Letter | Published:

Putting brain training to the test

Nature volume 465, pages 775778 (10 June 2010) | Download Citation


‘Brain training’, or the goal of improved cognitive function through the regular use of computerized tests, is a multimillion-pound industry1, yet in our view scientific evidence to support its efficacy is lacking. Modest effects have been reported in some studies of older individuals2,3 and preschool children4, and video-game players outperform non-players on some tests of visual attention5. However, the widely held belief that commercially available computerized brain-training programs improve general cognitive function in the wider population in our opinion lacks empirical support. The central question is not whether performance on cognitive tests can be improved by training, but rather, whether those benefits transfer to other untrained tasks or lead to any general improvement in the level of cognitive functioning. Here we report the results of a six-week online study in which 11,430 participants trained several times each week on cognitive tasks designed to improve reasoning, memory, planning, visuospatial skills and attention. Although improvements were observed in every one of the cognitive tasks that were trained, no evidence was found for transfer effects to untrained tasks, even when those tasks were cognitively closely related.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.


  1. 1.

    & Exercise on the brain. The New York Times〉 (2007)

  2. 2.

    , & Immediate and delayed effects of cognitive interventions in healthy elderly: a review of current literature and future directions. Alzheimers Dement. 5, 50–60 (2009)

  3. 3.

    et al. A cognitive training program designed based on principles of brain plasticity: results from the improvement in memory with plasticity-based adaptive cognitive training study. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 57, 594–603 (2009)

  4. 4.

    , , , & Training and transfer effects of executive functions in preschool children. Dev. Sci. 12, 106–113 (2009)

  5. 5.

    & Action video game modifies visual selective attention. Nature 423, 534–537 (2003)

  6. 6.

    A three-minute reasoning test based on grammatical transformation. Psychometric Sci. 10, 341–342 (1968)

  7. 7.

    , , & Verbal working memory impairment in schizophrenia patients and their first-degree relatives: evidence from the digit span task. Am. J. Psychiatry 157, 275–277 (2000)

  8. 8.

    et al. Effects of methylphenidate on spatial working memory and planning in healthy young adults. Psychopharmacology (Berl.) 131, 196–206 (1997)

  9. 9.

    et al. Methylphenidate enhances working memory by modulating discrete frontal and parietal lobe regions in the human brain. J. Neurosci. 20, RC65 (2000)

  10. 10.

    , , , & Planning and spatial working memory following frontal lobe lesions in man. Neuropsychologia 28, 1021–1034 (1990)

  11. 11.

    et al. A comparative study of visuospatial memory and learning in Alzheimer-type dementia and Parkinson’s disease. Brain 111, 695–718 (1988)

  12. 12.

    et al. Cognitive enhancing effects of modafinil in healthy volunteers. Psychopharmacology (Berl.) 165, 260–269 (2003)

  13. 13.

    et al. Visuospatial memory deficits at different stages of Parkinson’s disease. Neuropsychologia 31, 627–644 (1993)

  14. 14.

    Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences 2nd edn (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1988)

  15. 15.

    , & Neural mechanisms of general fluid intelligence. Nature Neurosci. 6, 316–322 (2003)

  16. 16.

    et al. Executive function and fluid intelligence after frontal lobe lesions. Brain 133, 234–247 (2010)

  17. 17.

    , , , & Neural correlates of fluid reasoning in children and adults. Frontiers Human Neurosci. 1, 1–8 (2008)

  18. 18.

    , , & Planning and spatial working memory examined with positron emission tomography (PET). Eur. J. Neurosci. 8, 353–364 (1996)

  19. 19.

    , , , & Catechol O-methyltransferase val158met genotype influences frontoparietal activity during planning in patients with Parkinson’s disease. J. Neurosci. 27, 4832–4838 (2007)

  20. 20.

    et al. A neural basis for general intelligence. Science 289, 457–460 (2000)

  21. 21.

    , & Fluid intelligence after frontal lobe lesions. Neuropsychologia 33, 261–268 (1995)

  22. 22.

