Do Serious Games Enhance Business Skills? Is "The More You Play, The Smarter You Get" True? — Examining Games and Children's Cognitive Abilities Through Science

Reevaluating "Just Playing Games"? Research on Play that Supports Planning Skills and Mental Flexibility

"If there's time to play games, I'd rather you study."

Some parents might feel this way when they see their children glued to screens. However, when considering what children are actually thinking about while engaged with these screens, a different question arises.

Predicting future developments, reorganizing failed strategies, and choosing the next action while remembering multiple conditions—could games that include such activities serve as a practice ground for thinking skills?

On October 3, 2026, the German news site "AD HOC NEWS" introduced research on "serious games" aimed at learning and training, and their relation to children's cognitive functions.

What emerges is the potential that can be expected from games, and the boundaries to prevent overextending those expectations.

Executive Functions Supporting Everyday "Planning"

At the core of the article is the power known as "executive functions," which involves adjusting thoughts and actions towards a goal.

For instance, completing homework requires not only the knowledge to solve problems but also the ability to decide the order of tasks, remember necessary information, resist distractions, and change methods when stuck.

The main functions related to executive functions can be organized as follows:

Here, "flexibility" does not refer to physical flexibility but the ability to switch thinking and rules according to the situation.

Serious games incorporate goals, a sense of achievement, and mechanisms for repeated challenges into tasks that use these functions. They are characterized by having educational or training purposes in addition to entertainment, rather than simply being difficult or serious games.

Possibilities Shown by 118 Trials

According to the original article, the research published by Xiao Liang, Ming Chen, and others in the medical journal "eClinicalMedicine" is a network meta-analysis integrating 118 randomized controlled trials.

The subjects were 5,863 children and young people with neurodevelopmental disorders such as ADHD, autism spectrum disorder, and intellectual developmental disorder. It was not a study examining gaming habits in all children in general.

Network meta-analysis is a method that estimates the effects between interventions by using information not only from trials that directly compare multiple interventions but also from common comparators.

The original article reports the comparison results between serious games and usual care as follows:

SMD is an index for comparing the results of different tests on a common scale. It does not mean "planning ability increases by 1.34 times" or "improves by 134%."

Moreover, not all 118 trials were of serious games. The overall scale of the analysis, which includes exercise and various cognitive training, and the amount of evidence supporting the effects of specific games need to be considered separately.

Note that the full text of the original paper was not obtained for this article, so the numbers of participants, effect sizes, and quality assessments are based on the reports presented in the original article.

Large Effect Sizes Do Not Equate to Definitive Conclusions

The original article also includes information to help temper expectations.

In the evaluation of bias in the studies, 24.6% of trials were considered to have few problems, 71.2% had "some concerns," and 4.2% were at "high risk." There was also variability in results between studies, and the certainty of evidence was mainly rated as "low" to "very low."

This does not mean that effects do not exist. With more rigorous trials in the future, the estimated magnitude of effects and the ranking of effective methods may change.

Particularly noteworthy is the caution against generalizing results obtained from specific training to all commercial games. Differences in the children studied, the content of tasks, duration of implementation, and presence of support mean the same effects may not be achieved.

Does Getting Better at Games Help with Homework?

For families, the interest is not just in test scores.

"Does it help with morning preparations?"
"Can they think through homework procedures on their own?"
"Can they adapt when plans change?"

Here lies an important issue in cognitive training research: whether improvement in practiced tasks transfers to other tasks and everyday life, known as the problem of "transfer."

For example, even if one improves in a task of remembering sequences of shapes on a screen, it doesn't necessarily mean they will remember their belongings the next day, due to differences in necessary information, environment, and emotional dynamics.

A comprehensive review of brain training research published in 2016 found abundant evidence for improvement in practiced tasks themselves, but scant evidence for effects on distant tasks or everyday cognitive abilities.

This old review alone cannot dismiss new research. However, the need to separately verify "what scores improved" and "how life changed" is useful when reading current news.

Reasons to Also Focus on Exercise

The original article does not introduce games as the only promising method.

When comparing large intervention categories, the effect size on overall executive functions was reported as 0.621 for physical exercise and 0.501 for computer-based cognitive training. Additionally, for inhibitory control, exercise involving judgment was promising.

Examples given include active games, table tennis, judo, and martial arts, which involve choosing actions based on the opponent's movements and changing situations.

