A new study comparing League of Legends and Sanguosha found real-time multitasking may boost certain cognitive skills more—and for longer.
When people talk about video games and the brain, the debate often gets stuck in extremes—either “brain rot” or miracle training. A new study centered on a more specific question: does the *type* of game matter?
The focus landed on League of Legends (LoL), a real-time multiplayer strategy game, and Sanguosha, a turn-based strategy card game.. Researchers reported that both games were associated with improvements in cognitive performance. but LoL appeared to produce stronger gains in skills linked to rapid thinking and juggling multiple objectives.. Even more striking for many readers: some effects appeared to persist after players stopped.
Real-time decision-making may sharpen “situational tracking”
Participants—68 university students with limited prior gaming experience—played each game for one hour a day. five days a week. for five months.. Cognitive tasks and electroencephalogram (EEG) measurements were conducted at multiple points. including before play. during the period of training. at the endpoint. and again as long as 10 weeks after the sessions ended.
The researchers found a consistent pattern: both groups improved across cognitive tasks. reinforcing the idea that sustained engagement with mentally demanding activity can influence brain function.. But when the study looked closer at *which* cognitive abilities improved, the genre differences became clearer.
In tasks requiring rapid situation assessment and tracking multiple goals, the LoL group performed significantly better than the Sanguosha group.. Importantly, the gap wasn’t only visible at the end of the five-month training window.. The study says the difference remained even 10 weeks later. with some measures widening over time—an effect that suggests the training may not simply “fade” the moment practice stops.
Brain signals hint at learning—then efficiency
The EEG results added a neurological layer to the behavioral findings.. Across both games, researchers reported power increases in the slow-frequency delta-theta band.. They interpreted this as a marker consistent with strengthened learning and adaptation.. At the same time, connectivity between brain regions decreased in the alpha band.
Alpha changes can be harder for non-specialists to interpret, but the study’s explanation leaned toward efficiency. Reduced alpha-band connectivity was framed as an outcome associated with a more streamlined working state—less unnecessary exchange between regions while players process information.
Where LoL appeared to stand out again was in the *magnitude* of these changes.. The real-time competitive group showed stronger EEG effects than the turn-based card game group.. The researchers suggested the reduced alpha connectivity could reflect improved network efficiency and lower energy use—essentially. the brain may be coordinating activity more effectively when the task demands rapid. ongoing decisions.
Why the “persistence” detail matters for everyday life
The most socially shareable part of the findings may be the persistence: cognitive performance and EEG indicators were described as maintained or even becoming stronger up to 10 weeks after participants stopped playing.
That kind of delayed effect matters because it points toward brain reorganization—not merely short-term stimulation. In everyday terms, it suggests the mental routines learned during play could continue to influence how people process information after structured gaming sessions end.
For many readers. this hits a real-world anxiety: should people worry that gaming only affects attention temporarily. or does it train skills that carry into other contexts?. This study doesn’t claim all gamers will become better problem-solvers in their daily lives. and it doesn’t measure job performance or academic outcomes directly.. But by showing longer-lasting cognitive and EEG patterns, it nudges the discussion toward “trained cognitive strategies” rather than instant effects.
What this means: game genre shapes the brain benefits
The study’s angle is also a useful corrective to the common “one-size-fits-all” conversation about gaming. If cognitive changes differ by genre, then the question becomes less about whether games are good or bad and more about what kinds of mental demands they repeatedly place on players.
Real-time genres like LoL emphasize fast assessments, continuous updates, and multitasking under pressure.. Turn-based card games often center more on reasoning, sequencing, and longer-horizon strategy.. According to the findings, those structural differences appear to translate into different cognitive outcomes.
This doesn’t automatically make one game “better.” It suggests a more nuanced truth: players may build different mental muscles depending on the gameplay loop they practice most.. For parents. educators. and gamers themselves. that framing is practical—because it encourages matching game type to the kind of cognitive training someone is actually interested in (or trying to avoid).
The takeaway for the next wave of “games and the brain” research
Even with promising results. the real question for future research is how far these effects generalize and what they translate into outside the lab.. The participants in this study were relatively new to gaming. which is important for interpreting the results—novelty and learning of game rules can shape early cognitive changes.. It also raises the possibility that experienced gamers might respond differently.
Still, the study’s design—comparing two genres head-to-head, tracking cognition at multiple time points, and pairing behavioral tests with EEG—gives the findings a stronger backbone than many broad gaming debates.
As video games keep spreading into mainstream culture. the most responsible interpretation is not “games are brain training” or “games harm thinking.” The more grounded message from Misryoum’s reporting on the study is this: game structure appears to matter. and cognitive effects may linger after play ends.
In other words, if the brain is adaptable, then the pattern of demands we repeatedly feed it—fast real-time multitasking versus turn-based reasoning—may influence what kind of adaptation sticks.