If you have spent any time near a brain training app, you have probably also seen someone say they do not work. That skepticism is fair, and it is worth taking seriously instead of brushing it off.
In 2014, more than 70 cognitive scientists and neuroscientists signed a public consensus statement saying there was no compelling evidence that brain games improve everyday cognitive performance or prevent cognitive decline. That statement still shapes a lot of how people think about this category, and it should.
What the research actually says
A widely cited 2016 review in Psychological Science in the Public Interest looked across the industry's evidence and found something specific: extensive evidence that training improves performance on the exact task you practice, and much weaker evidence that it transfers to unrelated tasks or everyday life.
That distinction matters. Training a specific skill and getting better at that specific skill is one claim. Training on a game and expecting it to make you generally smarter or sharper across the board is a much bigger claim, and it is the one the research does not support well.
So the honest answer to "does brain training work" is not yes or no. It depends on which claim is being made.
Where reading speed training fits
We covered this in more depth in Can You Really Read Faster? What Research Actually Found, but the short version: a study conducted with students at Brigham Young University found that people who trained specific reading-related skills, like processing speed, working memory, and visual tracking, over six weeks saw real gains in both reading speed and comprehension.
That is a targeted, trained-task result. It is exactly the kind of claim the 2016 review found solid evidence for, and it is a much narrower claim than "this app makes you smarter."
What brain imaging shows during this kind of training
Reading speed and comprehension are behavior. Two smaller studies looked at what is actually happening in the brain during this kind of training, using the eyeQ program that Infinite Mind's reading exercises are built on.
The first was a pilot study at the University of Utah, with 9 participants (adolescent females, ages 14 to 22) who trained for six weeks. Researchers used resting-state fMRI to scan the brain before and after training, focused on the Broca and Wernicke areas, which are involved in language processing. After training, connectivity between some of these language regions decreased, and the Broca area showed increased connectivity with auditory regions and decreased connectivity with memory regions. One interpretation researchers offered is that this reflects a shift away from subvocalizing, the silent speech many people use while reading, toward more direct visual processing. Nine participants is a small sample, and this should be read as early, exploratory evidence, not a final answer.
The second is a single-subject case study at Caltech. Researchers scanned one participant's brain while she read words, before and after eyeQ training. After training, activity increased in the visual cortex, which handles pattern recognition needed to identify written words, and in the Broca area. Brain activation also became more evenly distributed across both hemispheres, rather than concentrated on one side. A single participant cannot establish a general finding on its own, but it is a useful, concrete look at what changed in one case.
Neither study proves that training changes everyone's brain the same way. What they show is a plausible, specific mechanism (changes in language and visual processing circuitry) tied to a specific, narrow skill (reading), which lines up with the kind of claim the broader research says is worth taking seriously.
So, does brain training work?
For broad claims like preventing cognitive decline, reversing memory loss, or making you generally smarter, the honest answer is that the evidence is not there yet, and that is exactly what the 2014 consensus statement and the 2016 review both say clearly.
For narrow, specific claims, training a defined skill like reading speed and measuring that exact skill, the evidence is stronger, both in behavioral studies like the BYU one and in the early brain imaging work described above. That distinction, a specific trained skill instead of a vague general promise, is exactly what shapes how Infinite Mind's exercises are put together.
Why we train the whole brain together
Exercises like focus training, memory drills, or eye movement work are each genuinely useful on their own. The limitation the research above points to is not that any single one of them is bad. It is that training one skill by itself tends to mostly improve that one skill while you are doing it.
Infinite Mind's exercises cover many of these same areas, including focus, memory, processing speed, and eye movement. The difference is that we do not train them as separate, isolated drills. The exercises are built to activate and condition the brain together, combining these training types into one process instead of treating each one as its own island.
The way we check whether that combination actually adds up to something is by measuring a real, everyday skill: reading speed and comprehension, covered in more depth in Can You Really Read Faster? What Research Actually Found. Reading draws on attention, working memory, visual processing, and language processing at the same time, so improving it is a more meaningful signal than getting better at any single isolated exercise.
How Infinite Mind fits in
Individual results vary from person to person, and this app is a training tool, not a medical device or treatment. You can see the full research behind the app on our Our Science page, including how the training method itself is designed on the Our Science: Method page.
Infinite Mind is free to download in the App Store. Search "Infinite Mind Brain Exercises" to get started.
Frequently asked questions
Do brain training apps actually work?
It depends on the claim. Research supports the idea that training a specific skill improves that skill. It does not support the idea that brain games make you generally smarter or improve unrelated areas of everyday life.
What is the difference between near transfer and far transfer?
Near transfer means training improves the exact skill you practiced. Far transfer means training improves something different and broader, like general intelligence or everyday memory. Research supports near transfer far more strongly than far transfer.
Why not just do individual exercises like focus training on their own?
You can, and they are genuinely useful. The tradeoff is that training one skill in isolation tends to mostly improve that one skill. Infinite Mind combines several training types together and checks the result against a real, everyday skill, reading speed and comprehension, rather than an isolated drill.
Does this mean brain training prevents cognitive decline or Alzheimer's?
No. Neither the research referenced here nor Infinite Mind makes that claim. The 2014 consensus statement specifically called out marketing that suggests brain games prevent decline or disease, and that is not what this research or this app claims.
How much training did it take to see brain changes in these studies?
In the University of Utah study, participants trained for six weeks. Both studies are small, so exact timelines should be treated as a starting point for more research, not a guarantee for any individual.
Curious how Infinite Mind's exercises are designed? Read the research behind them, then try it free in the App Store and Play Store.