However, these numbers cannot be simply compared with the previous figures for planning and flexibility to determine a winner, as the evaluated domains and comparison conditions differ.

For families, this doesn't mean "screen time should be increased for cognitive abilities." There is room to consider experiences that children can continue without strain, including physical activities.

"82 Minutes a Day" Is Not a Recommended Time

The original article also introduces Austria's "9th Upper Austria Youth Media Survey 2025."

According to materials published by Education Group, this survey was conducted on 500 young people aged 11-18, 300 parents, and 200 educators in the same state. It is a separate survey from trials examining the effects of cognitive training.

The computer game usage time reported by the original article is an average of 82 minutes per day.

This figure represents the usage reality of the survey subjects. It is not a result indicating "cognitive abilities improve if played for 82 minutes," nor a standard suitable for Japanese children.

Even though the term "game" is used, the questions answered by research examining training effects and surveys examining daily usage time differ. They cannot be connected to conclude that "everyday gaming trains the brain."

Reactions on Social Media—Where Expectations and Caution Intersect

Direct social media reactions to this article or the original paper were not sufficiently collected within the confirmed range. Therefore, as a reaction to related topics, discussions on brain training published on the overseas bulletin board Reddit are introduced. These are not reactions to this study or indicative of Japanese public opinion.

In a post asking about brain training methods in the cognitive science community "r/cogsci," users offered differing views.

One person shared personal experiences about training to continuously update memory, mentioning tasks dealing with sequences of positions, sounds, colors, and shapes, particularly finding complex board games helpful.

On the other hand, some opined that instead of expecting much from the brain training trend, one should engage in reading, learning, interacting with people, and exercising. Posts also emphasized enjoying apps while valuing activities like walking or playing card games with friends.

These are not data proving effectiveness. However, the focus of the discussion is intriguing. The sense of "feeling it was helpful" and the caution of "wanting to verify what it was helpful for" coexist in the same space.

When incorporating research into life, it is desirable to balance these two aspects.

What Should Japanese Families and Schools Look At?

From this report, what Japanese families and educational settings can consider is expanding the evaluation criteria for games.

In addition to the time spent playing, observe what decisions were made, what changes were made after failures, and how life is after playing.

For example, instead of just asking, "What was your score today?" parents could ask, "Why did you choose that order?" or "What would you change next time?" This is not a proposal for a guaranteed effective treatment but a conversational strategy to understand a child's thinking.

When using it as educational material in schools, it is important to separate the enjoyment of participation from the achievement of learning goals. Simply focusing on the fact that they were concentrating on the screen does not reveal whether everyday executive functions have improved.

If used as support for developmental challenges, it is crucial to share objectives with the responsible professionals, rather than promoting it as a "cure through games," and to confirm the target age, researched abilities, and presence of comparative trials.

This introduction of research is not material to unconditionally recommend games. However, it can serve as an opportunity to focus on the process where children think, try, and retry through play.

Adding the question "What were you thinking while playing?" to "How many minutes did you play?" might change the way conversations at home and connections to learning are approached.

Sources and References

1. AD HOC NEWS:
   Reports on the effect sizes of serious games, the number of subjects in the study, quality assessments, and youth gaming time.
   https://www.ad-hoc-news.de/wissenschaft/serious-games-studien-zeigen-starke-effekte-auf-planung-und-flexibilitaet/70221451

2. eClinicalMedicine: Original Paper of the Study Featured in the Article
   "Non-pharmacological executive function interventions for children and adolescents with neurodevelopmental disorders: a systematic review and network meta-analysis." Reference for the original paper. The full text was not obtained in this survey.
   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2026.104228

3. Education Group: 9th Upper Austria Youth Media Survey 2025
   Official materials confirming survey region, target age, number of young people, parents, and educators, and survey methods.Edugroup
   https://www.edugroup.at/forschung/medienstudien/9-ooe-jugend-medien-studie-2025

4. Simons et al. "Do 'Brain-Training' Programs Work?" 2016
   Review referenced to explain the issue of "transfer," distinguishing improvement in practiced tasks from effects on other tasks and daily life.PubMed
   https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27697851/

5. Reddit: r/cogsci "Looking for brain training exercises"
   Referenced as related reactions on SNS and bulletin boards. Summarized personal experiences of training being helpful and opinions emphasizing reading, exercise, and interaction. Not direct reactions to this article.reddit.com
   https://www.reddit.com/r/cogsci/comments/1hofaka/looking_for_brain_training_exercises/

##HTML