Many apps say brain games can make you smarter. If you play every day, your score goes up. But does this mean your brain is better? In a big study, about 11,000 people played brain games for six weeks. They got better at the games.

But on other tests, they did not improve much. So brain games help you play the games, not your whole brain.

Many brain-training apps claim to make you smarter. Practice clearly makes you better at the games themselves, but does the effect spread to other abilities? Researchers call this "transfer." In 2010, a study with about 11,000 people found that six weeks of online brain training improved scores on the trained tasks, but not on other mental tests.

In 2016, a review of hundreds of studies concluded that there was little evidence that brain training improves everyday abilities. That same year, a U.S. government agency announced that a popular brain-training company would pay 2 million dollars for making unsupported claims, such as improving school and work performance.

Brain-training apps often promise sharper minds in minutes a day, and steadily rising scores seem to confirm it. Researchers, however, distinguish between near transfer, meaning improvement on the practiced task or very similar ones, and far transfer, meaning improvement in unrelated abilities such as work, study or daily life. Only far transfer would justify claims that brain training makes people smarter. In 2010, Owen and colleagues recruited about 11,000 participants through a British television program for six weeks of online training.

Performance on the trained tasks rose, but gains on separate cognitive tests were minimal and similar to those of a control group that answered obscure trivia questions using online resources. A 2016 review led by Simons examined hundreds of studies, including those cited by companies, and found plenty of evidence for near transfer but little for far transfer, while noting frequent problems such as small samples, unsuitable control groups and uncontrolled placebo effects. A later second-order meta-analysis concluded that far transfer was close to zero once study quality was considered. In 2016, a U.S. regulator also announced a $2 million settlement with a company over deceptive advertising.