Demand far-transfer evidence from brain-training claims

When it fits

• A game, exercise or 'brain training' product claims that getting better at its tasks will broadly improve reasoning, attention, work performance or intelligence.

When to avoid it

• The meta-analysis concerns cognitive-training programs and untrained outcomes. It does not mean targeted practice, rehabilitation or learning a real skill is useless; the transfer distance and population matter.

Checklist

• Was improvement measured only on the trained task or on a genuinely different target outcome?
• Did the study use an active comparison that controls for expectation and engagement?
• Is the claimed benefit durable enough for the use case?
• Would practicing the actual target skill provide a more direct path?

Why it matters

Separate near transfer from far transfer. A large second-order meta-analysis found that cognitive training can improve similar tasks, while broad transfer to dissimilar outcomes was small or null and became null overall after controls for bias and placebo effects. Before investing time or money, ask whether the claimed benefit was measured on the real target skill and against an appropriate control.

Check your result

You can name the target outcome and point to evidence that measures transfer to that outcome rather than performance on the training exercise itself.

Keep this limit in mind

• The meta-analysis concerns cognitive-training programs and untrained outcomes. It does not mean targeted practice, rehabilitation or learning a real skill is useless; the transfer distance and population matter.

Connected ideas