Computer brain training helped thinking a little in older adults
HelpedThe short version
Across 51 trials, computer brain training helped overall thinking more than other groups did.

- 51
- studies pooled
- 4,885
- older adults with no thinking problems
- 2 tools
- tested
The review
Who took part
About 4,885 people took part in 52 trials, with average ages of 60 to 82 and about 6 in 10 women. Two in three trials had weak points in how they were run.
What they did
Each trial gave at least four hours of computer or video-game training. The other group either did something else or got no training. Training was in groups in 32 trials and at home in 19; 29 trials trained two or three times a week.
What happened
Training helped thinking a little. Working memory, memory without words and speed also improved. Group training beat home training, but attention and executive functions showed no clear gain.
What the review found
- HelpedOther outcomes
Across 51 trials, computer brain training helped overall thinking more than other groups did.
Pooled analysis of 51 studies · vs groups that did something else or no training · ⚠ most studies had serious flaws; whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited
- No differenceFocus
Across 11 trials, computer brain training did not improve attention test scores any more than other groups did.
Pooled analysis of 11 studies · vs groups that did something else or no training · ⚠ most studies had serious flaws; whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited
- HelpedOther outcomes
Across 32 trials, training done in a group improved overall thinking, but training done at home did not.
Pooled analysis of 32 studies · vs groups that did something else or no training · ⚠ most studies had serious flaws; whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited
- HelpedOther outcomes
Across 29 trials, training two or three times a week improved thinking; more than three a week did not.
Pooled analysis of 29 studies · vs groups that did something else or no training · ⚠ most studies had serious flaws; whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited
How solid is this?
- Large group
- Results look too good to be true
- Numbers unreliable
- Whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited
- Signs that small negative studies went unpublished
Source
Computerized Cognitive Training in Cognitively Healthy Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Effect Modifiers (2014)
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001756 (opens in a new tab)