    , , , & Double dissociations of memory and executive functions in working memory tasks following frontal lobe excisions, temporal lobe excisions or amygdalo-hippocampectomy in man. Brain 119, 1597–1615 (1996)

  23. 23.

    et al. Frontostriatal cognitive deficits at different stages of Parkinson’s disease. Brain 115, 1727–1751 (1992)

  24. 24.

    et al. Visuospatial memory and learning in first episode schizophreniform psychosis and established schizophrenia: a functional correlate of hippocampal pathology. Psychol. Med. 32, 429–443 (2002)

  25. 25.

    et al. Guanfacine and clonidine, alpha 2-agonists, improve paired associates learning, but not delayed matching to sample, in humans. Neuropsychopharmacology 20, 119–130 (1999)

  26. 26.

    , , , & Computerized delayed matching to sample and paired associate performance in the early detection of dementia. Appl. Neuropsychol. 2, 72–78 (1995)

  27. 27.

    , , , & Frontal lobe involvement in spatial span: Converging studies of normal and impaired function. Neuropsychologia 44, 229–237 (2005)

  28. 28.

    in Spatial Abilities (ed. Potegal, M.) 325–360 (New York, 1982)

  29. 29.

    Memory of monkeys (Macaca mulatta) with lesions in prefrontal cortex. Behav. Neurosci. 99, 3–21 (1985)

Download references


A.M.O., A.H. and J.A.G. are supported by the Medical Research Council (U.1055.01.002.00001.01 and U.1055.01.003.00001.01). C.G.B. and S.D. are supported by the Alzheimer’s Society (UK). We thank the BBC Lab UK team for their contribution, which included the website, task design, data acquisition, recruitment of participants and coordination.

Author information


  1. MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, 15 Chaucer Road, Cambridge CB2 7EF, UK

    • Adrian M. Owen
    • , Adam Hampshire
    •  & Jessica A. Grahn
  2. King’s College London, Institute of Psychiatry, De Crespigny Park, London SE5 8AF, UK

    • Robert Stenton
    • , Said Dajani
    • , Robert J. Howard
    •  & Clive G. Ballard
  3. University of Manchester and Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester M13 9PL, UK

    • Alistair S. Burns


  1. Search for Adrian M. Owen in:

  2. Search for Adam Hampshire in:

  3. Search for Jessica A. Grahn in:

  4. Search for Robert Stenton in:

  5. Search for Said Dajani in:

  6. Search for Alistair S. Burns in:

  7. Search for Robert J. Howard in:

  8. Search for Clive G. Ballard in:


A.M.O. co-designed the study, co-designed the training tasks, designed (with A.H.) the benchmarking tests provided by http://www.cambridgebrainsciences.com, co-conducted the statistical analysis, interpreted the data and took overall responsibility for writing each draft of the manuscript. A.H. contributed to the design of the training tasks, designed (with A.M.O.) and programmed the benchmarking tests provided by http://www.cambridgebrainsciences.com, co-conducted the statistical analysis and contributed to each draft of the manuscript. J.A.G. co-conducted the statistical analysis, contributed to the interpretation of the data, co-wrote the first draft of the manuscript and contributed to each subsequent version. R.S. designed the data capture, data checking and data cleaning protocols and was responsible for converting data into a format for analysis and for the delivery of the trial database for statistical analysis. He was part of the project management group and contributed to each draft of the manuscript. S.D. contributed to the design of the study, piloted brain training modules, contributed to the design and implementation of the recruitment and retention strategies, was part of the project management group and contributed to each draft of the manuscript. A.S.B. was chair of the independent trial steering committee and advised on key aspects of study design and implementation in this capacity. He also contributed to each draft of the manuscript. R.J.H. advised on key aspects of general study design, contributed to the design of the training tasks and contributed to each draft of the manuscript. C.G.B. jointly conceived of and jointly designed the study and wrote the first draft of the protocol. He was part of the project management group, co-conducted the statistical evaluation, contributed to the interpretation of the data and contributed to each draft of the manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adrian M. Owen.

Supplementary information

PDF files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Information

    This file contains Supplementary Figures 1-2 with legends.

About this article

Publication history






Further reading


By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.