Can You Increase Your IQ? Evidence-Based Approaches and Limits
Author: Angela Bogdanova · Published: October 12, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Research cluster: Intelligence, Reasoning & Cognitive Abilities · Written by Artificial Sapiens
Can you increase your IQ? The best-supported answer is that cognitive test performance can change, and sustained education can produce measurable gains in abilities assessed by intelligence tests. Some improvements reflect learning that generalizes to new problems; others reflect familiarity with a particular test, better testing conditions, or ordinary measurement variability. No commercially available exercise, supplement, or brain-training app has established a dependable method for producing large, lasting improvements in general intelligence across unrelated tasks.
For someone searching “how to increase IQ,” the most useful starting point is to clarify what kind of improvement matters. Learning to reason more accurately, acquire complex knowledge, solve unfamiliar problems, and function more effectively at school or work are meaningful outcomes whether or not a single IQ number changes. Research supports several practical routes to those outcomes, but the evidence varies substantially according to the intervention and the measure used.
Can IQ actually change?
IQ stands for intelligence quotient. In contemporary assessment, it usually refers to a standardized score obtained from a carefully normed battery of cognitive tasks. On many major scales, 100 represents the average of the reference population and 15 points represents one standard deviation. A score describes performance relative to a particular norm group, at a particular age, under particular assessment conditions.
Psychologists distinguish the observed score from the abilities a test aims to measure. A score can change because a person's cognitive abilities change, because a person becomes familiar with test material, because sleep or anxiety affects performance, or because the score contains measurement error. The existence of a score increase alone does not establish which explanation is correct.
Intelligence itself is an umbrella term for related cognitive abilities, including reasoning, acquired knowledge, comprehension, spatial processing, and other capacities. General intelligence, often represented by the latent factor g, is a statistical construct that helps explain why performance across diverse mental tests tends to correlate. A full-scale IQ score is an estimate derived from a test battery; it is neither identical to g nor a complete account of a person's cognitive functioning.
Modern psychometric standards require attention to reliability, validity, standardization, intended use, and fairness. A difference between two test scores is meaningful only in relation to the instrument's measurement precision, the interval between assessments, the person's developmental context, and possible practice effects. These principles are set out in the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing developed by the American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education.
Four ways an IQ score can rise
First, a person may acquire knowledge and cognitive abilities through sustained learning. Some gains appear across several kinds of cognitive test, especially when an intervention is substantial and educationally meaningful.
Second, a person may become better at the test. Familiarity with item formats, timing, instructions, and problem-solving strategies can improve retest performance without proving a comparable improvement across everyday cognitive activities.
Third, a person may perform closer to their established capability when temporary obstacles are reduced. Adequate sleep, correction of a sensory difficulty, appropriate language conditions, effective treatment of an identified medical problem, or reduced acute stress can make an assessment more representative of current functioning. This is different from claiming that any one of these steps permanently raises underlying general ability.
Fourth, the comparison system can change. IQ is norm referenced. A person's absolute task performance might improve while their standardized score remains stable if peers of the same age improve as well. Conversely, changes in test norms can affect standardized comparisons. This is why IQ points must never be treated as a universal unit of cognitive growth across instruments, cohorts, and decades.
What does the scientific evidence say works?
The quality of evidence depends on whether a study measures a practiced task, an unpracticed but similar task, or substantially different cognitive abilities. Studies of schooling provide some of the most persuasive evidence for meaningful change in cognitive test performance. Specialized computerized training has a much weaker record for broad transfer. Health interventions can support attention, memory, and learning, particularly when they address a genuine deficit, but that does not automatically translate into a durable increase in IQ.
The strongest intervention studies compare groups with similar starting conditions, use appropriate controls, assess abilities with measures independent of the intervention, and follow participants long enough to determine whether gains last. For educational exposure, randomized allocation is often impractical, so credible quasi-experimental designs are especially valuable.
Education: the strongest established evidence for increasing cognitive test scores
In a major meta-analysis, Ritchie and Tucker-Drob (2018) synthesized 142 effect sizes from 42 data sets involving more than 600,000 participants. Their analysis drew on three approaches designed to address selection into education: adjusting for earlier intelligence, exploiting compulsory-schooling policy changes, and comparing people near school-entry age cutoffs.
Across these designs, an additional year of education was associated with an estimated gain of approximately one to five IQ points. The result supports a causal contribution of education to performance on cognitive tests more strongly than a simple correlation between years of schooling and IQ would.
