Brain Games Backed by Science? The Lab Tasks Behind Them

Are brain games backed by science?

The question has two parts. Is the game based on a task scientists use? For many games, yes. Does practicing that task change other skills or daily life? That is what training studies test.

A 2016 review led by Daniel Simons examined the studies that brain-training companies themselves cited. The authors found extensive evidence that people get better at the tasks they train, less evidence for closely related tasks, and little evidence for distant tasks or everyday thinking. A 2019 paper by Giovanni Sala and Fernand Gobet pooled several meta-analyses and reported a minimal effect on general cognitive skills. They wrote that differences between studies were explained by design quality and statistical artefacts.

Our guide to visual brain training covers the Simons review and the ACTIVE trial in more depth. Our brain training apps comparison covers the Federal Trade Commission's 2016 order against Lumosity's maker, which requires competent and reliable scientific evidence before claims about real-world benefits.

How brain games are designed from lab tasks

Cognitive tasks used in research are built to measure one process as cleanly as possible. A typical lab task shows simple items, records how fast and how accurately you respond, and compares trials that differ in just one way.

A game keeps the core of the task and changes the wrapper: scoring, timers, streaks, artwork and harder levels. That makes the task more fun to repeat, but the game is no longer the version that was studied, and a game score has no norms behind it.

For example, Lumosity's blog said in 2018 that games of its own were adapted from the Stroop test, which it dated to 1935, and from the 1974 flanker task.

Cognitive tasks used in research, and the games modeled on them

The table lists the lab tasks behind Optics Trainer's games and drills. Each game or drill is modeled on the task; none of them was used in the studies of that task.

• Stroop: our guide to the Stroop test covers the 1935 experiment and what practice studies found.
• Flanker: our guide to the flanker task covers selective attention and the NIH Toolbox version.
• Go/no-go: our guide to the go/no-go task covers response inhibition research.
• Working memory: our guide to working memory games covers span tasks and the training meta-analyses.
• Useful field of view and multiple object tracking: our guide to peripheral vision training covers sports vision and object tracking studies.
• Saccades and pursuits: our guide to eye tracking exercises covers eye movement practice, and our clinic article on saccades, pursuits and fixation covers how clinicians test them.
• Vergence and fusion: our guide to binocular vision and eye teaming covers eye teaming problems, and our clinic article on fusional vergence ranges covers how they are measured.

Near vs far transfer explained

Near transfer means getting better at the trained task or a close version of it. Far transfer means gains on different skills, such as reasoning, school grades, work or daily life.

Meta-analyses, which pool many studies, have reported near-transfer gains more often than far-transfer gains:

• Kassai and colleagues, 2019, pooled experiments on children's executive function training (working memory, inhibitory control and flexibility). Training produced a near-transfer effect of g = 0.44 across 43 comparisons. Effects on untrained executive skills were g = 0.11 across 17 comparisons, which was not statistically significant. The authors wrote that they found no convincing evidence of far transfer.
• Melby-Lervåg, Redick and Hulme, 2016, pooled 87 publications. Gains on working memory measures were reliable right after training. Compared with active control groups, there was no convincing evidence of gains in reasoning, reading or arithmetic.
• Sala and Gobet, 2019, reported a minimal effect on general cognitive skills across several domains of training.

How to read brain-training research

These questions, many drawn from the Simons review and a 2013 paper by Walter Boot and colleagues, help when you read a study or a company's research page.

• Practice effects: people get faster on any test they repeat. Without a control group that took the same tests, a gain may reflect retesting alone.
• Active vs passive control groups: a passive group just takes the tests; an active group does a different activity for the same time. In a 2014 randomized, double-blind study of 122 adults, inhibition training looked effective against a passive group but showed no difference from an active control group. Boot and colleagues argued that even active controls need the same expectations of improvement before a gain can be credited to the training.
• Publication bias: studies with positive results are more likely to be published. The 2016 working memory meta-analysis tested for this and reported no evidential value in studies that used treated control groups.
• Vendor-funded studies: check the funding and conflict-of-interest statements. Simons and colleagues built their review from the studies companies cite. Our visual brain training guide notes an ACTIVE author's financial tie to the training software's owner.
• Who was studied: results in older adults, children or athletes may not apply to others.

Where Optics Trainer fits

Optics Trainer is a set of game-based vision and brain training apps for iPhone, iPad, Android, web browsers and Meta Quest. Its games and drills are modeled on the lab tasks above: a color-word game modeled on the Stroop task, Directionality on the flanker task, Flower Tap on go/no-go, and Symbol Order, Number Flash, Working Memory and Memory Grid on working memory span tasks. It also has eye teaming games with convergence and divergence levels and watch-and-follow eye movement, peripheral awareness and object tracking drills.

Optics Trainer's games were not tested in any study described here. They practice and challenge the tasks they are modeled on. They are not tests or measures, are not a treatment or diagnosis, and are not FDA cleared. Optics Tracker, on our clinic site, is our measurement product. Optics Trainer is not a substitute for professional diagnosis or prescribed care. Consult your eye care professional for guidance about your specific condition.

The phone and tablet apps start with a 7-day free trial, and a free web account includes 3 plays a day. After that, mobile and web access is $14.99 a month or $149.99 a year, and VR access is $19.99 a month or $199 a year after a 7-day free trial.

Frequently asked questions

Sources

1. Simons DJ, et al. Do "brain-training" programs work? Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2016
2. Sala G, Gobet F. Cognitive training does not enhance general cognition. Trends Cogn Sci. 2019
3. Kassai R, et al. A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence on the near- and far-transfer effects among children's executive function skills. Psychol Bull. 2019
4. Melby-Lervåg M, Redick TS, Hulme C. Working memory training does not improve performance on measures of intelligence or other measures of "far transfer". Perspect Psychol Sci. 2016
5. Boot WR, et al. The pervasive problem with placebos in psychology. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2013
6. Enge S, et al. No evidence for true training and transfer effects after inhibitory control training in young healthy adults. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2014
7. Stroop JR. Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. J Exp Psychol. 1935
8. Eriksen BA, Eriksen CW. Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Percept Psychophys. 1974
9. Donders FC. On the speed of mental processes (translation of the 1868 paper). Acta Psychol. 1969
10. Ball KK, et al. Age and visual search: expanding the useful field of view. J Opt Soc Am A. 1988
11. Pylyshyn ZW, Storm RW. Tracking multiple independent targets: evidence for a parallel tracking mechanism. Spat Vis. 1988
12. Lumosity. From lab to laptop: the origins of Lumosity games. 2018

Related guides

• Stroop Test: The Stroop Effect, Experiment and Research
• Flanker Task: Meaning, Example, Scoring and Research
• Go/No-Go Task: Examples, Response Inhibition and Research
• Working Memory Games: What the Training Research Shows
• Visual Brain Training: What It Is, What the Research Says, and How to Practice
• Lumosity vs Elevate vs Peak vs Impulse: Brain Training Apps Compared