A Systematic Review of Commercial Cognitive Training Devices: Implications for Use in Sport

Harris, David; Wilson, Mark; Vine, Samuel J. · 2018 · OpenAlex-citations

DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00709

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (DOI — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This systematic review evaluates the efficacy of commercial cognitive training (CCT) devices for enhancing athletic performance, addressing the gap between marketing claims and scientific evidence. CCT devices, such as smartphone apps and online platforms, promise to improve domain-general cognitive skills like attention, working memory, and processing speed, which are critical for sport. However, it remains unclear whether improvements in these core functions transfer to real-world sporting tasks (far transfer). The authors aimed to synthesize peer-reviewed evidence regarding CCT devices, specifically assessing whether they provide additive benefits for healthy athletes or merely compensatory benefits for populations with cognitive deficits. The researchers conducted an extensive search of PubMed, PsycInfo, Google Scholar, and SportDiscus, identifying 43 studies that met inclusion criteria. These studies evaluated seven primary devices: Cogmed, Lumosity, Posit Science, Cognifit, Neurotracker, Nintendo Brain Academy, and Dynavision. The review assessed study quality using a 22-item checklist derived from established appraisal instruments and five critical questions regarding transfer effects, control groups, retention, and independence from commercial interests. The analysis distinguished between studies involving healthy populations (additive effects) and those involving older adults or individuals with health conditions (compensatory/restorative effects). The findings reveal limited support for far transfer benefits from CCT devices to sporting tasks. While some devices, particularly Cogmed, demonstrated near transfer effects (improvements on laboratory cognitive tests), evidence for transfer to real-world performance was scarce. Of the 43 studies, only 17 assessed transfer beyond laboratory tests, and only one study directly assessed transfer to a sporting task. Most far-transfer measures relied on self-reported outcomes, such as quality of life or perceived cognitive function, rather than objective performance metrics. Furthermore, the literature exhibited significant methodological flaws, including small sample sizes, lack of retention tests, and a predominance of studies conducted by researchers affiliated with the device manufacturers. The majority of evidence focused on populations with cognitive impairments, making generalization to healthy athletes difficult. The authors conclude that there is currently little direct evidence that CCT devices improve sporting performance. This conclusion stems primarily from a lack of rigorous experimental studies in athletic populations and insufficient methodological standards, rather than definitive null effects. The review highlights that while CCT may offer benefits for compensatory or restorative purposes in clinical populations, its utility for enhancing athletic performance remains unproven. The authors call for future research to employ more robust experimental designs, including active control groups, independent replication, and representative transfer tests, to determine if CCT can genuinely serve as an ergogenic aid in sport.

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed.

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-26; verification: verified.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

• simulator training transfer