The incorporation of digital games into educational contexts has increased interest in their potential to strengthen executive functions associated with learning in primary education. However, evidence remains fragmented across intervention types, participant profiles, assessment instruments and research designs, limiting general conclusions about educational effectiveness. This systematic literature review analyses and synthesises empirical evidence on digital game-based interventions for the development of executive functions in primary-school pupils. Following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, Scopus, Web of Science and ERIC were searched for English- and Spanish-language articles published between January 2020 and July 2026. From 270 identified records, 49 full-text reports were assessed, and 16 studies met the eligibility criteria. Study selection and design-specific JBI critical appraisal were conducted independently by two reviewers, with a third reviewer resolving disagreements. The findings identify three main intervention types: purpose-built cognitive games, active digital games and gamified academic activities. Reported improvements in working memory, inhibitory control, cognitive flexibility and attention were heterogeneous and depended on the outcome measure, comparator and implementation context. Executive-task performance, caregiver ratings and academic outcomes frequently produced divergent results. Small samples, limited follow-up, incomplete reporting and insufficient control of classroom clustering constrained interpretation. This review concludes that digital games may support specific executive and learning-related processes when their design, intended outcome and implementation conditions are explicitly aligned. The evidence does not support a universally effective game or dosage, shifting attention from general technological effectiveness to the pedagogical and methodological conditions under which meaningful transfer may occur.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Barrantes et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: