The promise of enhanced cognitive function through brain training games has captivated public interest, but the actual benefits of these exercises remain a subject of considerable debate. Recent research conducted by psychologists at UC Riverside and UC Irvine provides valuable new insights into how and for whom brain training is most effective, offering a more nuanced perspective on this widely discussed topic.
Published in Nature Human Behavior, the study focuses on the crucial distinction between “near transfer” and “far transfer.” Near transfer refers to the improvement of skills in tasks closely related to the training activity, such as an improvement in crossword puzzle solving after practicing Wordle. Far transfer, conversely, refers to the extension of these benefits to broader cognitive abilities, such as enhanced focus in daily life or improved abstract reasoning.
The researchers discovered a significant correlation between these two forms of transfer: individuals who demonstrate strong near transfer are significantly more likely to experience far transfer. This finding suggests that proficiency in specific training tasks is a strong predictor of broader cognitive improvements.
To investigate these effects, the researchers conducted three randomized controlled trials involving nearly 500 participants. The consistent results across these trials demonstrated that improvements in untrained but related tasks (near transfer) reliably predicted success in far transfer tasks, such as abstract reasoning.
An analogy can further illustrate this concept. Consider a runner who trains on a treadmill. If this training translates to faster running times outdoors (near transfer), it strongly suggests that they will also perform better in other physical activities, such as cycling or playing sports (far transfer). However, this progression is not guaranteed for everyone. This analogy helps to visualize the different types of transfer.
As Anja Pahor, the study’s lead author and assistant research psychologist at UC Riverside, explains, “Not everyone achieves near transfer. Some people excel at specific tasks during training but fail to apply those skills to related challenges. For these individuals, far transfer is unlikely.”
This finding underscores the complexity of brain training interventions. Factors such as the specific type of training employed, the level of personal engagement from the participant, and the individual’s unique learning style all play significant roles in determining the ultimate outcomes.
The effectiveness of working memory training in improving “fluid intelligence”—the capacity for abstract thought and novel problem-solving—has been a point of contention within the field of psychology. While some meta-analyses have reported small but statistically significant gains, others have argued that there is insufficient evidence to support such claims. This debate highlights the need for more nuanced research.
Aaron Seitz, a coauthor of the study and director of the UCR Brain Game Center for Mental Fitness and Well-Being, emphasizes the importance of differentiating between participants who achieve near transfer and those who do not. This differentiation is essential for accurate analysis.
Seitz notes, “Our research clarifies some of the confusion in previous studies. When near transfer occurs, far transfer is much more likely. However, lumping all participants together, regardless of their individual outcomes, has skewed past findings and made interpreting the effectiveness of brain training interventions difficult.”
The widespread availability of brain training apps has popularized the idea of readily accessible cognitive enhancement. However, as Susanne Jaeggi, a coauthor and director of the UCI Working Memory and Plasticity Lab, cautions, “Companies’ claims that their games improve core cognitive functions need to be carefully evaluated. If we understand how and for whom these apps work, we can design them to deliver more than just entertainment.”
Jaeggi further suggests that improved understanding of brain training mechanisms could have significant implications for specific populations, such as older adults seeking to maintain cognitive health or individuals with conditions that affect memory and focus.
To further investigate these findings, the research team has launched a large-scale citizen science project involving 30,000 participants engaged in various brain training exercises. This initiative, open to anyone over 18, aims to deepen our understanding of how individual differences influence the efficacy of cognitive training.
Supported by funding from the National Institute of Mental Health, this research underscores the potential of brain training to revolutionize cognitive enhancement—provided it is approached with careful evaluation and targeted application.
This groundbreaking research offers a more nuanced understanding of brain training, acknowledging its potential benefits while emphasizing the need for personalized approaches. For those considering utilizing brain training apps or games, the key takeaway is clear: while these tools can be effective, their success is contingent upon individual factors and the quality of the training itself.
As scientific understanding of the complexities of human cognition continues to advance, these insights pave the way for more effective methods of enhancing mental fitness, offering promise not only for entertainment but also for meaningful and potentially life-altering cognitive improvements.