Tablet-based games and board games both show measurable cognitive effects in older adults, but the evidence does not point to one format working the same way as the other. A pilot trial of the tablet program GameAAL found a significant improvement in MoCA scores (a standard cognitive screening test) among nursing-home residents, while board games have a larger, longer-running body of research tied to specific skills like memory and executive function. No study has directly pitted tablet games against board games head-to-head as its main comparison, so claims that one format is definitively "better" go beyond what the research supports. What exists instead are separate bodies of evidence, each with its own strengths and gaps, that point to different practical takeaways for a caregiver choosing between them.
Medical information disclaimer: This article is for general educational purposes only and does not provide medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always consult a physician or other qualified health professional about symptoms, medications, tests, or treatment decisions.
Table of Contents
- What the tablet-game research actually shows
- What the board-game research shows, and why the game matters
- Do board games actually lower dementia risk?
- How tablet and board games compare when tested side by side
- What this means for choosing a game
- Frequently Asked Questions
What the tablet-game research actually shows
A pilot trial of 41 nursing-home residents, ages 60 to 93, tested the GameAAL tablet-training program against a TV-watching control group. The 10-person tablet group showed a significantly better post-intervention score on the MoCA, a cognitive screening test, with a p-value of 0.044, while the TV group showed no change, according to the GameAAL pilot trial.
That result is encouraging but narrow: a single pilot study with a small sample. A broader critical review of 34 studies on older adults' digital gameplay found the overall evidence for cognitive benefits from tablet and digital games is inconsistent, largely because methods vary so widely from one trial to the next, according to the Journal of Gerontechnology review. That inconsistency means a caregiver should treat any single tablet-game result, including the GameAAL trial, as a promising signal rather than a settled conclusion.
What the board-game research shows, and why the game matters
Board games have a larger research base, and it points to real cognitive effects. A systematic review and meta-analysis by Pozzi and colleagues, covering studies of older adults with or at risk of cognitive impairment, found significant improvement on both the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (p = 0.003) and the Mini-Mental State Examination (p = 0.02), according to the Journal of Alzheimer's Disease review. That same review found the specific game matters.
Playing Ska and Go improved scores on the Trail Making Test-A, a measure of processing speed and visual attention, while Mahjong play specifically improved executive-function measures, according to the same Journal of Alzheimer's Disease review. That means a caregiver choosing a board game for a specific concern, such as planning and decision-making, has some basis for picking one title over another rather than treating "board games" as a single interchangeable category. A smaller, non-randomized study of 82 adults aged 65 and older in adult day care centers also found a board-game program produced promising improvements in cognitive function, though its design limits how much weight that finding can carry on its own, according to the PubMed study.
Do board games actually lower dementia risk?
The French Paquid cohort study followed older adults for 20 years and found board-game players had a 15% lower risk of developing dementia than non-players. That association disappeared once researchers adjusted for baseline cognition and depression, and the study could not rule out other explanations, such as genetics, according to the BMJ Open Paquid study. A separate Edinburgh-based longitudinal cohort found that older adults who played board games frequently showed less cognitive decline by age 70 than infrequent players, but that finding is observational and cannot establish that the games caused the slower decline, according to the Journal of Gerontechnology review discussing the Edinburgh cohort.
A widely circulated claim states that playing board games four times a week cuts dementia risk by 74%, attributed to a New England Journal of Medicine study. That figure could not be verified against the original journal, and the actual Paquid cohort figure of 15% is far more modest, so the 74% number should be treated as unconfirmed, according to reporting cross-checked against the Paquid study. A caregiver who encounters the 74% figure elsewhere should treat it with skepticism rather than as an established fact.
How tablet and board games compare when tested side by side
One trial directly compared physical board games against digital "smart" games over 15 sessions. Both groups improved more than a usual-care control group on the WMS-III, a standard memory scale, with digital games showing a slightly larger effect on working memory and physical games showing slightly larger gains in associative learning, according to a Temple University summary of the trial.
That trial is the closest existing evidence to a direct comparison, and it suggests the two formats may support slightly different memory skills rather than one format being superior overall. A registered trial testing a tablet-based role-playing game in people with mild cognitive impairment is still in progress, so a definitive head-to-head answer is not yet available, according to the trial registry listing.
What this means for choosing a game
Given the current evidence, the practical choice depends less on which format is "better" and more on what a person can access and will actually use consistently. Because no study has tested tablet games against board games as its sole, primary comparison, the strongest evidence-based approach is to pick a format the person will play regularly, since consistency appears across every trial as a factor in measured improvement.
- For working memory: the board-versus-digital trial found digital games had a slightly larger effect, so a tablet game may suit someone who already prefers screens.
- For associative learning: the same trial found physical board games had a slightly larger gain, favoring tabletop play for that skill.
- For executive function: Mahjong specifically improved this domain in the Pozzi review, making it a reasonable pick when planning and decision-making are the concern.
- For processing speed and attention: Ska and Go improved Trail Making Test-A scores in the same review.
- For a resident with limited screen familiarity or hand dexterity for a physical board: a tablet's touch interface, as used in the GameAAL trial, may lower the barrier to regular play.
Frequently Asked Questions
Has any study directly compared tablet games to board games for dementia prevention?
No. A registered trial of a tablet-based role-playing game in people with mild cognitive impairment is still in progress, so head-to-head evidence remains limited, according to the trial registry listing.
Is the claim that board games cut dementia risk by 74% accurate?
That figure could not be verified against its cited journal source. The actual long-term Paquid cohort finding was a 15% lower risk, which disappeared after adjusting for baseline cognition and depression.
Does the type of board game matter for cognitive benefits?
Yes. Mahjong improved executive-function measures while Ska and Go improved processing-speed scores in the same systematic review, indicating different games target different cognitive skills.
