Psychology › Brain & biology › Neuroplasticity: the brain rewires with use
Brain-training games
2007; FTC settlement 2016· Therapy or method
Weak or failed to replicateFamous but not holding up in careful repeats.
Commercial games such as Lumosity promised sharper memory and intelligence; careful trials show gains mostly on the games themselves.
See it on the Psychology map →What it says
Brain training boomed with Nintendo's Brain Age (2005 in Japan) and Lumosity (2007), often sold as protection against mental aging. Players do get better at the trained tasks, and sometimes at very similar ones. But large studies find little 'far transfer' to everyday memory, school grades, work performance or general intelligence. In 2016 Lumosity's maker, Lumos Labs, paid $2 million to settle US Federal Trade Commission charges of deceptive advertising; the $50 million judgment was suspended for inability to pay.
Why it matters
It is a case study of real science stretched into overstated marketing, and a reminder that getting better at a game is not the same as getting smarter.
The evidence
Status: weak. In 2014 about 70 scientists signed a consensus letter rejecting the claims; a rival letter disagreed. A 2016 review led by Daniel Simons and later meta-analyses found little transfer beyond trained tasks.
Open questions
Whether some training helps older adults: in the US ACTIVE trial, speed-of-processing training was linked to 29% lower dementia risk after ten years, a result still debated.
Connections (2)
▸Brain-training games overpromised on Neuroplasticity: the brain rewires with useWell replicated
The connection
Brain-training companies sold neuroplasticity as a promise: since the brain rewires with practice, game drills would strengthen memory and attention for everyday life. The first half is true; practice does change the brain. But the change is mostly specific to the task practiced, so the leap to general sharpness was marketing, not evidence.
Who showed it and when
Lumosity, Posit Science and rivals, mid-2000s to 2010s; the 2014 scientists' consensus statement and the 2016 FTC case against Lumos Labs pushed back.
The evidence
Ads cited plasticity research directly; the FTC complaint documented unsupported claims; independent reviews show gains rarely transfer beyond trained tasks.
Open questions
Whether any kind of mental training transfers broadly, perhaps in older adults or combined with exercise, remains open, with researchers split.
▸Brain-training games claimed to slow Aging: what declines and what doesn'tWeak or failed to replicate
The connection
Companies such as Lumosity marketed puzzle games as a way to keep the aging brain sharp and stave off decline. Players do get better at the games themselves, but large studies find little transfer to everyday memory, thinking or independence. One older trial, ACTIVE, reported possible long-term benefits from speed training, which remain debated.
Who showed it and when
Lumosity launched in 2007; in 2016 its maker paid $2 million to settle Federal Trade Commission charges of deceptive claims. ACTIVE enrolled about 2,800 older Americans from 1998.
How solid is it?
A 2014 consensus statement from about 70 scientists, organized by the Stanford Center on Longevity, and a 2016 review by Daniel Simons and colleagues found no convincing evidence of broad benefits.
Open questions
Whether ACTIVE's speed-training results, including fewer car crashes and possibly lower dementia rates a decade later, are real or chance findings among many outcomes.