Can Brain Training Help Learning Differences? A Look at Support Programs
Programs such as Arrowsmith, Equipping Minds, Cogmed, and Feuerstein Instrumental Enrichment use repeated cognitive exercises to target learning-related skills. Here is what families should know about neuroplasticity, evidence, and choosing the right support.
When a child or adult struggles with attention, memory, reading, reasoning, or processing information, families often hear the same advice: provide accommodations, develop strategies, and work around the difficulty. Cognitive training programs offer a different possibility. They attempt to strengthen some of the underlying cognitive functions involved in learning.
NPA Quick ReadThe big idea: Cognitive training programs use targeted, repeated exercises intended to strengthen functions such as working memory, reasoning, attention, processing, or cognitive efficiency. Where neuroplasticity fits: The brain can change in response to repeated experience and practice. However, improvement on a trained exercise does not automatically transfer to reading, academic achievement, work, or daily life. What the evidence shows: Some programs report promising cognitive or functional improvements, but research quality and independent evidence vary considerably. Families should evaluate each program separately. Before enrolling: Ask what the program targets, what independent research supports it, how progress will be measured, and whether it complements established educational and clinical care. |
What Is Cognitive Training?
Cognitive training uses structured exercises to practice specific mental processes.
Depending on the program, exercises may target:
Working memory
Attention
Processing speed
Reasoning
Visual or auditory processing
Executive functioning
Cognitive flexibility
Coordination between information-processing systems
These programs are often described as “neuroplasticity-based” because they rely on the brain’s capacity to adapt through focused and repeated experience.
That biological principle is sound: practice can change performance and influence brain activity. The harder question is whether training one cognitive task creates meaningful improvement in a different skill.
This distinction is known as transfer.
Near transfer occurs when someone improves on the trained task or a very similar task. Far transfer occurs when that improvement extends to something meaningfully different, such as reading comprehension, school performance, independent organization, or daily attention.
A program can successfully improve a practiced exercise without producing the broader outcomes a family hoped to achieve.
The Arrowsmith Program
The Arrowsmith Program was created by Barbara Arrowsmith-Young, who has written about her own history of significant learning difficulties. After studying neuropsychological research, she developed intensive exercises intended to strengthen specific cognitive functions associated with learning.
The program begins by identifying a learner’s pattern of cognitive strengths and weaknesses. Participants then complete individualized, repetitive exercises designed to target selected areas.
Arrowsmith may address functions related to:
Understanding relationships between ideas
Reasoning and problem-solving
Memory for information or instructions
Symbol recognition
Motor planning
Listening and information processing
Mental organization
The program can be intensive and may require a significant commitment of time and money.
Published studies have reported improvements in selected cognitive measures following participation. Research has also explored possible changes in brain functioning associated with training. These studies make Arrowsmith an important program to continue studying.
However, much of the current research includes pilot studies, small samples, case studies, observational designs, or research connected to participating Arrowsmith schools. Larger independent studies with active comparison groups are still needed to determine which learners benefit, which outcomes transfer into daily life, and how the program compares with other interventions.
The most accurate conclusion is that Arrowsmith is a promising cognitive-training approach with a developing evidence base. It should not yet be presented as a proven treatment for every person with ADHD, dyslexia, or another learning difference.
Equipping Minds
Equipping Minds combines cognitive exercises with mediated learning, language activities, movement, and sensory-based tasks. The program may target working memory, processing speed, attention, reasoning, visual and auditory processing, and self-regulation.
A small controlled study reported improvements in several cognitive and academic measures among participating students. These results are encouraging, but one small study cannot establish that the same outcomes will occur across ages, diagnoses, instructors, or settings.
Families considering Equipping Minds should ask which parts of the program address their learner’s documented needs and how improvement will be measured outside the activities used during training.
Cogmed Working Memory Training
Cogmed is a computerized program designed to train working memory through progressively challenging exercises.
Research suggests that Cogmed can improve performance on working-memory tasks, particularly tasks similar to those practiced. Findings become less consistent when researchers examine far-transfer outcomes such as attention, intelligence, academic achievement, or everyday functioning.
This does not mean working-memory training has no value. It means families should define the desired outcome carefully.
If the goal is to improve working-memory performance, the program may provide useful practice. If the goal is improved reading, mathematics, classroom behavior, or independent task completion, families should ask for evidence that the gains transfer to that specific area.
