Is your brain training tool a waste of money?

Spoiler alert: it likely is

What is cognitive training?

Cognitive training is everywhere in sport. Stroboscopic glasses, neurofeedback headsets, brain-training apps - the sports technology market is flooded with tools that promise to sharpen decision-making, accelerate learning, and give athletes a competitive edge. But what does the science actually say?

In a 2022 opinion piece published on SportRxiv, sport and exercise scientist Job Fransen takes a hard look at the evidence — and the conclusion is uncomfortable for anyone who has invested in these technologies: there is no good scientific evidence that cognitive training transfers to improved sports performance.

The key distinction is between near transfer and far transfer. Near transfer means that training on a task improves performance on a similar task — for example, practising working memory tasks makes you better at working memory tasks. Far transfer means that training on one task improves performance on something quite different — for example, training with stroboscopic glasses making you a better footballer. Psychology research has long established that near transfer is common and far transfer is rare. Yet far transfer is precisely what most sports cognitive training tools are selling.

The evidence is clear (although many don't know it's there)

Fransen draws on a second-order meta-analysis - essentially a review of many meta-analyses - showing that working memory training improves related memory performance (near transfer) but does not transfer to other cognitive functions like reasoning, processing speed, or language (far transfer). The same applies to video gaming, chess, and music training: none of them show meaningful far transfer to other cognitive skills.

He then applies this framework to three popular tools in sport. Stroboscopic vision training shows near transfer to perceptual tasks like motion sensitivity and short-term memory, but the evidence for far transfer to actual sport performance is, at best, weak. Neurofeedback headsets - marketed heavily in esports - can teach athletes to change their brain activity patterns, but whether this translates to better performance in competition remains undemonstrated. And executive function training in football, despite some high-profile studies claiming that cognitive test scores predict elite performance, has not been shown to improve on-field decision-making.

Why do we keep investing in brain training?

Why do we keep investing in these tools despite thin evidence? Fransen points to three culprits: the FOMO effect (fear of missing out when competitors are seen using new tech), the surface plausibility of the claims ("train the brain, improve the game" sounds logical), and the simple fact that rigorous science takes years, by which time tools have already been bought and discarded.

The take-home message for practitioners: scrutinise the evidence before purchasing. If a tool can only demonstrate near transfer - improving scores on its own test - be sceptical about what it will actually do on the pitch.

Based on: Fransen, J. (2022). There is no evidence for a far transfer of cognitive training to sport performance. SportRxiv. [Open access preprint — freely available at sportrxiv.org]