CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 265Cognitive Abilities and TestingEducational Games and GamificationDigital Games and Media

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 234 of the 241 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 66 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Video game training does not enhance cognitive ability: A comprehensive meta-analytic investigation

Open access
Sala, Giovanni, Tatlidil, K. Semir, Gobet, Fernand·2018·Psychological Bulletin
DOI 10.1037/bul0000139
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

As a result of considerable potential scientific and societal implications, the possibility of enhancing cognitive ability by training has been one of the most influential topics of cognitive psychology in the last two decades. However, substantial research into the psychology of expertise and a recent series of meta-analytic reviews have suggested that various types of cognitive training (e.g., working memory training) benefit performance only in the trained tasks. The lack of skill generalization from one domain to different ones-that is, far transfer-has been documented in various fields of research such as working memory training, music, brain training, and chess. Video game training is another activity that has been claimed by many researchers to foster a broad range of cognitive abilities such as visual processing, attention, spatial ability, and cognitive control. We tested these claims with three random-effects meta-analytic models. The first meta-analysis (k = 310) examined the correlation between video game skill and cognitive ability. The second meta-analysis (k = 315) dealt with the differences between video game players and nonplayers in cognitive ability. The third meta-analysis (k = 359) investigated the effects of video game training on participants' cognitive ability. Small or null overall effect sizes were found in all three models. These outcomes show that overall cognitive ability and video game skill are only weakly related. Importantly, we found no evidence of a causal relationship between playing video games and enhanced cognitive ability. Video game training thus represents no exception to the general difficulty of obtaining far transfer. (PsycINFO Database Record

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Across three random-effects meta-analyses, video game skill, player status, and video game training showed only weak or null associations with cognitive ability. The authors conclude there is no evidence of a causal relationship between playing video games and enhanced cognitive ability, and that video game training is no exception to the difficulty of far transfer.

Key findings

  • Meta-analysis 1 (correlational, k = 310): overall correlation between video game skill and cognitive ability was r̄ = .07, 95% CI [.05; .09], p < .001; trim-and-fill estimate was r̄ = .05. Skill measured by scores correlated r̄ = .16, whereas skill measured by hours of play correlated r̄ = .03; spatial ability showed the only notable small correlation (r̄ = .18 in the main outcome table; range .09–.30 across models).
  • Meta-analysis 2 (players vs. nonplayers, k = 315): overall effect was ḡ = 0.33, 95% CI [0.28; 0.39], p < .001; trim-and-fill estimate was ḡ = 0.18. RT-related measures showed ḡ = 0.46, while accuracy-related measures showed ḡ = 0.05; the authors state this advantage is substantially smaller than in Powers et al. (2013).
  • Meta-analysis 3 (training experiments, k = 359): overall training effect was ḡ = 0.07, 95% CI [0.02; 0.12], p = .004; trim-and-fill estimate was ḡ = −0.01. Action vs. non-action training was ḡ = 0.10, p = .068; action vs. non-video-game control was ḡ = −0.12, p = .072; non-action vs. non-video-game control was ḡ = 0.13, p < .001; Tetris-like games was ḡ = 0.07, p = .160.
  • The paper reports no evidence of a causal relationship between playing video games and enhanced cognitive ability; publication bias analyses generally lowered estimates, and duration of training was not a significant moderator.

Methods

  • Three random-effects meta-analyses were conducted. The search covered ERIC, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, JSTOR, Science Direct, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses through December 31, 2016; 135 researchers were emailed, 42 replied, and 25 provided unpublished data.
  • Meta-analysis 1 included 66 studies, 8,141 participants, and 310 effect sizes on correlations between video game skill and cognitive ability. Meta-analysis 2 included 98 studies, 6,166 participants, and 315 effect sizes comparing players and nonplayers. Meta-analysis 3 included 63 studies, 3,286 participants, and 359 effect sizes on video game training effects.
  • Effect sizes were categorized into five outcome measures: visual attention/processing, spatial ability, cognitive control, memory, and intelligence/reasoning. Analyses included random-effects models, moderator meta-regressions, trim-and-fill, Vevea-Woods selection models, PET-PEESE, influential-case analysis, robust variance estimation, and RT/accuracy sensitivity analyses.

Limitations

  • The paper states that correlational and quasi-experimental designs cannot establish causality; absence of correlation or between-group differences does not necessarily imply no causation. It also notes possible publication bias and a modest response rate to unpublished-data requests (25 of 135), and that some sub-models had few effect sizes (e.g., k = 8, k = 14, k = 15) and no clinical population was included.
  • The paper states that active vs. passive control group was not used as a moderator, partially dependent samples were treated as independent, and missing values in the moderator model were about 5%.
  • Evident from the text: several sub-model estimates rely on very small k or high heterogeneity (e.g., older adults’ intelligence/reasoning ḡ = −0.63, k = 15, I² = 63.45), making those specific estimates unreliable; the supplied text also truncates some tables and confidence intervals, limiting verification of some sub-model values.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/bul0000139

Cites

234 of 234 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 66 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 132 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 74
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 47
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 15
119 of 119

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    If video game training enhances cognitive function, then prolonged exposure to video games in natural groups should produce clear-cut differences between players and nonplayers and positive correlations between video game skill and cognitive skills.

