mentions
- Brain Fog Reduction8 mentions
- Procrastination Reduction7 mentions
- Task Switching Improvement6 mentions
- Memory Improvement5 mentions
- Sleep Onset Improvement5 mentions
- Stress Resilience Improvement5 mentions
Reported side effects5
- Dependencenot studied
- Physical Fatiguenot studied
- Headachenot studied
- Irritabilitynot studied
- Vision Problemsnot studied
What people report doing
Counted from public posts and videos, not from a survey. Each figure counts the posts that mentioned it — most reports say nothing about schedule.
How often38 mentions
Intensity7 mentions
Where12 mentions
When2 mentions
Session lengthas written
References
41 screened · 35 analysed · 36 listed below
Studies and sources cited on this page. Evidence quality varies — check the grade on each.
- Brain Games for Dementia: Do They Help?Innov Aging2020Meta-analysisAn=909
- The use of commercial computerised cognitive games in older adults: a meta-analysis.Sci Rep2020Meta-analysisAn=1543
- Crossword puzzle training and neuroplasticity in mild cognitive impairment (COGIT-2): 78-week, multi-site, randomized controlled trial with cognitive, functional, imaging and biomarker outcomes.Int J Clin Trials2025RCTBn=240
- Efficacy of Brain Training Games on the Cognitive Functioning, Working Memory and Processing Speed of Healthy Individuals: A Meta-Analysis.J Pharm Bioallied Sci2025Meta-analysisB
- Targeted cognitive game training enhances cognitive performance in multiple sclerosis patients treated with interferon beta 1-a.J Neuroeng Rehabil2021RCTBn=100
- Computerised cognitive remediation to enhance mobility in older adults: a single-blind, single-centre, randomised trial.Lancet Healthy Longev2021RCTBn=372
- The effect of Sudoku puzzle solving on memory and anxiety of hemodialysis patients: a randomized controlled clinical trial.Int Urol Nephrol2026RCTCn=64
- The evaluation of the Jigsawdio program on the cognitive and mental health of people living with dementia: Mixed methods study.Gerontechnology2025Pilot studyCn=19
- A comparison between effects of sudoku and mandala painting on anxiety of breast cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy.J Family Med Prim Care2024RCTCn=70
- Mid-Term and Long-Lasting Psycho-Cognitive Benefits of Bidomain Training Intervention in Elderly Individuals with Mild Cognitive Impairment.Eur J Investig Health Psychol Educ2024RCTCn=44
Show all 36 references
- Effectiveness of Simultaneous Combined Intervention for Enhancing Cognitive Function in Patients with Moderate Alzheimer's Disease.2024RCTCn=79
- Predicting adherence to gamified cognitive training using early phase game performance data: Towards a just-in-time adherence promotion strategy.2024Observational CohortCn=118
- Computerized cognitive games versus cognitive exergame: the comparison of motor and cognitive functions enhancement in the elderly.2024RCTCn=36
- Features and effects of computer-based games on cognitive impairments in children with autism spectrum disorder: an evidence-based systematic literature review.2023Systematic reviewC
- Using shoe-mounted inertial sensors and stepping exergames to assess the motor-cognitive status of older adults: A correlational study.2023Observational Cross SectionalCn=13
- Assessment of cognitive performance in multiple sclerosis using smartphone-based training games: a feasibility study.2023Pilot studyCn=62
- Impact of Computerized Cognitive Training on Default Mode Network Connectivity in Subjects at Risk for Alzheimer's Disease: A 78-week Randomized Controlled Trial.2023RCTCn=107
- Computerized Games versus Crosswords Training in Mild Cognitive Impairment.2022RCTCn=107
- Evaluating the Impact of a Targeted Approach Designed to Build Executive Function Skills: A Randomized Trial of Brain Games.2021RCTCn=626
- Brain Exercising Games With Consumer-Grade Single-Channel Electroencephalogram Neurofeedback: Pre-Post Intervention Study.2021Quasi ExperimentalCn=35
- Gamified Dual-Task Training for Individuals with Parkinson Disease: An Exploratory Study on Feasibility, Safety, and Efficacy.2021Crossover RCTCn=8
- Effects of an In-home Multicomponent Exergame Training on Physical Functions, Cognition, and Brain Volume of Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial.2019RCTCn=31
- Comparison of focused cognitive training and portable "brain-games" on functional outcomes for vocational rehabilitation participants.2018RCTCn=77
- Brain Training Games Enhance Cognitive Function in Healthy Subjects.2018RCTCn=72
- Intradialytic Cognitive and Exercise Training May Preserve Cognitive Function.2018RCTCn=20
- The Feasibility and Potential Impact of Brain Training Games on Cognitive and Emotional Functioning in Middle-Aged Adults.2018Crossover RCTCn=14
- Cognitive Priming and Cognitive Training: Immediate and Far Transfer to Academic Skills in Children.2016Quasi ExperimentalCn=583
- Monitoring the early signs of cognitive decline in elderly by computer games: an MRI study.2015Observational Cross SectionalCn=46
- Brain training game boosts executive functions, working memory and processing speed in the young adults: a randomized controlled trial.2013RCTCn=32
- Brain training game improves executive functions and processing speed in the elderly: a randomized controlled trial.2012RCTCn=32
- Development of an Evidence-Based Cognitive Training Application for Elderly Individuals with Cognitive Dysfunction.2025Pilot studyDn=11
- The Implementation of Birdsong: A Non-Pharmacological Intervention for Persons With Dementia2020Pilot studyDn=39
- A Pilot Study of an In-Home Multicomponent Exergame Training for Older Adults: Feasibility, Usability and Pre-Post Evaluation.2019Pilot studyDn=21
- Quantity of Movement as a Measure of Engagement for Dementia: The Influence of Motivational Disorders.2018Quasi ExperimentalDn=14
- The brain-games conundrum: does cognitive training really sharpen the mind?2014Narrative reviewD
- Expert knowledge synthesis