Computer memory training helped memory tests, but not thinking or school skills
No differenceThe short version
Across 39 studies, tests unlike the training did not improve more than other groups.

- 39
- studies pooled
- 3,059
- people in 50 studies of computer memory training
- 1 tool
- tested
The review
Who took part
3,059 people took part in 50 studies, from children to older adults. Ages were grouped as children, adults and older adults, and some had a health problem or an intellectual disability.
What they did
Those in the training groups used Cogmed, a computer programme of memory games. Each session lasted 25 to 45 minutes, over about five weeks, usually with school staff or a clinician. The other groups did no training, or another hard mental task.
What happened
Memory tests improved more than in the other groups, and the gain was still there later, though smaller. Tests of attention, reasoning, language and maths did not improve, either straight after training or later. The authors say the programme cannot be recommended as a learning tool.
What the review found
- No difference
Across 39 studies, tests unlike the training did not improve more than other groups.
Pooled analysis of 39 studies · vs people who did no training, or another hard task · ⚠ signs that small negative studies went unpublished; mixes trials with other kinds of study
- Helped
Across 44 studies, memory tests improved more than the other groups did, by a medium amount.
Pooled analysis of 44 studies · vs people who did no training, or another hard task · ⚠ signs that small negative studies went unpublished; mixes trials with other kinds of study
- Helped
Across 23 studies, memory tests still improved more than in the other groups later on, but by less.
Pooled analysis of 23 studies · vs people who did no training, or another hard task · ⚠ signs that small negative studies went unpublished; mixes trials with other kinds of study
- No difference
Later, across 22 studies, tests unlike the training did not improve more than other groups.
Pooled analysis of 22 studies · vs people who did no training, or another hard task · ⚠ mixes trials with other kinds of study
How solid is this?
- Large group
- Unclear how groups were picked
- Mixes trials with other kinds of study
- Signs that small negative studies went unpublished
Source
The cognitive and academic benefits of Cogmed: A meta-analysis (2019)
DOI: 10.1016/j.edurev.2019.04.003 (opens in a new tab)

