What They Studied
Researchers examined whether the at-home (virtual) version of the Brain Balance program could produce cognitive improvements comparable to the established in-center program. The study was authored by Rebecca Jackson and Yue Meng of Brain Balance Achievement Centers, peer-reviewed by external researchers from East Carolina University and Alverno College, and published in Frontiers in Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.
The researchers started from a retrospective Creyos Health dataset of 16,330 participant records collected between 2019 and 2023 (1,354 at-home and 14,976 in-center, ages 4–17). From that pool, 310 at-home participants and 4,166 in-center participants met the study's criteria for completing at least three months of the program with both pre- and post-program cognitive testing, and were compared against separate control groups of 189 (at-home) and 373 (in-center) participants who were tested but had not completed a full program cycle. Cognitive performance was measured using the Creyos Health platform (formerly Cambridge Brain Sciences). The at-home program delivered the same multimodal training approach as the in-center program — sensory-motor exercises, cognitive activities, rhythm and timing training — adapted for virtual delivery with parental support.
The at-home completer sample included students with parent-reported diagnoses (ADHD, autism, sensory processing disorder, anxiety, dyslexia, or other) as well as students with no reported diagnosis, giving the sample broader real-world relevance than a single-diagnosis study. The published analysis, however, reported outcomes for the group as a whole; it did not break results out by diagnostic category. The study's authors list diagnosis-stratified analysis as a direction for future research, not a finding of this study.
What They Found
At-Home Program: Significant Cognitive Improvement
Among the 310 at-home participants analyzed (vs. 189 controls), the at-home group showed statistically significant improvement on 3 of the 6 cognitive tasks: Double Trouble (attention / response inhibition), Feature Match (attention / concentration), and Spatial Span (short-term memory). These were measured on standardized Creyos Health cognitive tasks — the same independent, computerized assessment platform used in hundreds of peer-reviewed studies. The other three tasks — Monkey Ladder (visuospatial working memory), Rotations (visual-spatial reasoning), and Token Search (working memory/strategy) — did not reach statistical significance for the at-home group specifically.
In-Center Program Examined in a Much Larger Sample
The study also examined the in-center program in a much larger analyzed sample — 4,166 in-center participants compared with 373 controls, drawn from a pool of 14,976 in-center records (roughly 9× the size of the at-home analyzed sample). In-center participants showed statistically significant improvement on 3 of the 6 tasks: Double Trouble (attention/response inhibition), Feature Match (attention/concentration), and Rotations (visual-spatial reasoning) — extending earlier center-based Brain Balance research with a substantially larger sample.
Virtual Delivery Achieved Comparable Outcomes
The study's central statistical test compared the at-home and in-center groups directly and found no significant difference in the size of their cognitive gains — that is, delivery format (at-home vs. in-center) did not significantly affect outcomes. Both formats produced significant improvement over controls on the same two tasks (Double Trouble and Feature Match, both attention-related), with the at-home group also improving significantly on Spatial Span and the in-center group also improving significantly on Rotations. This suggests the multimodal Brain Balance approach can be meaningfully adapted for virtual delivery without sacrificing the cognitive gains observed in the in-center program.
Diagnostic Composition of the Sample
The at-home completer sample (n = 310) included students with parent-reported diagnoses — ADHD, autism spectrum disorder, anxiety, sensory processing disorder, and dyslexia — alongside students with no reported diagnosis. This reflects the range of children Brain Balance serves. The published analysis did not stratify statistical results by diagnostic category, so this study does not report separate outcomes for, say, ADHD versus autism specifically; the authors identify diagnosis-stratified analysis as a needed direction for future research, not a result reported here.
Why It Matters
Access and Equity: Reaching Families Without a Nearby Center
Brain Balance operates approximately 30 centers across the United States. For families who don't live near one, the in-center program isn't an option. This study provides evidence that the at-home program — which can be accessed from anywhere — produces cognitive gains comparable in magnitude to in-person participation. This has direct implications for families in rural areas, military families, and families whose schedules or financial constraints make regular in-center visits impractical.
The study's publication date (December 2024) makes it the newest study in the Brain Balance research library. It is also published in Frontiers in Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, a peer-reviewed open-access journal, ensuring the full text is freely available to researchers and families who want to read the methods and results in full.
Examining the in-center program in this much larger analyzed sample (4,166 participants, vs. 478 in the earlier 2021 Cambridge Brain Sciences study — roughly 9× larger) strengthens the evidence base for the in-center program's cognitive effects, independent of the at-home findings.
The sample's diagnostic diversity (ADHD, autism, anxiety, sensory processing disorder, dyslexia, and no formal diagnosis) means the findings aren't limited to a single diagnostic group. That said, because the analysis wasn't stratified by diagnosis, this study cannot yet answer "does this work for my child's specific condition?" on its own — that remains a gap the authors themselves flag for future research.
Study Limitations
This was a retrospective analysis comparing at-home participants to a historical in-center cohort, not a randomized controlled trial. The two groups were not matched on demographics or baseline severity, and selection effects may have influenced which families chose the at-home format versus in-center (e.g., geographic access, financial considerations, severity of the child's challenges). The study's control groups consisted of enrolled participants tested twice within a short window and non-enrolled participants tested twice, rather than a no-treatment control arm, so cognitive improvements cannot be definitively attributed to the program versus natural maturation or practice effects on the cognitive tests. Diagnostic categories were based on parent-reported diagnoses rather than clinical verification, and results were not stratified by diagnosis. A follow-up assessment to determine whether gains were sustained after program completion was not included. Randomized trials directly comparing at-home and in-center delivery with matched participants and a control group are needed.