The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Playing an Action Video Game Reduces Gender Differences in Spatial Cognition
Abstract
We demonstrate a previously unknown gender difference in the distribution of spatial attention, a basic capacity that supports higher-level spatial cognition. More remarkably, we found that playing an action video game can virtually eliminate this gender difference in spatial attention and simultaneously decrease the gender disparity in mental rotation ability, a higher-level process in spatial cognition. After only 10 hr of training with an action video game, subjects realized substantial gains in both spatial attention and mental rotation, with women benefiting more than men. Control subjects who played a non-action game showed no improvement. Given that superior spatial skills are important in the mathematical and engineering sciences, these findings have practical implications for attracting men and women to these fields.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Neural Mechanisms of Selective Visual Attention
Desimone, R., & Duncan, J. (1995) · Annual Review of Neuroscience · doi:10.1146/annurev.ne.18.030195.001205 · Cited by 8,388
Mental Rotations, a Group Test of Three-Dimensional Spatial Visualization
Vandenberg, S. G., & Kuse, A. R. (1978) · Perceptual and Motor Skills · doi:10.2466/pms.1978.47.2.599 · Cited by 2,620
Action video game modifies visual selective attention
Green, C. S., & Bavelier, D. (2003) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature01647 · Cited by 2,540
Behrmann, M., Geng, J. J., & Shomstein, S. (2004) · Current Opinion in Neurobiology · doi:10.1016/j.conb.2004.03.012 · Cited by 626
The role of experience in spatial test performance: A meta-analysis
Baenninger, M., & Newcombe, N. (1989) · Sex Roles · doi:10.1007/bf00287729 · Cited by 545
Cited by
A systematic literature review of empirical evidence on computer games and serious games
Connolly, T. M., Boyle, E. A., MacArthur, E., Hainey, T., & Boyle, J. M. (2012) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.004 · Cited by 2,890
Gender Similarities and Differences
Hyde, J. S. (2014) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115057 · Cited by 1,262
Digital Games, Design, and Learning: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Clark, D. B., Tanner-Smith, E. E., & Killingsworth, S. S. (2016) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/0034654315582065 · Cited by 1,274
Do “brain-training” programs work?
Simons, D. J., Boot, W. R., Charness, N., Gathercole, S. E., Chabris, C. F., Hambrick, D. Z., & Stine-Morrow, E. A. L. (2016) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1177/1529100616661983 · Cited by 1,183
Intelligence: New findings and theoretical developments
Nisbett, R. E., Aronson, J., Blair, C., Dickens, W., Flynn, J., Halpern, D. F., & Turkheimer, E. (2012) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/a0026699 · Cited by 1,031
Metadata
- Authors
- Feng, J., Spence, I., & Pratt, J.
- Venue
- Psychological Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2007-10
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 850-855
- ISSN
- 0956-7976 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9280
- OpenAlex
- W2150839204
- Cited by
- 1,151
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 99.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
