How games affect the brain
The short answer: games really do change how the brain works, but much less and in a much narrower way than ads promise. Each game trains its own skills, and no game makes a person "smarter at everything"
In January 2016, the US Federal Trade Commission fined the company Lumosity 2 million dollars. Lumosity sold a subscription to a "brain trainer": a few minutes of mini games a day. The ads promised that it would help people work better, study better and even delay Alzheimer's disease. The Commission decided that there was no scientific proof behind these promises
How did this happen? The idea seemed logical: you can train the brain like a muscle. To understand what went wrong, we need to look at what scientists have learned about games over the last twenty years. And they have learned a lot, about video games, sports, chess and board games
When you practice something for a long time, you get better at it. That surprises no one. The real question is different: does the improvement spread to anything else? Scientists call this transfer and they talk about two kinds
Near transfer means the skill improves in tasks that are very similar to the training. Far transfer means the skill carries over to something quite different, like school, work or general intelligence
Here is what it looks like in practice:
| What you practiced | Near transfer | Far transfer |
|---|---|---|
| Chess | You see chess patterns better | Better math grades? |
| Memory exercises | You do better on similar memory tests | Smarter in general? |
| Shooter games | You spot targets on the screen faster | More attentive while driving? |
| Spanish words | You remember Spanish words | Better at remembering coworkers' names? |
Near transfer almost always works. Far transfer is much harder, and it is the topic scientists have argued about for twenty years. In fact, Lumosity was selling far transfer: play our games and you will get better at everything else
Before we look at the results, it helps to know three ideas. Without them, any numbers about games are easy to misread
The "snapshot" study. Scientists take people who play a lot and people who don't play, and compare them. Let's say the players turn out to be more attentive. But why? Maybe games trained their attention. Or maybe attentive people simply prefer fast games. A snapshot shows a link, but not the cause
The experiment. Scientists take people who have not played before and split them into two groups at random. One group plays the game being studied for a few weeks, the other plays something calm. Then both groups take tests. If the first group improved more, the game is the reason. Experiments with random groups are the most reliable way to check
The meta-analysis. This is a "study of studies". One study can be wrong by chance, so scientists collect all the experiments on a topic and calculate the overall result
One last thing: how to read the size of an effect. Imagine you pick one random person from the trained group and one from the normal group. How often will the trained person do better?
Notice that snapshots always show a bigger effect than experiments. The difference is the people who were attentive to begin with, and that is why they came to love games
Over twenty years, science changed its mind about video games three times. First came excitement, then disappointment, and now a calm and modest conclusion
In the early 2000s, researchers found that shooter fans divide their attention better and notice details faster. Then came experiments where people with no gaming experience played action games for a few weeks and improved their test scores. It looked like a simple way to boost the brain had been found. A whole "brain training" industry grew on this wave
Then psychologists Giovanni Sala and Fernand Gobet gathered dozens of experiments and checked them together. The conclusion was harsh. Memory exercises, brain training apps, chess, music and video games did not give reliable far transfer. People got better at what they practiced. But it barely affected school, work or general intelligence
They noticed a simple pattern: the more the training looks like the final test, the stronger the effect. The less it looks like it, the closer the effect is to zero. This is exactly when Lumosity got its fine
Today the pendulum has stopped in the middle. A new meta-analysis published in summer 2026 combined 133 studies and more than 14,000 people. The link between games and brain abilities turned out to be positive, but small. Players do slightly better at tasks involving memory, attention, finding their way in space and self-control
The effect is real, but it is not magic. It is like a small advantage, not a transformation into a genius
"Action", "strategy" and "puzzle" are store categories, not scientific ones. Games inside one genre can demand very different things. One makes you track a dozen objects at once, another just asks you to press a button quickly
A 2023 study that combined 63 experiments showed that the genre does not predict the benefit. Specific game mechanics do. For example, whether you have to act under time pressure, follow many things at once or plan ahead. The brain trains exactly what the game asks of it
In 2022, a well-known study of 2,000 children aged 9 to 10 came out. Children who played three or more hours a day did slightly better on tests of memory and of stopping themselves at the right moment. Headlines said that video games are good for kids
Six months later, the article was withdrawn and replaced with a corrected version because of errors in the calculations. After the fix, the authors made clear that the difference between the groups was very small. And according to outlets that track scientific errors, the young gamers had more problems with attention and mood
