By Betsy Hill and Roger Stark
Debate continues around cognitive training—also known as brain training—with many people expressing healthy skepticism. That skepticism is valuable, especially when programs claim to affect learning, attention, or overall wellbeing. At the same time, an open, evidence-focused approach helps determine which programs are effective. Below are common concerns we hear from skeptics and how to evaluate them.
- I can’t find enough research on the value of these programs.
Research quality varies widely across cognitive training offerings. Some programs are backed by rigorous, peer‑reviewed studies and field research in real classrooms; others have little or no published evidence. When evaluating any program, prioritize those with independent, peer‑reviewed research, and studies conducted in authentic settings (for example, standard school assessments already in use, rather than tests administered solely for a promotional study).
Equally important is whether the research measures meaningful transfer. Improvement on an in‑program task does not necessarily translate into better grades, work performance, or daily functioning. The strongest studies combine independent cognitive assessments with academic and behavioral outcomes to show whether gains generalize beyond the training exercises.
- How will I really know if the program is delivering meaningful results?
Many brain‑training platforms report progress using their own built‑in metrics. While these measures show practice effects, they can be misleading. Repeated exposure to a specific game usually leads to better scores on that same game, but this alone does not prove broader cognitive or academic improvement. To determine meaningful impact, insist on independent assessments of cognitive skills—such as working memory and attention—and on measurements that reflect real‑world outcomes, like academic performance, classroom behavior, or workplace productivity.
- My student’s IQ is already high; would training still help?
IQ and specific cognitive skills are related but distinct. A high overall IQ does not guarantee evenly distributed cognitive strengths. Some highly intelligent students have weaknesses in working memory, attention, or processing speed—often referred to as “twice‑exceptional” when combined with learning disabilities. Cognitive training targets those underlying skills, which can be strengthened even in high performers, sometimes enabling students to better access their full learning potential. In practice, schools report both increased eligibility for gifted programs and reduced skill gaps for students with specific learning challenges after targeted cognitive interventions.
- My student’s IQ is low; can training still make a difference?
For those who have struggled historically, the usual approach has been to rely on accommodations and curriculum adjustments—strategies designed to work around weak cognitive skills. That implicit assumption—that underlying skills cannot be changed—is being challenged by research showing cognitive skills are trainable. Peer‑reviewed studies have documented improvements in working memory, attention, and other core processes among students with learning disabilities, with many closing much of the gap between themselves and typically developing peers. When effective training is paired with appropriate teaching, students previously thought limited by low scores can make measurable cognitive and academic gains.
Skepticism often invites direct observation, which can be the most persuasive evidence. We recently heard from a clinician working with a very skeptical mother who wanted to see change for her son, a student with dyscalculia. After consistent work, the clinician reported a visible, concrete shift: the child began ordering numbers automatically—no visual tricks or compensatory strategies needed. His mother, initially doubtful, was stunned by the improvement.
That kind of real‑world change captures the central point: targeted cognitive training that is well designed, evidence informed, and independently evaluated can produce observable benefits for a range of learners. Reasonable skepticism should prompt careful evaluation of evidence, not wholesale dismissal of the approach.
About the authors
Betsy Hill is President of BrainWare Learning Company, which applies neuroscience to practical learning solutions. An experienced educator, she has studied neuroscience and education with experts such as Dr. Patricia Wolfe and has served as chair of the board of trustees at Chicago State University. Betsy also teaches strategic thinking in the MBA program at Lake Forest Graduate School of Management and holds a Master of Arts in Teaching and an MBA from Northwestern University.
Roger Stark is Co‑founder and CEO of BrainWare Learning Company. Over the past decade he has led efforts to make comprehensive cognitive literacy training and assessment more accessible. He helped develop BrainWare SAFARI, an integrated online cognitive skills training system grounded in clinical practice and research. Under his guidance, the product has become one of the most extensively researched cognitive training tools delivered online.