Many programs are also costly and “games” based on laboratory tasks pose implementation concerns in terms of motivation, adherence, and task specialization. Some training programs are plagued by replication failures ( Boot et al., 2008 Owen et al., 2010 Chooi and Thompson, 2012 Redick et al., 2012 Shipstead et al., 2012 Kundu et al., 2013 Thompson et al., 2013), and methodological issues involving only single tests of transfer to cognitive abilities, placebo effects, and the lack of appropriate active control groups ( Boot et al., 2011, 2013). However, there is often insufficient data to support these claims, with many pilot experiments 1 and studies showing improved performance on trained tasks but limited transfer to unpracticed tasks ( Willis and Schaie, 1986 Ball et al., 2002 Green and Bavelier, 2003 Willis et al., 2006 Ackerman et al., 2010 Boot et al., 2010 Owen et al., 2010 Mackey et al., 2011 Lee et al., 2012). What does it mean to “train your brain”? “Brain training games” have increased in popularity over the last decade, with findings and even stronger claims that computer-based tasks of working memory and attention can broadly improve cognition ( Jaeggi et al., 2008 Sternberg, 2008 Karbach and Kray, 2009 Klingberg, 2010 Morrison and Chein, 2011). Still, more research is needed to determine the real-world benefits of computer programs such as casual games. Although there are important caveats, our study sheds light on the mixed effects in the training and transfer literature and offers a novel and potentially practical training approach. Perceived improvements did not differ across training groups and those with low reasoning ability at baseline showed larger gains. No group showed gains in reasoning, working memory, episodic memory, or perceptual speed, but the working memory–reasoning groups improved in divided attention, with better performance in an attention-demanding game, a decreased attentional blink and smaller trail-making costs. Participants improved on the training games, but transfer to untrained tasks was limited. Before and after 15 h of training, participants completed tests of reasoning, working memory, attention, episodic memory, perceptual speed, and self-report measures of executive function, game experience, perceived improvement, knowledge of brain training research, and game play outside the laboratory. A total of 209 young adults were randomized into a working memory–reasoning group, an adaptive working memory–reasoning group, an active control game group, and a no-contact control group. We examined whether casual video games can broadly improve cognition, and selected training games from a study of the relationship between game performance and cognitive abilities. In this study, we addressed these issues by using active control groups, training tasks that more closely resemble real-world demands and multiple tests to determine transfer of training. Assessing generalized improvement and practicality of laboratory exercises complicates interpretation and application of findings. However, benefits are commonly seen only in trained tasks. 5Digital Artefacts LLC, Iowa City, IA, USAīrain training programs have proliferated in recent years, with claims that video games or computer-based tasks can broadly enhance cognitive function.4Department of Psychology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA.3Brain Plasticity Institute, San Francisco, CA, USA.2Department of Psychology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA.1Department of Psychology, Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA.

Casual games