Most importantly, it was a snapshot, not an experiment. So we cannot say what is the cause here and what is the result. A good lesson: don't trust the first headline about games, whether it is excited or scary
Physical activity is one of the few things that affects the brain broadly, not just one skill. But there is an important exception here too
In 2024, Spanish and American scientists gathered 14 experiments with 3,200 children aged 5 to 14. Some children regularly did PE, running and active games, others did not. The children who moved scored on average about 4 IQ points higher on intelligence tests. That is not much, but it is noticeable, and the effect showed up in children of different ages and starting levels
A later study added an interesting detail: balance exercises combined with a mental task worked best. For example, keeping your balance while counting or memorizing something. It seems the body and the brain train better when they work together
In adults the picture is similar but more modest. Exercise keeps blood vessels healthy, and that means the brain too. But here as well, loud early claims had to be toned down: better memory cannot always be directly linked to the brain changes seen on scans
Football (soccer) is a good example of how sport is not always good for the brain. The Scottish FIELD study compared almost 7,700 former professional footballers with 23,000 ordinary people of the same age
Overall, the footballers were healthier: they died less often from heart disease and lung cancer. But diseases in which brain cells break down were much more common among them. Their risk of Alzheimer's disease was about five times higher
Another study, FOCUS, looked closer at the cause. The more often a player headed the ball, the higher the risk of memory and thinking problems in old age. Those who headed the ball more than 15 times a match had about 3.5 times the risk
The takeaway: running, moving and playing in a team are good for the brain. Repeated hits to the head are harmful, even if each one seems harmless
People who play board games throughout their lives tend to keep their memory better in old age. But no one has yet proven that the games themselves are the reason
With age, memory and thinking speed slowly decline, and that is normal. For some people the decline becomes an illness: dementia, in which a person loses their memory and the ability to manage everyday life. That is why scientists look closely at which habits are linked to a "younger" brain
In France, researchers followed 3,700 older people for 20 years. Those who regularly played cards, checkers and other board games developed dementia 15% less often. Their memory also declined more slowly, and they had depression less often
In Scotland, a study ran even longer. People were tested at age 11, in 1947, and then again at 70, 73, 76 and 79. Those who played board games more often lost memory and thinking speed more slowly
But the authors honestly warn that these are observations, not experiments. Maybe games protect the brain. Or maybe people with a sharp memory simply play games and meet others more often. Most likely, both are true. One important detail: board games are almost always social, and spending time with people is good for the brain on its own
If each game trains something different, it makes sense to combine them. Research supports this, although the extra benefit is moderate
Putting together everything above, we can draw a map of what each format roughly trains:
| Format | What it trains | Limits |
|---|---|---|
| Fast video games | Attention, reaction speed, sense of space | Small effect, barely carries over to studying |
| Strategy games and puzzles | Planning, problem solving | The benefit depends on mechanics, not genre |
| Active games and sports | Overall brain health, and in children a little intelligence | Hits to the head are harmful |
| Board games | Memory and thinking in the long run, social contact | Evidence so far comes only from observation |
| Focused memorizing | Memory for specific material | Works only for what you study |
Now about combining. Scientists tested programs for older adults that mixed physical exercise with mental tasks. A 2021 meta-analysis of these experiments found a small but reliable benefit for both thinking and the body. The best version was doing both at the same time, for example walking while counting in your head
Another large review, 50 studies with more than 6,000 people, compared these combinations with mental training alone. The combination gave a small advantage for self-control and planning. For memory and attention, the results were about the same
This is an important and honest conclusion. Combining does not multiply the effects, it adds them up. You train more different abilities at once, but each one is still trained "narrowly"
Games develop the brain in a "specialized" way. Each one trains its own set of abilities, and none of them alone will turn a person into a genius. But a mix of different activities covers more sides of thinking than any one of them on its own
If we boil twenty years of research down to a few rules, we get this:
What does this mean for memorizing? It is probably the best news in the whole story. Near transfer, meaning improvement in exactly what you practice, works reliably. So if you need to remember foreign words, formulas or dates, the most science-backed way is to train your memory on that very material. Not abstract "brain boosting", but regular review of what you actually need to know
And game elements like points, streaks and levels are not there to make you smarter. They help you keep going. Research shows these elements clearly increase people's sense of freedom of choice and connection with others. And when learning is pleasant, you come back to the material again and again, and it is the repetition that does the real work
Start learning with QuintaCapsa →
See you in the next one