What the title promises and what this article does
The title mentions a statistical study. This article does not quote any results, because specific numbers on this topic vary a lot between studies and are easy to misreport. It explains what researchers have looked at, why the findings are debated, and how to read the claims you will see in news stories. It is educational only.
What “cognitive skills” means
Cognition is the umbrella term for mental processes such as paying attention, remembering, reasoning, planning and perceiving. Researchers break these into narrower abilities that can be measured with short computer tasks or paper tests. Areas that come up often in studies of games include:
- Attention. Focusing on relevant information, shifting focus quickly and tracking several moving objects.
- Spatial skills. Imagining how shapes look from other angles, judging distances and navigating.
- Processing speed and reaction time. How quickly someone responds to something they see or hear.
- Working memory. Holding and manipulating a small amount of information for a short time.
- Executive functions. Planning, switching between tasks and holding back impulsive responses.
- Problem solving. Working out how to reach a goal with the tools available.
Different games exercise these in different ways. A fast action game asks for quick shifts of attention. A strategy game asks for planning. A puzzle game asks for reasoning. An open world needs navigation, as explained in how open worlds are designed. Because the demands differ, it makes little sense to talk about “games” as if they were one thing.
What research has looked at
Researchers have approached the question in a few main ways.
Comparing players and non-players. Researchers test people who play a lot of a certain kind of game and people who do not, then compare their scores on a task. This is simple to do, but it has a built-in problem: people who choose to play a lot might already differ, for example in how quickly they respond, which is part of why they find those games enjoyable.
Training studies. Researchers assign volunteers to play a particular game for some weeks, assign others to a different activity, and test both groups before and after. This design is better at hinting at cause, though results depend on the quality of the comparison activity and on the size and make-up of the groups.
Looking at specific genres. Fast action games, especially first-person shooters, have been a frequent subject in attention research. Puzzle and building games have been looked at for spatial reasoning. Other genres have had less attention.
Reviews that combine many studies. Some researchers pool results across studies to see whether a pattern holds. These are useful, but they can only be as reliable as the studies they combine.
Why transfer is debated
The central question is transfer: does getting better at something inside a game help with similar tasks elsewhere, or with daily life?
Researchers often separate three levels:
- Improvement at the game itself. This is well understood. Practice makes people better at what they practice.
- Improvement on similar tasks. Skills may carry over to tasks that resemble the game, such as a lab test that also involves tracking moving objects.
- Improvement on unrelated everyday abilities. This is the hardest claim to support and the most contested.
There are several reasons for caution about the third level.
- Learning is often specific. People may get better at the particular trick the game rewards rather than at a general ability.
- Expectations matter. If volunteers know they are in a “brain training” group, they may try harder on the follow-up test.
- Effects may fade. A gain seen right after training may not last.
- Studies differ in design, games, age groups and tests, which makes results hard to compare. Some small studies have not been repeated successfully by other teams.
For these reasons, many researchers describe the overall picture as promising in places but unsettled.
Games are not a single “treatment”
Another difficulty is that a game is a package. It contains visuals, sound, story, social features and difficulty adjustments, any of which may affect results. When a study finds a difference, it can be hard to say which feature caused it.
Social features also matter. Cooperative play involves communication and coordination, and some research looks at those, which overlaps with the ideas covered in online teamwork skills and gaming and socializing. Cognition is only one slice of what happens in play.
Possible downsides and non-effects
Research has also asked whether games harm attention or learning, for example through distraction or time taken from other activities. The evidence here is mixed and often depends on how much time is involved and what it replaces. Studies of this kind face the same limits as the others: it is hard to separate cause from the many other factors in a person’s life. Broader questions about mood and wellbeing are discussed in the article on gaming and mental health, and are not covered here.
How to read a headline about games and brains
A few questions help when you meet a claim that games boost, or damage, thinking:
- Who took part? Age, background and number of participants all matter, and small groups give shaky results.
- What was compared? A game group compared with no activity at all says less than a comparison with another enjoyable activity.
- What was measured? A lab task is not the same as school grades, work performance or everyday life.
- Was it repeated? One study is a clue, not a conclusion.
- How big was the effect, and did it last? Words like “significant” in research have a technical meaning and do not necessarily mean “large” or “important”.
- Who paid for it? Funding or promotion by companies selling games or “brain training” products is worth noting, although it does not by itself make a study wrong.
A balanced way to think about it
Playing games is a skilled activity, and skills are learned through practice. Some of what players learn may carry over in limited ways, and researchers are still working out which parts, for whom, and how much. Anyone choosing games for a child or for themselves should treat claims of dramatic brain benefits with caution, and should also not assume games are damaging thinking. For personal concerns about attention or learning, a teacher, doctor or other qualified professional is the right source of advice.