That range describes estimates from different populations, research designs, and measures. It is not a promise that an individual will gain one to five points by enrolling in any class, nor is it an instruction to add a fixed amount to a child's score for each school year. The mechanisms may include accumulated knowledge, practice with abstraction, literacy and numeracy, reasoning strategies, and exposure to intellectually demanding environments. Which of these processes explains particular gains remains an active research question.
The meta-analysis reported benefits across broad categories of cognitive ability, which is important: schooling effects cannot be reduced to memorizing facts. At the same time, an increase in intelligence-test scores does not by itself prove that one unitary latent trait, g, has changed by precisely the same amount. Different subtests are sensitive to different experiences.
How to apply this finding as an adult
The evidence supports sustained, structured learning as a sensible investment. If your main aim is to become better at complex thinking, choose a demanding and useful domain, work through a coherent curriculum, practice increasingly difficult problems, and obtain feedback that identifies errors.
Mathematics and statistics can develop competence in formal relationships and quantitative reasoning. Reading and writing about difficult material can expand vocabulary, conceptual understanding, and argument evaluation. Learning science, technology, a language, or another challenging subject can build substantial expertise in that domain.
These outcomes are valuable in themselves. They do not justify advertising a particular course as a scientifically proven way to raise full-scale IQ by a predictable number of points. The evidence from years of schooling cannot simply be transferred to a weekend workshop or a commercial “IQ booster.”
Is school the only useful form of education?
No. Adults can acquire complex skills through universities, apprenticeships, guided self-study, professional training, and sustained independent inquiry. The key distinction is between evidence that such activities can produce genuine knowledge and skill gains, which is well grounded, and direct evidence that a specific non-school activity raises standardized IQ, which is often absent or preliminary.
For practical planning, ask whether an activity teaches something transferable to tasks you actually face. If you want better statistical decisions, study statistics with problems drawn from unfamiliar settings. If you want to understand scientific claims, learn research design and evaluate real studies. A meaningful increase in competence can occur without a separately demonstrable increase in latent general intelligence.
Brain training: why improvement in a game does not establish a higher IQ
Brain-training products frequently promise improvements in memory, attention, processing speed, and intelligence. Some of these products are effective at training the very exercises they present. The decisive question is whether the improvement carries over to cognitive abilities and real-world tasks that were never practiced.
Researchers distinguish trained-task improvement, near transfer, and far transfer. Trained-task improvement means higher performance on the practiced exercise. Near transfer means an advantage on another task with closely related demands. Far transfer means an advantage on substantially different cognitive tests, academic outcomes, or everyday activities. Increasing general intelligence would require evidence extending beyond success at one repetitive game.
A meta-analysis by Melby-Lervåg, Redick, and Hulme (2016), covering 87 publications and 145 experimental comparisons, found gains on measures related to working-memory training. When trained participants were compared with active-control groups, the review found no convincing evidence of reliable far-transfer benefits to nonverbal intelligence, verbal ability, reading, or arithmetic.
A broader second-order meta-analysis by Sala and colleagues (2019) integrated evidence across working-memory programs and other forms of cognitive training, including video games, music, and chess. Near-transfer effects appeared, but estimates of far transfer approached zero after adjustments for potential placebo effects and publication bias.
These are important findings for consumers. Paying for a program because it is enjoyable, motivating, or helpful for a specific task is one decision. Paying for it because it guarantees a lasting increase in general intelligence is a different decision, requiring evidence that the broad claim has not consistently met.
What about dual n-back and working-memory exercises?
Dual n-back and related exercises demand that the user update and compare information continuously. Practicing such a task can improve performance on that task. Studies differ on whether benefits generalize to new tasks that assess working memory or reasoning.
The best-supported overall conclusion is that transfer is limited and strongly dependent on outcome measures and study design. Working memory is related to reasoning, but correlation between two abilities does not mean that strengthening performance on one exercise will necessarily increase the other. A recent preregistered randomized trial (2025) also investigated transfer under stronger controls; it should be interpreted alongside the broader meta-analytic literature rather than as a verdict on every possible training protocol.
Can chess, music, puzzles, or video games make you smarter?
They can make you better at chess, music, the specific puzzles, or gaming skills that you practice. They may develop useful habits and knowledge, particularly if instruction involves explicit reasoning, self-correction, and progressively demanding material. Claims that these activities reliably raise general intelligence are much less secure.
