Researchers tested a new way to measure how well people are improving during brain training games. They studied 130 people with mild memory problems who did 24 weeks of brain exercises, physical activity, and healthy eating. Scientists discovered that a special score called RTACC—which measures how fast and accurate someone is in the games—could predict which people would see the biggest improvements in their memory and thinking skills. This digital biomarker may help doctors figure out which patients will benefit most from these types of brain-boosting programs before they even finish the training.

The Quick Take

  • What they studied: Can a computer score from brain training games predict whether someone’s memory and thinking will actually improve after doing a 24-week program of brain exercises, physical activity, and nutrition coaching?
  • Who participated: 130 adults with mild cognitive impairment (early memory and thinking problems that aren’t yet dementia) who were enrolled in a larger research study called SUPERBRAIN-MEET
  • Key finding: A new measurement called RTACC—which tracks how fast and accurate someone is during brain games—was significantly linked to memory improvements. People with better RTACC scores showed larger gains in their thinking and memory test scores after 24 weeks.
  • What it means for you: This finding suggests that brain training games may eventually be able to tell doctors early on which patients will benefit most from memory-boosting programs, though more research is needed before this becomes a standard tool in clinics.

The Research Details

This was a randomized controlled trial, which is considered one of the strongest types of research studies. Researchers took 130 people with mild memory problems and had them participate in a comprehensive 24-week program. The program included computerized brain training games, physical exercise sessions, nutritional education, management of heart and metabolic health, and motivational coaching.

The key innovation was tracking a new measurement called RTACC (Reaction Time-Accuracy Correlation) from the brain training games. Think of it like a report card that combines two scores: how quickly someone responds and how accurate their answers are. The researchers then looked at whether this RTACC score could predict who would show the biggest improvements in standard memory and thinking tests.

Scientists used statistical analysis to find connections between RTACC scores and actual improvements in cognitive function, as well as changes in a brain protein called BDNF that’s linked to brain health.

This approach is important because it uses real-time data from brain training games rather than waiting weeks to see if someone improves. If RTACC can reliably predict who will benefit, doctors could potentially identify good candidates for these programs earlier and adjust treatment plans accordingly. This represents a shift toward personalized medicine—tailoring treatments based on individual characteristics.

This study has several strengths: it was a randomized controlled trial (the gold standard for research), it included a reasonable sample size of 130 participants, and it measured multiple outcomes including both cognitive tests and biological markers. However, this was only the intervention arm of a larger study, meaning there wasn’t a comparison group that didn’t receive treatment. The study was also relatively small and focused on one specific population (people with mild cognitive impairment), so results may not apply to everyone.

What the Results Show

The main finding was that RTACC scores showed a significant relationship with how much people’s memory and thinking improved over 24 weeks. Specifically, people whose RTACC scores changed in a certain way showed larger improvements on standard cognitive tests (the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status). The statistical relationship was strong enough that researchers were confident it wasn’t due to chance.

When researchers combined RTACC scores with basic clinical information about patients, they could identify which people would be ‘good responders’—meaning they’d see meaningful improvements—with moderate accuracy (73% accuracy, which is better than a coin flip but not perfect). This suggests the digital biomarker adds useful information beyond what doctors already know about a patient.

The study also found that RTACC showed a weaker connection to changes in BDNF, a brain protein associated with learning and memory. This relationship was close to being statistically significant but not quite there, suggesting this connection needs more research.

The research demonstrated that combining the digital biomarker with standard clinical information improved prediction accuracy compared to using clinical information alone. This suggests that the in-game performance data captures something unique about how someone will respond to treatment. The multi-domain nature of the intervention (combining brain training, exercise, nutrition, and health management) appeared to work together, though the study didn’t separate out which components were most important.

This research builds on growing evidence that computerized cognitive training can help people with memory problems. Previous studies have shown that multi-domain interventions (combining multiple approaches) tend to work better than single interventions. This study adds something new by introducing a specific digital biomarker that could help predict who will benefit. The idea of using in-game performance data as a predictor is relatively novel and represents an evolution in how researchers think about tracking brain training effectiveness.

Several important limitations should be noted: First, this study only looked at people who received the intervention; there was no control group that didn’t receive treatment, so we can’t be completely sure RTACC itself caused the improvements. Second, the sample size of 130 is moderate—larger studies would give more confident results. Third, the study focused specifically on people with mild cognitive impairment, so results may not apply to people with normal memory or more severe dementia. Fourth, the accuracy of prediction (73%) is useful but not perfect, meaning some people would be misclassified. Finally, the study was published in 2026 and represents early-stage research, so these findings need to be confirmed by other independent research teams.

The Bottom Line

Based on this research, we cannot yet recommend using RTACC as a standard clinical tool. However, the findings suggest promise for future use. If you have mild memory problems, participating in a comprehensive program that includes brain training, physical exercise, and nutritional support remains a reasonable approach supported by existing evidence. Talk with your doctor about whether such a program is appropriate for you. (Confidence: Moderate—this is early-stage research that needs confirmation)

This research is most relevant to: people with mild cognitive impairment or early memory concerns, their family members, healthcare providers who treat memory problems, and researchers developing brain training programs. It’s less immediately relevant to people with normal memory function or those with advanced dementia, though the underlying principles may eventually apply more broadly.

Based on this study, meaningful improvements in memory and thinking tests appeared over a 24-week (approximately 6-month) period. However, individual results vary. Some people may see benefits sooner, while others may need the full program duration. Consistency with the program appears important—this wasn’t a quick fix but rather a sustained intervention.

Want to Apply This Research?

  • Track your reaction time and accuracy scores from brain training games weekly. Create a simple spreadsheet or use your app’s built-in tracking to record: (1) average reaction time in milliseconds, (2) accuracy percentage, and (3) the correlation between these two metrics. Plot these over time to see if your RTACC score is improving, which may indicate you’re on track to see cognitive benefits.
  • Set a goal to complete brain training sessions at least 4-5 times per week while also incorporating 150 minutes of physical activity weekly and tracking one nutritional goal (like increasing vegetable intake). Use your app to log completion of each component and create reminders for sessions. The multi-domain approach appears more effective than brain training alone.
  • Every 4 weeks, review your RTACC trend (how your reaction time and accuracy correlation is changing). If you see improvement, that’s a positive sign. Every 12 weeks, consider taking a formal cognitive assessment (like those used in the study) to measure real-world improvements in memory and thinking. Share these results with your healthcare provider to adjust your program if needed.

This research is preliminary and represents early-stage findings from a single study. RTACC is not yet an established clinical tool and should not be used to make medical decisions without consulting a healthcare provider. If you have concerns about memory loss or cognitive changes, please speak with your doctor for proper evaluation and diagnosis. This article is for educational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult with qualified healthcare professionals before starting any new cognitive training program, especially if you have existing health conditions or take medications.