25

What are the benefits over just playing a normal game? Sites such as Lumosity claim they are training your brain and making you smarter using "what seems like games".

Is there any scientific evidence from independent studies?

Larian LeQuella
  • 44,977
  • 18
  • 187
  • 208
Samuelson
  • 3,781
  • 2
  • 29
  • 44
  • 3
    possible duplicate of [What's the evidence that playing sudokus will improve your mental abilities?](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1032/whats-the-evidence-that-playing-sudokus-will-improve-your-mental-abilities) – Konrad Rudolph Mar 23 '11 at 10:33
  • 2
    @Konrad: This is not an *exact* duplicate. It might be too broad though – Casebash Mar 23 '11 at 10:49
  • @Casebash … hmm. I thought the underlying principle between these games and sudoku was identical … – Konrad Rudolph Mar 23 '11 at 11:38
  • i don't see these questions as identical at all. Playing sudoku and playing brain games are entirely different activities. – Samuelson Mar 23 '11 at 11:41
  • and in addition, an answer for one of the questions would not necessarily answer the other one. – Samuelson Mar 23 '11 at 11:43
  • I'd suggest changing the question to asking whether there's evidence in favor of any of the brain games, since there's a variety of them and some may be useful and some not. – David Thornley Mar 23 '11 at 18:13
  • @stickman Then you might want to specify what you understand by “brain games”. For me, sudoku is a brain training game and as far as I understand the research, it’s treated as similar. The claim that they are “entirely different activities” is almost certainly false. – Konrad Rudolph Mar 24 '11 at 12:31
  • @Konrad - If you got relevant research suggesting the effects are similar, maybe you could post that in an answer? But the only thing I see that are common is that they both stimulate brain activity. By that logic, a question about whether learning a different language or doing zigsaw puzzles makes you smarter should also be treated as a duplicate. – Samuelson Mar 24 '11 at 23:38
  • @Konrad - And by the way, what I mean by "brain games" are the Nintendo DS or phone apps which allege to train your brain. – Samuelson Mar 24 '11 at 23:43
  • @stickman I agree that all of those games possibly admit a distinct answer. But if you had actually looked at the other question you would have seen an answer that explicitly encompasses all those brain training games. – Konrad Rudolph Mar 25 '11 at 07:57
  • What's the operational definition of "smarter" here? – Anko - inactive in protest May 05 '15 at 11:22

3 Answers3

7

There's probably a different answer for different games.

In 2008 there was a study that showed that a specific game called Dual-n-Back improves fluid intelligence. There are Android and iPhone versions of the game.

As far as Brain Age for the Nintendo DS goes, Nintendo doesn't claim that it based on sound science. They see the game primarily as entertainment.

Christian
  • 33,271
  • 15
  • 112
  • 266
3

According to a statement released by the Stanford University Center on Longevity and the Berlin Max Planck Institute for Human Development, there is no solid scientific evidence to back up the promise that brain training video games make you smarter.

Signed by 70 of the world’s leading cognitive psychologists and neuroscientists, the statement minces no words:

The strong consensus of this group is that the scientific literature does not support claims that the use of software-based “brain games” alters neural functioning in ways that improve general cognitive performance in everyday life, or prevent cognitive slowing and brain disease.

The statement also cautions that although some brain training companies:

present lists of credentialed scientific consultants and keep registries of scientific studies pertinent to cognitive training…the cited research is [often] only tangentially related to the scientific claims of the company, and to the games they sell.

Additional Information: See this.

George Chalhoub
  • 30,246
  • 14
  • 129
  • 136
1

There have been some studies, and as one might expect, the results have been mixed.

Here are two BBC reports of two different studies pointing in different directions

Henry
  • 13,472
  • 1
  • 54
  • 62
  • 7
    You could *greatly improve* your answer by looking at *what the studies actually say*, instead of reporting press articles. :-) – Sklivvz Mar 23 '11 at 11:06
  • 1
    @Sklivvz: Assuming you mean *answer* rather than *question*, my aim was to show that the evidence is mixed. For that purpose, the headlines are sufficient to indicate that different studies have reached different conclusions, and both were credible enough to get media attention. – Henry Mar 23 '11 at 11:58
  • Thanks corrected. My point is/was: do the study actually reach different conclusions, or is it an artefact of bad reporting by the BBC? – Sklivvz Mar 23 '11 at 12:02
  • 1
    neither, Sklivvz (at least not necessarilly). It all depends on the chosen test subjects, the chosen games, the conditions under which the tests were performed. My guess is that if there's any effect it'll be marginal and thus only come out of the noise under very specific conditions, designed to make the random spread in results as small as possible and the possible effect if any as large as possible. – jwenting Mar 25 '11 at 05:59