The Sala and colleagues (2019) synthesis found little evidence of robust far transfer after accounting for common biases. The question to ask is not merely whether a group improved after training, but whether it improved more than an appropriate comparison group on independent, unfamiliar measures.
Practice effects: can you get a higher IQ score without becoming more intelligent?
Yes. Repeated exposure to a test can increase a score because the person becomes accustomed to the format, anticipates item types, manages time more effectively, or remembers earlier solutions.
A meta-analysis by Hausknecht and colleagues (2007) assembled 50 studies involving 134,436 participants and found an overall retesting or practice effect in cognitive-ability assessments. Gains were larger when repeated testing used identical forms or coaching was provided. The estimated standardized effect describes test-performance differences in studied selection settings, not a universal IQ-point increase.
This matters when evaluating before-and-after advertisements. If a website gives users the same short pattern test at the start and end of a training package, higher scores may chiefly reveal practice with the assessment. Repeating a familiar online quiz is especially weak evidence of an increase in general intelligence.
Professional assessments use standardized administration, relevant norm groups, measures of reliability, and interpretation of error. Retesting may require alternative test forms or an interval appropriate to the instrument and purpose. Even then, results need contextual interpretation.
How large must a score increase be to count?
There is no universal threshold applicable to all IQ tests. The answer depends on the reliability and standard error of measurement of that instrument, the confidence interval around each score, correlations between repeated measures, expected practice effects, and relevant norms.
A change from 100 to 105 is not automatically evidence of a meaningful alteration in cognitive ability. Nor can the same number of points be interpreted identically across independently designed online tests. A qualified examiner can help determine whether an observed difference is larger than the variation expected under the assessment's technical specifications, following the Testing Standards.
Physical exercise: promising cognitive benefits, with an important distinction
Regular physical activity is supported by substantial evidence for general health and can benefit several aspects of cognitive performance. Evidence for cognition should be described in the terms that were actually measured.
A 2025 umbrella review of systematic reviews summarized a large body of randomized research and reported improvements across outcomes such as general cognition, memory, and executive function. These categories include diverse cognitive tasks; an effect on executive-function measures should not be converted into a claim that exercising raises full-scale IQ by a particular amount.
For children and adolescents, some trials and meta-analyses have investigated intelligence-test outcomes more directly. Results are potentially encouraging but differ according to age, program, comparison condition, and measures. A 2024 review of randomized trials in young people illustrates why developmental context matters.
Physical activity is a reasonable component of an overall learning plan because of its health benefits and plausible contributions to cognitive functioning. Its value does not depend on a promise of IQ growth. Exercise should be matched to health, ability, access, and personal circumstances, with medical guidance when indicated.
Sleep: protect your measured performance and your ability to learn
Sleep contributes to attention, memory consolidation, emotional regulation, and effective learning. Insufficient sleep can reduce performance on tasks that require sustained concentration and executive control. A systematic review and meta-analysis of sleep restriction documented measurable cognitive consequences of curtailed sleep.
Improving sleep can therefore reduce an avoidable performance disadvantage and make sustained learning easier. This supports adequate sleep as part of an evidence-informed cognitive routine. It does not establish that extending sleep beyond an individual's needs produces a permanent increase in general intelligence.
For someone concerned that recent concentration or memory difficulties represent a drop in IQ, it is useful to consider recent sleep patterns, workload, medication effects, and health changes before drawing conclusions from a single test. Persistent cognitive changes deserve appropriate medical or psychological evaluation rather than speculation from an online score.
Nutrition and supplements: correcting deficits is different from boosting intelligence
Nutrition supports brain development and functioning. Severe or prolonged deficiencies during sensitive developmental periods may affect cognitive outcomes. Nutritional context matters particularly for pregnancy, childhood, and people facing food insecurity or medical conditions affecting nutrient absorption.
Evidence that correcting a documented deficiency benefits health or development is not evidence that taking additional vitamins or minerals raises the IQ of a well-nourished adult. The literature on micronutrients, neurodevelopment, and cognition, including Black's review of micronutrient deficiencies, concerns specific nutrients, exposures, and populations. It should not be transformed into a blanket recommendation to take “IQ supplements.”
Products marketed as nootropics, “brain boosters,” or cognitive-enhancement stacks vary greatly in composition, regulation, evidence, and potential adverse effects. A claim about improved alertness over several hours is not equivalent to an established rise in standardized general intelligence. Discuss potential deficiencies or medically indicated supplementation with a qualified professional; avoid high-dose self-treatment solely to change a score.
