← Blog

Right Brain · Reading

Do Brain-Training Games Actually Work? What the Evidence Says

It's the question every "train your brain" app should have to answer plainly: play the game for weeks, and does anything change outside the game? You'll certainly get better at the game — but a smarter, sharper everyday mind is a much bigger claim. Researchers call the gap between the two transfer, and it's where most of the brain-training industry quietly overreaches. Here's a calm, graded tour of what the science actually shows. Take in the whole. Before the parts.

By ComunAI · 29 June 2026 · ~6 min read

The thing everyone confuses: practice effects vs. transfer

Two very different things get bundled under "it works." The first is the practice effect: do any task repeatedly and you improve at it. That's real, reliable, and almost trivial — your score going up on the app is mostly this. The second is transfer: does that improvement carry to untrained abilities and to daily life? Near transfer (to very similar tasks) sometimes appears; far transfer (to general intelligence, memory, or "being sharper") is the prize the marketing implies — and it's the hard part.¹ Strong Keeping these apart is the whole game.

The famous null results

When the claims were put to a fair test, they mostly didn't hold. In a large study run with the BBC, more than 11,000 people trained on brain-game tasks for six weeks. They got better at the trained tasks — and showed no meaningful improvement on untrained tests of reasoning and memory.² Strong The pattern repeats for one of the most-studied regimens: meta-analyses of working-memory training find reliable short-term gains on tasks like the one trained, but little convincing evidence of far transfer to intelligence or everyday cognition.³ Strong

Where the picture is more encouraging

It isn't all null. The cleanest positive result comes from a specific kind of training in a specific population. In the large ACTIVE randomised trial, older adults given speed-of-processing training — essentially practice at quickly taking in a busy visual scene — showed lasting gains, and later follow-ups linked it to real-world outcomes such as safer driving.⁴ Moderate Separately, people who play fast action video games tend to score better on some tests of visual attention, and a few training studies suggest the games cause part of that edge.⁵ Contested Real signals — but narrow, specific, and not a general "brain boost."

Why the field itself disagreed publicly

This isn't a settled story being mis-sold by a few bad actors — the scientists genuinely split. Around 2014, two groups of researchers issued opposing consensus statements: one cautioning that the marketing outran the evidence, another pointing to studies they read as promising. That public disagreement is itself the fair summary: meaningful far transfer is possible in places, unproven as a general claim, and easy to overstate.

So how should you read any brain-training claim?

• Separate the score from the benefit. "Users improve 40%" almost always means improvement on the app's own task — the practice effect — not on anything in your life.
• Ask what it transferred to, and how it was measured. Untrained tasks and real-world outcomes count; a higher in-app number doesn't.
• Be wary of a single "brain score." Cognition isn't one dial, and a tidy number is a marketing device more than a measurement.
• Treat far-transfer promises as the weakest link. That's exactly where the strongest studies have come up empty.^2,3

What that means for Right Brain

We'd rather tell you this plainly than sell past it. Right Brain is a set of perception games, and we don't claim they'll raise your IQ, fix your memory, or make you measurably sharper off-screen — those are precisely the far-transfer claims the evidence doesn't support. What's real is the perception itself: the way your mind groups a scene, takes in a gist at a glance, or gets fooled by an illusion. Those phenomena are beautifully studied and genuinely fun to play with. Whether the play transfers beyond the screen is open — so we grade every game rather than promise an outcome.

A necessary aside: the left-brain / right-brain myth

Because of the app's name: the popular idea that people are "left-brained" (logical) or "right-brained" (creative) is not supported by the brain data. A study of resting-state functional connectivity in over a thousand people found lateralisation is a local property of particular networks — there's no whole-brain bias making someone a left- or right-brain "type."⁶ Strong "Right Brain" is a metaphor for an open, whole-first mode of attention — nothing more. We keep the metaphor and the evidence clearly apart.