Cited by 27Cognitive Abilities and TestingEducational Games and GamificationCognitive Functions and Memory

Casual video games as training tools for attentional processes in everyday life

Stroud, Michael J., Whitbourne, Susan Krauss·2015·Cyberpsychology Behavior and Social Networking

Abstract

Three experiments examined the attentional components of the popular match-3 casual video game, Bejeweled Blitz (BJB). Attentionally demanding, BJB is highly popular among adults, particularly those in middle and later adulthood. In experiment 1, 54 older adults (Mage = 70.57) and 33 younger adults (Mage = 19.82) played 20 rounds of BJB, and completed online tasks measuring reaction time, simple visual search, and conjunction visual search. Prior experience significantly predicted BJB scores for younger adults, but for older adults, both prior experience and simple visual search task scores predicted BJB performance. Experiment 2 tested whether BJB practice alone would result in a carryover benefit to a visual search task in a sample of 58 young adults (Mage = 19.57) who completed 0, 10, or 30 rounds of BJB followed by a BJB-like visual search task with targets present or absent. Reaction times were significantly faster for participants who completed 30 but not 10 rounds of BJB compared with the search task only. This benefit was evident when targets were both present and absent, suggesting that playing BJB improves not only target detection, but also the ability to quit search effectively. Experiment 3 tested whether the attentional benefit in experiment 2 would apply to non-BJB stimuli. The results revealed a similar numerical but not significant trend. Taken together, the findings suggest there are benefits of casual video game playing to attention and relevant everyday skills, and that these games may have potential value as training tools.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1089/cyber.2015.0316

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stroud, M. J., & Whitbourne, S. K.
Affiliations
  • Merrimack College (US)
  • University of Massachusetts Amherst (US)
Corresponding author
Stroud, Michael J.
Venue
Cyberpsychology Behavior and Social Networking
Published
2015-11
Volume
18
Issue
11
Pages
654-660
ISSN
  • 2152-2715 (ISSN-L)
  • 2152-2723
OpenAlex
W2296406432
Cited by
27
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3
FWCI
4.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Cyberpsychology Behavior and Social Networking (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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 › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
Keywords
attention training, visual search, conjunction search, older adults, age differences, reaction time
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Attention, Female, Humans, Male, Practice, Psychological, Reaction Time, Video Games, Young Adult

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.

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