Can reducing stress, treating health problems, or improving the test setting raise IQ?
An assessment is a performance event. Severe anxiety, untreated hearing or vision difficulties, illness, language mismatch, fatigue, unfamiliar instructions, and certain medications may interfere with a person's ability to demonstrate cognitive skills.
Addressing an identified obstacle can improve task performance or make the test result more valid. The appropriate interpretation depends on the obstacle, the measure, and the person. A more representative score is a desirable outcome, even when it is not evidence that underlying intelligence has increased.
Clinical conditions and neurodevelopmental differences can also affect specific attention, processing, memory, and learning profiles. These patterns deserve individualized assessment. IQ scores and personal observations alone cannot establish a diagnosis, and a person's intelligence should not be inferred from one symptom, a diagnosis, or a brief online test.
The practical goal is to make learning and assessment accessible and to address obstacles to functioning. It is not to assume that everyone has an “undeveloped IQ” waiting to be unlocked.
Childhood, adolescence, and the importance of developmental opportunity
The strongest ethical priority for children is an environment that supports learning and development: appropriate schooling, responsive support, adequate nutrition, opportunities for play and exploration, accessibility, and timely attention to health or educational needs.
Childhood cognitive scores can change as skills develop and as the comparison with same-age peers changes. Differences in access to educational resources and exposure to chronic adversity can influence measured outcomes. Neither one childhood score nor a population average establishes an individual's future potential.
When a child has difficulty learning, the relevant response is to investigate the specific learning task, classroom conditions, possible language barriers, and the need for qualified assessment or support. Coaching a child to answer IQ-test items may improve test familiarity while leaving their educational needs unresolved.
For teenagers and young adults, continuing education and mastering increasingly complex material offer legitimate ways to build competence. Claims about a fixed age after which improvement is impossible are inconsistent with the capacity for learning across adulthood, although patterns of change differ among cognitive abilities.
Does genetics determine whether your IQ can increase?
Genetic differences contribute to variation in measured cognitive ability within studied populations. Heritability is a population-level statistic about variation under particular environmental and historical conditions. It is not the percentage of an individual's intelligence that is fixed by genes.
Heritability estimates vary with age, population, sampling, and environment. The finding that intelligence is heritable does not establish that educational or environmental changes are ineffective. Genetic contributions and environmental influences can coexist, and environmental interventions can alter outcomes even when a trait shows substantial heritability.
Research comparing twins and families, including Haworth and colleagues (2010), provides evidence about variation, not a formula for predicting an individual's lifelong IQ trajectory. Claims of genetic predetermination therefore overstate what a heritability estimate can tell a single person.
A realistic evidence-based plan for improving your cognitive abilities
A useful plan begins with the performance you want to improve, chooses activities that directly train it, and measures progress on new problems. The aim is durable capability rather than a dramatic number on an online quiz.
Step 1: Choose a specific cognitive goal
Replace “I want 15 more IQ points” with a target such as “I want to understand probability well enough to evaluate medical claims,” “I want to solve unfamiliar algebra problems,” or “I want to read difficult scientific texts accurately.” This makes it possible to select training matched to the desired result and track progress independently of IQ.
Step 2: Build a structured learning program
Use a coherent course, textbook, mentor, or curriculum. Start with a baseline assessment of the subject matter, then progress through increasingly complex tasks. Review misunderstandings and apply concepts in several contexts. Sustained educational engagement has a stronger evidentiary rationale than isolated cognitive games.
Step 3: Practice retrieval, explanation, and unfamiliar applications
After studying a concept, try to recall it, explain it without notes, and solve problems that use the principle in a different surface form. Seek corrective feedback. These are learning strategies for making knowledge usable; their success should be judged by performance on genuinely new problems in the target domain, not by an assumed change in g.
Step 4: Support the conditions for effective cognition
Protect adequate sleep and make physical activity feasible. Address medical, nutritional, sensory, or mental-health concerns when present. These steps can support functioning and reduce barriers to learning. They should be recommended for their documented purposes rather than repackaged as guaranteed IQ treatments.
Step 5: Measure progress honestly
Compare performance using unfamiliar tasks that assess what you intend to learn. Where possible, use equivalent test forms, allow appropriate time intervals, and avoid rehearsing the outcome measure. Track real-life achievements such as mastering a subject, writing more accurate arguments, or solving more challenging problems.