Feuerstein Instrumental Enrichment
Feuerstein Instrumental Enrichment uses guided activities and mediated learning to develop thinking processes. A trained facilitator helps learners reflect on how they approach problems, recognize patterns, compare information, plan responses, and apply strategies in new situations.
Rather than focusing only on completing exercises, the facilitator explicitly teaches the learner to examine their thinking.
Research has reported benefits in some populations, but outcomes vary across studies and settings. As with other cognitive programs, implementation quality, participant characteristics, training intensity, and outcome measurement matter.
Structured Literacy: A Different Type of Intervention
Structured Literacy should be included in this conversation because it illustrates the importance of matching the intervention to the functional goal.
Structured Literacy does not attempt to improve reading indirectly through general cognitive exercises. It explicitly and systematically teaches the structure of spoken and written language, including:
Speech sounds
Sound-symbol relationships
Spelling patterns
Meaningful word parts
Sentence structure
Reading fluency and comprehension
For dyslexia and related reading difficulties, explicit and systematic reading instruction has a stronger established evidence base than general cognitive training.
This does not mean that a person cannot benefit from both approaches. A learner might use cognitive training to address a documented cognitive weakness while receiving Structured
Literacy to develop reading skills directly.
The key is understanding that the programs serve different purposes.
What Neuroplasticity Does and Does Not Tell Us
Neuroplasticity tells us that the brain can change in response to practice. It does not prove that every exercise will create the desired change.
For practice to produce a meaningful result, several factors matter:
Specificity: The training should target the function that needs improvement.
Repetition: Practice must occur often enough to support learning.
Challenge: The activity should adapt as performance improves.
Feedback: The learner needs useful information about performance.
Transfer: Gains should appear in meaningful tasks beyond the program.
Measurement: Progress should be evaluated with appropriate measures, not testimonials alone.
A brain change observed through imaging does not automatically mean that a person’s reading, independence, relationships, or quality of life improved. Functional outcomes remain essential.
Questions to Ask Before Choosing a Program
Before committing significant time or money, ask:
What specific cognitive or academic function does this program target?
How was that area evaluated?
Is the program appropriate for this person’s diagnosis, age, and goals?
What peer-reviewed and independent research supports it?
Did the research include an active comparison group?
Were improvements found only on trained exercises or in daily functioning?
How will progress be measured outside the program?
How much time and money will the full program require?
Does it replace or complement established treatment and instruction?
What happens if meaningful progress does not occur?
Be cautious when a provider promises to cure a learning disability, permanently eliminate ADHD, raise intelligence by a guaranteed amount, or replace every other form of educational or clinical support.
A Practical NPA Framework
NPA encourages individuals and families to use a simple process:
Assess: Identify the specific functional difficulty.
Target: Choose an intervention that directly addresses that function.
Practice: Use appropriate repetition, challenge, and feedback.
Measure: Track change in school, work, relationships, independence, or another meaningful area.
Adjust: Continue, modify, or reconsider the plan based on results.
The best program is not necessarily the one with the most impressive neuroscience language. It is the one that appropriately targets the individual’s needs and produces measurable improvement in life beyond the training room.
Explore Learning-Difference Resources
NPA’s free ADHD and Learning Differences Guide explores evaluation, ADHD, dyslexia, adult presentation, neuroplasticity, common myths, and evidence-informed support options.
You can also explore the Arrowsmith Program and other approaches in NPA’s Treatment Directory at www.app.npallies.org.
Educational Disclaimer
This article is for educational purposes and does not recommend or endorse a particular commercial program. Cognitive training should not replace individualized medical care, ADHD treatment, appropriate reading instruction, school accommodations, or other services recommended by qualified professionals.
Sources and Further Reading
Arrowsmith Program. “Program Overview” and “Research.”
Weber, R. C., et al. “Interpreting the Preliminary Outcomes of the Arrowsmith Programme: A Neuroimaging and Behavioural Study.”
Semrud-Clikeman, M., et al. “Symbol Relations Training Improves Cognitive Functioning in Students With Neurodevelopmental Disorders.”
Melby-Lervåg, M., Redick, T. S., and Hulme, C. “Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of Far Transfer.”
International Dyslexia Association. “Structured Literacy: Effective Instruction for Students With Dyslexia and Related Reading Difficulties.”
Feuerstein Institute. Information on Instrumental Enrichment and mediated learning.
Comments