    “In fact, assuming that video game training enhances cognitive function, the prolonged exposure to video games reported in natural groups should result in clear-cut differences between players and non-players and positive correlations between video-game skill and cognitive skills.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    In experimental studies, post-test video-game scores and score gains between post- and pre-test video-game scores were expected to be highly correlated and equally valid measures of video game skill.

    “Thus, post-test video-game scores and score gains between post-and pre-test videogame scores were expected to be highly correlated and, therefore, equally valid measures of video game skills.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Score tends to be a more reliable measure of video game skill than the weekly frequency of play reported in a questionnaire.

    “Score tends to be a more reliable measure of video game skill than the weekly frequency of play reported in a questionnaire.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Quasi-experimental designs cannot support strong causal inferences.

    “Although quasi-experiments do not allow any strong inference with respect to causality”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Training a skill improves that skill.

    “while it is evident that training a skill improves that skill”
5 of 5

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Experimental meta-analysis heterogeneity values change in the discussion

    Minor

    The General Discussion gives I2 values of 17.90 and 10.64 for the experimental analysis with and without influential cases, respectively. The corresponding results sections report 18.02 and 10.80.

  • Older-adult result is reported as significant despite a confidence interval spanning zero

    Minor

    For the same adjusted older-adult effect, the paper reports p < .001 but a 95% confidence interval from −0.18 to 0.05. An interval that includes zero conflicts with that significance claim.

2 of 2

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

7 of the 241 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 16

  1. Adams, D. M. (2013). Exploring the effect of video game playing on static and dynamic spatial cognition skills (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3559770).
  2. Cohen, J. E., Green, C. S., & Bavelier, D. (2008). Training visual attention with video games: Not all games are created equal. In H. O'Neil & R. Perez (Eds.), Computer games and adult learning (pp. 205-227). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  3. Gobet, F. (2016). Understanding expertise: A multi-disciplinary approach. London: Palgrave/Macmillan.
  4. Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
  5. Hollis, S. D. (2014). Cognitive effects and academic consequences of video game playing (Master's thesis). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 1566326).
  6. Jones, J. R. (2007). An exploration of multiple-object tracking across various fields of view (Master's thesis). The University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
  7. Li, R. (2010). The effects of action video game playing on low level vision (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3410597).
  8. Lucia, L. C. (2013). An electrophysiological study of the effects of visuospatial training on mental rotation, object identification, and enumeration performance (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3556627).
  9. Marra, D. (2016). Video game interventions to improve cognition in older adults (Master's thesis).
  10. In F. Blumberg (Ed.), Learning by playing: Frontiers of video gaming in education, (pp. 302- 329). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  11. Searle, H. (2007). Cognitive skill and gender in 2D and 3D game play (Master's thesis). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertation and Theses database. (UMI No. 1444270).
  12. Smith, R. P. (2007). Contrast effects produced by computer gaming: A study of learning and attention (Master's thesis). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 1455789).
  13. Strobach, T., & Karbach, J. (2016). Cognitive training: An overview of features and applications. New York: Springer. "Studies on cognitive training benefits." (2014). Retrieved from http://www.cognitivetrainingdata.org/studies-cognitivetraining-benefits *
  14. Viechtbauer, W. (2010). Conducting meta-analysis in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36, 1-48. Retrieved from http://brieger.esalq.usp.br/CRAN/web/packages/metafor/vignettes/metafor.pdf
  15. Yam, A. (2014). The effects of spatially-demanding videogame training on mental rotation performance and confidence in older adults (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3691386).
  16. Zetu, A. G. (2007). Neurophysiological differences in visual selective attention in action video- game players (Master's thesis). University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 265

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Sala, G., Tatlidil, K. S., & Gobet, F.
Affiliations
University of Liverpool (GB)
Corresponding author
Sala, Giovanni
ORCID
Venue
Psychological Bulletin
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2018-02
Volume
144
Issue
2
Pages
111-139
ISSN
  • 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1455
DOI
10.1037/bul0000139
OpenAlex
W2774567158
Semantic Scholar
8277efd3aba67e9b4d663908aa767da9dca990cb
Cited by
257
References
241
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 39 · 2019: 35 · 2018: 19
FWCI
32.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychological Bulletin (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • London School of Economics and Political Science Research Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) (submittedVersion)
  • London School of Economics and Political Science Theses Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (17F17313)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Games and Gamification
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Games and Media
Keywords
video game training, cognitive ability, far transfer, skill generalization, cognitive training, working memory training, cognitive control, attention, spatial ability, visual processing
MeSH terms
Aptitude, Cognition, Humans, Practice, Psychological, Transfer, Psychology, Video Games

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-08, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-08 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review