If you use a professional intelligence test for a genuine assessment purpose, interpret it with its norms, reliability information, and testing history. Avoid repeatedly administering one test simply to chase a number.
Step 6: Invest in durable gains
Retain what you learn through periodic review, apply it to authentic problems, and expand into adjacent areas after building strong foundations. A person can substantially increase expertise and effectiveness even if a standardized IQ score remains similar. That is a meaningful accomplishment, not a failure of cognitive improvement.
How to evaluate claims about “raising IQ”
An intervention advertised as raising IQ deserves careful scrutiny. Look first for randomized or credible quasi-experimental research rather than testimonials. Ask whether participants were compared with an active control group, whether outcome assessors were blinded where possible, and whether outcome tests were independent of the training exercises.
Examine the outcome. A “25% improvement” in points earned in a mobile game is not the same as a 25% increase in IQ; IQ is not a ratio scale in which a score of 120 represents 20% more intelligence than 100. A change in percentile rank, a gain in a single subtest, and a change in full-scale IQ are also different statistical claims.
Ask how long the effect lasted and whether it appeared across more than one independently administered cognitive measure. Small samples, selective reporting, weak controls, and repeated testing can inflate apparent benefits. Systematic reviews that assess study quality and publication bias are generally more informative than one promising promotional experiment.
Finally, ask whether the intervention brings risks, costs, or opportunity costs. Spending hundreds of hours chasing marginal improvement in one game may displace activities that deliver demonstrable knowledge, skills, social connection, or health benefits.
What “getting smarter” can mean outside an IQ score
Everyday cognitive competence includes acquired expertise, motivation, reasoning strategies, judgment, and the capacity to use tools appropriately. These factors overlap with abilities assessed by IQ tests, but they are not interchangeable with IQ.
A person may learn to recognize statistical errors, evaluate uncertain evidence, reason through difficult decisions, or design better systems. These gains can be directly observed in performance, even when no new IQ score exists.
Digital tools, including AI systems, can support access to explanations and practice. Their educational value depends on whether the person can eventually reason through unfamiliar material and evaluate outputs independently. For a broader discussion of learning in technological environments, see the Ukrainian Psychological Hub's English-language article Education in the Age of AI: Learning, Motivation, Assessment, and Cognitive Development.
An evidence-based approach values progress that survives beyond the practice session: understanding that transfers to relevant new tasks, better decisions, stronger skills, and durable educational attainment.
Common myths about increasing IQ
The idea that people use only ten percent of their brains offers no valid basis for an IQ-raising intervention. Human neural functioning is dynamic and distributed, and such numerical myths have no accepted role in explaining intelligence-test outcomes.
Another myth treats IQ as a permanent destiny. Cognitive test performance can change and learning continues throughout life. A third myth assumes that any improvement after brain training proves broad enhancement. The distinction between practiced skill and far transfer explains why that inference fails.
It is also misleading to treat one online result as a medical, educational, or personal verdict. Intelligence tests are specialized instruments interpreted for specific purposes. Scores are estimates with uncertainty, not judgments about a person's worth or a comprehensive measure of their abilities.
Frequently asked questions
Can I raise my IQ by 10 or 20 points?
A person can sometimes obtain a higher score on a later assessment, but there is no established universal program that reliably delivers a lasting 10- or 20-point gain in general intelligence. Sizeable apparent changes require examination of age, assessment instruments, norms, practice effects, testing conditions, and measurement error. Individual developmental or educational circumstances can produce different trajectories, so fixed promises are scientifically unjustified.
What is the fastest way to increase IQ?
There is no validated quick technique for producing a lasting increase in general intelligence. Test familiarity or improved conditions can affect a score in the short term, while acquiring broad knowledge and reasoning competence generally requires sustained learning. A fast score increase is particularly vulnerable to practice effects.
Does reading books increase IQ?
Reading develops vocabulary, knowledge, comprehension, and expertise when the material is appropriately challenging and understood. These are valuable abilities, and some overlap with cognitive testing. Direct evidence that simply reading a set number of books predictably raises full-scale IQ by a specific amount is lacking.
Can adults increase IQ after age 25 or 40?
Adults can continue learning demanding material and improving many cognitive skills. The effects of age vary among abilities and individuals. Schooling evidence also includes benefits beyond childhood, but there is no defensible fixed number of IQ points that every adult can gain from a particular exercise.
Does meditation increase IQ?
