Do brain games
actually work?

Short version: brain games reliably make you better at brain games. Whether that improvement reaches anything outside the game is where the evidence thins out fast. Here is what the major studies found, in order of how much weight they can bear.

The review that reset expectations

In 2016 seven psychologists led by Daniel Simons examined every study cited by brain-training companies in support of their products: 132 papers in all.^[1] Their conclusion was blunt. Training produced improvements on the trained tasks, and sometimes on very similar tasks, but the evidence for improvement on distantly related tasks or everyday functioning was weak. Many studies lacked active control groups, were small, or measured outcomes so close to the training that improvement was almost guaranteed.

The same year the US Federal Trade Commission settled with Lumos Labs, maker of Lumosity, for $2 million.^[3] The complaint said the company had claimed its games would help users perform better at work and school and reduce or delay age-related cognitive impairment, and that it did not have the evidence to support any of it. The order required human clinical testing before any similar claim in future.

The biggest single experiment

Six years earlier, a BBC-backed study had recruited 11,430 people to train online several times a week for six weeks on tasks designed to improve reasoning, memory, planning, visuospatial skill and attention.^[2] Participants improved on every task they practised. On untrained tasks, even ones that were closely related, there was no transfer at all. The paper’s title, “Putting brain training to the test”, is still the fairest summary.

What the long trials add

The strongest positive evidence comes from ACTIVE, a randomised trial of 2,832 older adults given ten sessions of memory, reasoning or speed-of-processing training with boosters.^[4] At ten years the reasoning and speed groups still outperformed controls on the abilities they had trained, and all trained groups reported less difficulty with everyday tasks such as managing medication and finances. The memory-training arm, by contrast, showed no lasting effect. The pattern is consistent with the review: training sticks to what it trains.

The PROTECT trial randomised 6,742 adults over fifty to six months of general cognitive training, reasoning training or a control task.^[5] Both training groups showed a small but statistically reliable benefit on a measure of everyday functioning, with effect sizes around 0.15, in line with in-person training programmes. Small, real, and nothing like the marketing.

What experts recommend instead

The Global Council on Brain Health, an AARP-convened panel, reviewed the field in 2017 and concluded that evidence for commercial brain games improving everyday function was insufficient.^[6] Its recommendation was for cognitively stimulating activity that is novel, highly engaging, mentally challenging and enjoyable: learning a language or instrument, taking a class, volunteering, or a demanding hobby. Puzzles can be part of that mix. They are not a substitute for it.

Where that leaves Brisk

Brisk is six short puzzles a day. We make no claim that playing it improves your memory, protects your brain or measures anything about your intelligence. What it offers is a couple of minutes of genuine thinking, a shared challenge, a streak to keep, and answers that explain themselves. If the research changes, this page will change with it. For the parts of the evidence that do support short, daily, varied practice, see why a few minutes a day.