Journal of Psychology and Cognition

All submissions of the EM system will be redirected to Online Manuscript Submission System. Authors are requested to submit articles directly to Online Manuscript Submission System of respective journal.
Reach Us +441518081136

Commentary - Journal of Psychology and Cognition (2025) Volume 10, Issue 1

Can Cognitive Training Improve Brain Function?

Katsushima Eiji*

Institute of Social Medicine, Occupational Health and Public Health (ISAP),University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany

*Corresponding Author:
Katsushima Eiji
Institute of Social Medicine
Occupational Health and Public Health (ISAP)
University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany
E-mail: kastussji@.de

Received: 03-Jan-2025, Manuscript No. AAJPC-25-166647; Editor assigned: 04-Jan-2025, PreQC No. AAJPC-25-166647 (PQ); Reviewed: 18-Jan-2025, QC No. AAJPC-25-166647; Revised: 23-Jan-2025, Manuscript No. AAJPC-25-166647 (R); Published: 30-Jan-2025, DOI: 10.35841/aajpc-10.1.273

Citation: Eiji k. Can cognitive training improve brain function? J Psychol Cognition..2025;10 (1):273

Visit for more related articles at Journal of Psychology and Cognition

Introduction

In a world where mental agility is increasingly valued, the concept of cognitive training has garnered widespread attention. With the promise of enhanced memory, sharper attention, and improved problem-solving abilities, cognitive training is often marketed as a tool for boosting brain function. But what does science say? Can regular engagement in mental exercises truly enhance cognitive capabilities, or is the hype ahead of the evidence? [1].

Cognitive training, sometimes referred to as brain training, involves structured activities or exercises designed to improve specific cognitive functions. These can include memory, attention, executive function, visual-spatial reasoning, and processing speed. Cognitive training can take many forms, from traditional paper-based tasks and puzzles to modern digital platforms and video games tailored to stimulate specific areas of the brain [2].

The theoretical foundation of cognitive training lies in neuroplasticity—the brain’s ability to reorganize itself by forming new neural connections throughout life. This adaptability is especially prominent in early development but continues into adulthood and even old age. Research has shown that mental stimulation can induce structural and functional changes in the brain, suggesting that targeted cognitive exercises could potentially lead to improved performance in specific cognitive domains [3].

Numerous studies have investigated the effects of cognitive training across different age groups and cognitive domains. One of the largest and most cited studies is the ACTIVE (Advanced Cognitive Training for Independent and Vital Elderly) trial, which followed older adults over a ten-year period. The study found that participants who received cognitive training in reasoning and processing speed exhibited improvements in those specific domains and even showed some real-world benefits, such as better maintenance of daily living skills [4].

Other research has demonstrated that cognitive training can improve working memory and attention in children and young adults. For instance, training programs such as Cogmed have shown modest improvements in attention and working memory, particularly in populations with ADHD [5].

A key question in cognitive training research is whether improvements on trained tasks transfer to other untrained tasks or real-life functioning—a phenomenon known as "far transfer." While many studies show "near transfer" (improvements in tasks similar to those practiced), evidence for far transfer remains limited and inconsistent. For example, while a person might become better at playing a memory game, it doesn’t necessarily mean they will remember their grocery list more easily [6].

Another concern is the "practice effect," where performance improves simply due to repeated exposure to the same or similar tasks, rather than true cognitive enhancement. Critics also point out that some commercial brain-training products may overstate their benefits without sufficient scientific backing [7].

An often overlooked factor in cognitive training is the role of individual motivation and engagement. People who are more motivated may participate more consistently and intensely in training programs, leading to better outcomes. Additionally, training that is gamified or designed to be enjoyable can lead to higher adherence and better results [8]

There is also evidence that combining cognitive training with other lifestyle interventions—such as physical exercise, healthy diet, social engagement, and adequate sleep—can have a synergistic effect on brain health. This multi-modal approach is considered more effective than cognitive training alon [9].

So, should you invest your time or money in a brain training app? The answer depends on your goals and expectations. If you're looking to improve performance in specific cognitive tasks or manage certain cognitive deficits, structured training may offer benefits—especially when guided by evidence-based programs. However, for general cognitive enhancement, the most effective strategy might still be maintaining an intellectually stimulating and socially active lifestyle.Simple activities like reading, learning a new language, playing musical instruments, or engaging in strategic games like chess can naturally stimulate multiple brain areas. When paired with regular physical activity and a balanced diet, these activities contribute holistically to brain health [10].

Conclusion

Cognitive training holds promise for enhancing certain aspects of brain function, especially in targeted domains like memory, attention, and processing speed. However, the extent of its benefits—particularly in terms of far transfer to everyday life—remains a topic of ongoing research and debate. While brain training alone may not be a miracle cure for cognitive decline or a shortcut to genius, it can be a valuable component of a broader brain-healthy lifestyle. As with most things in neuroscience, a balanced, evidence-informed approach remains the wisest path forward.

References

  1. Sala M, Shankar Ram S, Vanzhula IA, et al. Mindfulness and eating disorder psychopathology: A meta-analysis. Int J Eat Disord. 2020;53(6):834-51.

    2. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  2. Smoller JW, Andreassen OA, Edenberg HJ, et al. Psychiatric genetics and the structure of psychopathology. Mol Psychiatry. 2019;24(3):409-20.

    3. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  3. Holm-Hadulla RM, Hofmann FH, Sperth M, et al. Creativity and psychopathology: An interdisciplinary view. Psychopathology. 2021;54(1):39-46.

    4. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  4. Kalin NH. Insights into the genomic underpinnings of psychopathology. Am J Psychiatry. 2022;179(3):171-4.

    5. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  5. Ratner K, Burrow AL. Derailment within the landscape of psychopathology. Curr Opin Psychol. 2021;41:21-7.

    6. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  6. Li XW, Xu SS. Developmental psychology research based on educational practice in China. Integr Psychol Behav Sci. 2018;52(3):341-50.

    7. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  7. Nielsen M, Haun D. Why developmental psychology is incomplete without comparative and cross-cultural perspectives. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2016;371(1686):20150071.

    8. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  8. Thompson D. Developmental psychology in the 1920s: A period of major transition. J Genet Psychol. 2016;177(6):244-51.

    9. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  9. Harman JJ, Warshak RA, Lorandos D, et al. Developmental psychology and the scientific status of parental alienation. Dev Psychol. 2022;58(10):1887-1911.

    10. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  10. Nielsen M, Fong FT, Whiten A. Social learning from media: The need for a culturally diachronic developmental psychology. Adv Child Dev Behav. 2021;61:317-34.

    11. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Get the App