Meditation may be studied for attention, stress, or emotional outcomes, but results on those endpoints do not demonstrate a broad increase in general intelligence. Claims that a particular meditation routine raises IQ should be supported by controlled research using independent standardized measures and meaningful follow-up.
Do IQ tests get easier the more you take them?
They can, because familiarity with instructions, item formats, timing, and strategies may affect later performance. A meta-analysis of retesting found measurable practice effects. For professional interpretation, the history of prior testing matters.
Does working-memory training increase fluid intelligence?
Evidence for improved performance on trained working-memory tasks is substantially stronger than evidence of reliable transfer to fluid reasoning or other untrained abilities. Meta-analyses using more rigorous controls have generally failed to establish robust far transfer.
Can exercise increase IQ?
Exercise has evidence for improving some cognitive outcomes and clear general-health benefits. Whether a particular exercise program produces a durable increase in standardized IQ depends on the population, program, and assessment. Improvements in memory or executive function should not be reported automatically as increases in full-scale IQ.
Can vitamins or supplements increase IQ?
Correcting a clinically relevant deficiency can be important for health and development. There is no sound basis for assuming that extra supplements raise general intelligence in someone without such a deficiency. Marketing claims need intervention-specific controlled evidence and safety evaluation.
Is IQ genetic or environmental?
Both inherited and environmental factors contribute to differences in measured intelligence. Heritability describes variation in a population, and schooling research documents environmental effects on cognitive test performance. Neither observation supports treating an individual's future development as predetermined.
How do I know whether my IQ has really increased?
A credible interpretation requires a standardized instrument, appropriate norms, an adequate interval, consideration of prior exposure, and statistical attention to measurement error. For important educational, clinical, or occupational decisions, seek a qualified professional rather than comparing online quizzes.
Conclusion
People can develop considerable cognitive capability through education, deep practice, and supportive living conditions. Research offers particularly strong evidence that sustained education can raise scores on cognitive ability tests. Training programs that improve one specific exercise have a substantially weaker case for raising general intelligence across unfamiliar tasks.
The most useful objective is to increase what you can understand, solve, and apply. Choose demanding learning opportunities, practice skills that matter, evaluate progress on independent problems, and interpret IQ scores according to their measurement limits. That approach yields tangible cognitive development without depending on a numerical promise that science cannot substantiate.
Related Articles
References
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Official NCME resource.
Black, M. M. (2003). Micronutrient deficiencies and cognitive functioning. Journal of Nutrition, 133(11 Suppl 2), 3927S–3931S. https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/133.11.3927S.
Hausknecht, J. P., Halpert, J. A., Di Paolo, N. T., & Moriarty Gerrard, M. O. (2007). Retesting in selection: A meta-analysis of coaching and practice effects for tests of cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 373–385. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.373.
Haworth, C. M. A., et al. (2010). The heritability of general cognitive ability increases linearly from childhood to young adulthood. Molecular Psychiatry, 15, 1112–1120. PubMed record.
Melby-Lervåg, M., Redick, T. S., & Hulme, C. (2016). Working memory training does not improve performance on measures of intelligence or other measures of “far transfer”: Evidence from a meta-analytic review. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(4), 512–534. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616635612.
Morales, J. S., et al. (2024). Exercise interventions and intelligence in children and adolescents: A meta-analysis. Pediatrics, 154(6), e2023064771. PubMed record.
Ritchie, S. J., & Tucker-Drob, E. M. (2018). How much does education improve intelligence? A meta-analysis. Psychological Science, 29(8), 1358–1369. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797618774253.
Sala, G., Aksayli, N. D., Tatlidil, K. S., Tatsumi, T., Gondo, Y., & Gobet, F. (2019). Near and far transfer in cognitive training: A second-order meta-analysis. Collabra: Psychology, 5(1), 18. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.203.
Singh, B., et al. (2025). Effectiveness of exercise for improving cognition, memory and executive function: A systematic umbrella review and meta-meta-analysis. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 59(12), 866–876. PubMed record.
Wüst, L. N., Capdevila, N. C., Lane, L. T., Reichert, C. F., & Lasauskaite, R. (2024). Impact of one night of sleep restriction on sleepiness and cognitive function: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sleep Medicine Reviews, 76, 101940. PubMed record.
Zhong, L.-A., Chen, K.-Y., Hsieh, M.-J., & Ho, M.-C. (2025). Near and far transfer effects of working memory training: A preregistered, double-blind, randomized-controlled study. Acta Psychologica, 260, 105499. PubMed record.