CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 398Cognitive Abilities and TestingEducational Games and GamificationDigital Games and Media

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 57 of the 57 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Enhancing Cognition with Video Games: A Multiple Game Training Study

Open access
Oei, Adam C., Patterson, Michael D.·2013·PLoS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0058546PMC PMC3596277
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Previous evidence points to a causal link between playing action video games and enhanced cognition and perception. However, benefits of playing other video games are under-investigated. We examined whether playing non-action games also improves cognition. Hence, we compared transfer effects of an action and other non-action types that required different cognitive demands. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We instructed 5 groups of non-gamer participants to play one game each on a mobile device (iPhone/iPod Touch) for one hour a day/five days a week over four weeks (20 hours). Games included action, spatial memory, match-3, hidden- object, and an agent-based life simulation. Participants performed four behavioral tasks before and after video game training to assess for transfer effects. Tasks included an attentional blink task, a spatial memory and visual search dual task, a visual filter memory task to assess for multiple object tracking and cognitive control, as well as a complex verbal span task. Action game playing eliminated attentional blink and improved cognitive control and multiple-object tracking. Match-3, spatial memory and hidden object games improved visual search performance while the latter two also improved spatial working memory. Complex verbal span improved after match-3 and action game training. CONCLUSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Cognitive improvements were not limited to action game training alone and different games enhanced different aspects of cognition. We conclude that training specific cognitive abilities frequently in a video game improves performance in tasks that share common underlying demands. Overall, these results suggest that many video game-related cognitive improvements may not be due to training of general broad cognitive systems such as executive attentional control, but instead due to frequent utilization of specific cognitive processes during game play. Thus, many video game training related improvements to cognition may be attributed to near-transfer effects.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0058546

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Attentional blink task. Sample of a single trial of the attentional blink task. T1 is the white letter G. In this trial, the “X” (T2) appeared in Lag 2.
Figure 1 Attentional blink task. Sample of a single trial of the attentional blink task. T1 is the white letter G. In this trial, the “X” (T2) appeared in Lag 2.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 and b. Filter task. Samples from the 2 targets 6 distractors (2a) and 8 targets 0 distractors conditions (2b). Both samples include changed orientation of a single target.
Figure 2 and b. Filter task. Samples from the 2 targets 6 distractors (2a) and 8 targets 0 distractors conditions (2b). Both samples include changed orientation of a single target.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Visual search/spatial working memory task. Sample trial for dual task condition. Note that figure is in reverse contrast.
Figure 3 Visual search/spatial working memory task. Sample trial for dual task condition. Note that figure is in reverse contrast.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Complex span task. Sample trial for a complex span task with a two-letter load and two operations. Participants were asked to recall all the letters in order while performing the operations. In this case, one operation would be “5+2−1 = 6” and the last operation would be “6+1−2 = 5”. Hence, the correct answer in this trial is GC5.
Figure 4 Complex span task. Sample trial for a complex span task with a two-letter load and two operations. Participants were asked to recall all the letters in order while performing the operations. In this case, one operation would be “5+2−1 = 6” and the last operation would be “6+1−2 = 5”. Hence, the correct answer in this trial is GC5.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5 and 5b. Attentional blink performance. (A) Depicts changes in T2 detection accuracy from pre to post training for each training group. (B) T2 detection accuracy during post training for each training group. Asterisks represent statistically significant pre to post-training improvements. Error bars denote 95% confidence interval (CI) [51].
Figure 5 and 5b. Attentional blink performance. (A) Depicts changes in T2 detection accuracy from pre to post training for each training group. (B) T2 detection accuracy during post training for each training group. Asterisks represent statistically significant pre to post-training improvements. Error bars denote 95% confidence interval (CI) [51].CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 6 and b. Filter task performance. (A) Depicts pre and post-training performance for each training group in 2 target 6 distractor condition for cognitive control. (B) Depicts pre and post-training performance for each training group in the 8 target 0 distractor condition for multiple-object tracking. Asterisks represent statistically significant pre to post-training improvements. Error bars denote 95% CI.
Figure 6 and b. Filter task performance. (A) Depicts pre and post-training performance for each training group in 2 target 6 distractor condition for cognitive control. (B) Depicts pre and post-training performance for each training group in the 8 target 0 distractor condition for multiple-object tracking. Asterisks represent statistically significant pre to post-training improvements. Error bars denote 95% CI.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 7 Visual search accuracy. Visual search accuracy from pre to post training for match-3 group. Asterisks represent statistically significant pre to post-training improvements. Error bars denote 95% CI.
Figure 7 Visual search accuracy. Visual search accuracy from pre to post training for match-3 group. Asterisks represent statistically significant pre to post-training improvements. Error bars denote 95% CI.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 8.Visual Visual search RT. Pre and post training search RT for hidden-object (A), memory matrix (B) and match-3 (C) groups. Asterisks represent statistically significant pre to post-training improvements. Error bars denote 95% CI.
Figure 8.Visual Visual search RT. Pre and post training search RT for hidden-object (A), memory matrix (B) and match-3 (C) groups. Asterisks represent statistically significant pre to post-training improvements. Error bars denote 95% CI.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 9 Spatial working memory accuracy. Spatial working memory performance from pre to post training for hidden-object (A) and memory matrix (B) groups. Asterisk represent statistically significant pre to post-training improvements. Error bars denote 95% CI.
Figure 9 Spatial working memory accuracy. Spatial working memory performance from pre to post training for hidden-object (A) and memory matrix (B) groups. Asterisk represent statistically significant pre to post-training improvements. Error bars denote 95% CI.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 10 Complex verbal span performance. Complex verbal span performance from pre to post training. Asterisks represent statistically significant pre to post training improvements (α ≤.01). Error bars denote 95% CI. Note that The Sims group was marginally non-significant after Bonferroni correction of α –level.
Figure 10 Complex verbal span performance. Complex verbal span performance from pre to post training. Asterisks represent statistically significant pre to post training improvements (α ≤.01). Error bars denote 95% CI. Note that The Sims group was marginally non-significant after Bonferroni correction of α –level.CC BY · PubMed Central

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 56 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Cohen JE, Green CS, Bavelier D (2008) Training visual attention with video games: Not all games are created equal. In: O’Neil HF, Perez RS, editors. Computer games and team and individual learning. Oxford, UK: Elseiver Ltd.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–300 of 397

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Oei, A. C., & Patterson, M. D.
Affiliations
Nanyang Technological University (SG)
Corresponding author
Oei, Adam C.
ORCID
Oei, Adam C.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2013-03-13
Volume
8
Issue
3
Pages
e58546
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0058546
PMC
PMC3596277
OpenAlex
W2020754547
Cited by
398
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 77 · 2019: 41 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 33 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 6
FWCI
34.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • DR-NTU (Nanyang Technological University) (submittedVersion)
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, action video games, transfer of learning, near transfer, attentional blink, multiple object tracking, cognitive control, spatial working memory, verbal span, visual search, mobile games, hidden object games, life simulation games
MeSH terms
Cognition, Female, Humans, Male, Memory, Reaction Time, Spatial Behavior, Video Games, Biomedical Enhancement, Attentional Blink

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