A Science Check on Cognitive Training and Skill Acquisition for Longevity

This article opens a new mini-series on cognition, part of our broader chapter on lifestyle interventions for longevity within ‘Hype vs. Reality’. Previously, we’ve explored pillars like exercise, nutrition, and sleep. Now we turn to the brain; cognition influences nearly everything that shapes healthspan, from daily decision-making and independence to social connection and mental health. In this mini-series, we’ll examine what it really takes to support lifelong cognitive function and which trendy “brain-boosting” promises are more marketing than science.

Keeping the brain sharp as we age is a key to living not just longer, but better. Cognitive decline in later life is linked with higher risk of disability and, in many studies, earlier mortality. In fact, older adults with lower baseline cognitive function or faster decline tend to have higher mortality rates [1]. It stands to reason that interventions to maintain or improve cognition might help people stay independent longer, potentially delaying dementia and its associated health impacts [2]. This hope has spurred a booming industry of “brain training” programs and advice to keep learning new skills throughout life.

But what does science actually say about these cognitive interventions? Do crossword puzzles, language classes, or brain-training apps truly translate into a healthier, longer life? Here, we cut through the hype and examine the evidence on skill acquisition and cognitive training for longevity, highlighting what works, what doesn’t, and how it all might influence healthy aging.

No time to read the full piece? You can skip to the end of the article for the key takeaways.

Just as muscles strengthen with exercise, could mental exercise preserve, or even enhance, our cognitive abilities with age? Research does show that structured cognitive training can lead to improvements in mental performance on specific tasks. A major review of the brain-training literature, spanning over 200 studies, concludes that older adults who engage in cognitive training (including computerized memory, reasoning, processing-speed training, working-memory training, and some video-game-based paradigms) tend to show significant gains in the skills they practice, with smaller benefits on some closely related tasks [4]. In other words, training tends to improve what you train, and sometimes nearby abilities.

Encouragingly, some programs also show effects beyond lab tasks. In the ACTIVE trial, one of the most cited studies of evidence for brain training’s potential, cognitive training was associated with less decline in daily activities over 10 years compared with controls, suggesting potential relevance to real-world independence [3]. Systematic reviews note that “everyday function” outcomes are studied less often than test scores, but there is evidence that certain types of training and mental stimulation can support aspects of cognition and, in some cases, daily functioning, especially when training is sufficiently intensive and adaptive [5].

A key concept often invoked here is cognitive reserve, namely the idea that a lifetime of education, complex work, and mentally challenging activity builds resilience, allowing people to function well despite age-related brain changes [2].

“Cognitive training” is a marketing umbrella that covers very different interventions.

In research, it typically includes:

Different types produce different outcomes. For example, in the ACTIVE trial, reasoning and speed training showed durable improvement on trained cognitive abilities over 10 years, while memory training produced short-term memory gains that persisted for a few years but were no longer maintained by year 10 [3]. When it comes to dementia outcomes, speed-of-processing training was associated with a significantly reduced risk compared with controls (about a 29% relative reduction). Importantly, this paper also reports a dose-response relationship. More training sessions attended were associated with lower dementia risk [6]. That pattern supports, but does not prove, a causal contribution of the intervention.

However, it’s essential to keep the full picture in view. Earlier ACTIVE analyses over shorter follow-up windows found no significant reduction in incident dementia rates across training groups after 5 years [7]. One plausible interpretation is that dementia prevention effects, if present, may require longer follow-up, may be specific to certain training types, or may depend on adherence/dose. Another interpretation is that the later finding could reflect complexities of measurement, attrition, or subgroup effects. In short, the dementia signal is meaningful and worth attention, but it is not a blank check for the entire brain-training industry.

With promising results selectively highlighted, it’s no surprise that brain training has been aggressively marketed. Many commercial “brain games” promise better memory, sharper focus, higher IQ, and even dementia prevention from a few minutes a day.

Unfortunately, much of this is marketing hype and not backed by robust data. A major scholarly review concludes that people generally improve on the tasks they practice, but evidence for broad, durable improvements that transfer to everyday life is limited [4]. This is the core mismatch between marketing and science.

This gap has been recognized publicly by scientists. In 2014, researchers associated with Stanford’s Center on Longevity and the Max Planck Institute released a consensus statement arguing that many commercial claims about brain games are exaggerated and sometimes misleading [8]. And, even regulators have stepped in when marketing overreaches. In 2016, Lumosity’s maker paid to settle the U.S. Federal Trade Commission charges over deceptive advertising claims that its games could improve performance in everyday life and reduce dementia risk [9].

In summary, brain games are not magic. They may be entertaining and may improve performance on the games themselves, but extensive claims about preventing cognitive decline or rewiring your brain for genius are not supported at the level marketing implies.

If brain-training games have limited impact, what about real-world skill acquisition and intellectual engagement?

Here, the evidence base is more compelling, especially when viewed over the life course. Education and occupational complexity are strongly tied to decreased dementia risk, and dementia free survival time. A large, famous study from the COSMIC collaboration supported this, and found evidence of threshold effects, such as benefits linked to high school completion and beyond [10]. Building your cognitive reserve earlier may matter significantly, and adult cognitive demands may contribute independently.

Importantly, older adults can still benefit from learning new skills, what the industry calls “skill acquisition”. A randomized trial from the Synapse Project found that high-challenge engagement that include learning a new, demanding skill that requires sustained attention, problem-solving, and progressively harder practice (about 15+ hours/week for several months), such as digital photography, quilting, or a combination of both, improved episodic memory compared with low-challenge engagement, like social activities or familiar at-home games (e.g., crosswords, Sudoku) that are less intensive and don’t steadily increase in difficulty [11]. Similarly, training older adults who were novices to become proficient with tablet computers produced improvements in processing speed and episodic memory relative to control groups [12]. These are not apps but intensive, structured learning experiences that combine novelty, effort, and progression.

More recently, researchers have explored whether learning multiple skills simultaneously could produce broader gains. In a 2023 study, older adults who learned three new skills at the same time, such as a language, drawing, and music composition, showed measurable cognitive gains within a few months. On some tests, their scores moved closer to those of a middle-aged comparison group [13]. While sample sizes in such studies can be modest and replication is needed, the results intriguingly imply that the brain may respond best to rich, varied challenges, not repetitive micro-tasks.

How Cognitive Training Might (and Might Not) Extend Longevity

Here’s where the “longevity” claims need unpacking, because longevity isn’t just about living longer, it’s also about living better for longer. Stronger cognition is associated with a lower risk of disability and, in many observational datasets, a lower risk of earlier death [1]. But association isn’t causation. The crucial question is what these interventions actually change: healthspan, lifespan, or both.

On lifespan, evidence that cognitive training directly extends life is limited. A long-term follow-up from the ACTIVE cohort found that participating in cognitive training did not reduce all-cause mortality, even though people who entered the study with higher education and stronger cognition tended to live longer [1]. In other words, better cognition tracks with longevity, but the training itself hasn’t clearly been shown to add years of life.

On healthspan, the case is stronger. Even if cognitive training doesn’t measurably extend lifespan, it may help preserve the years lived with independence, safety, and high function. That matters, because cognitive decline can set off a cascade of events that meaningfully increase health risks.

The most plausible longevity-relevant benefits are therefore indirect and mostly healthspan-oriented:

Biologically, challenging your brain can push it to adapt, strengthening connections between brain cells, making brain networks run more efficiently, and helping the brain re-route tasks when certain circuits aren’t working as well with age. Brain imaging work from the Synapse Project suggests that high-challenge engagement can benefit neural efficiency patterns alongside cognitive improvement [14]. Animal studies also support the idea that enriched, stimulating environments can increase markers of neurogenesis (the creation of new neurons, especially in memory-related brain regions) and plasticity in aging brains [15]. Translating animal plasticity findings into human longevity effects is not straightforward, but they provide mechanistic plausibility for why sustained stimulation could support brain resilience.

That said, mental exercise is not a panacea. It works in tandem with other pillars of health. For example, regular physical exercise has well-documented benefits for brain health (improving blood flow, reducing inflammation, promoting growth factors), and some studies indicate that combining physical and cognitive training yields more improvement than either alone. Social engagement and adequate sleep are other lifestyle factors that contribute to cognitive longevity.

When it comes to skill acquisition and cognitive training for longevity, the reality is both hopeful and grounded:

Beware of overhyped claims that “brain games” will supercharge IQ or prevent Alzheimer’s. Instead, focus on rich, varied mental activities that actually challenge you like learning new skills, taking on projects that feel difficult (at first), and keeping raising the bar. No one can promise longer life, but cultivating an active mind is one of the most evidence-aligned ways to stack the odds toward longer, healthier years.