Cited by 172Educational Games and GamificationCognitive Abilities and TestingDigital Mental Health Interventions

The effects of gamification on computerized cognitive training: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Vermeir, Julie F, White, Melanie J, Johnson, Daniel, Crombez, Geert, Van Ryckeghem, Dimitri M L·2020·JMIR Serious Games

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There has been a growing interest in the application of gamification (ie, the use of game elements) to computerized cognitive training. The introduction of targeted gamification features to such tasks may increase motivation and engagement as well as improve intervention effects. However, it is possible that game elements can also have adverse effects on cognitive training (eg, be a distraction), which can outweigh their potential motivational benefits. So far, little is known about the effectiveness of such applications. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the effect of gamification on process outcomes (eg, motivation) and on changes in the training domain (eg, cognition), as well as to explore the role of potential moderators. METHODS: We searched PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, ProQuest Psychology, Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, Science Direct, Excerpta Medica dataBASE, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Xplore, Association for Computing Machinery, and a range of gray-area literature databases. The searches included papers published between 2008 and 2018. Meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model. RESULTS: The systematic review identified 49 studies, of which 9 randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. The results of the review indicated that research in this context is still developing and lacks well-controlled empirical studies. Gamification in cognitive training is applied to a large range of age groups and audiences and is mostly delivered at a research site through computers. Rewards and feedback continue to dominate the gamification landscape, whereas social-oriented features (eg, competition) are underused. The meta-analyses showed that gamified training tasks were more motivating/engaging (Hedges g=0.72) and more demanding/difficult (Hedges g=-0.52) than non- or less-gamified tasks, whereas no effects on the training domain were found. Furthermore, no variables moderated the impact of gamified training tasks. However, meta-analytic findings were limited due to a small number of studies. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, this review provides an overview of the existing research in the domain and provides evidence for the effectiveness of gamification in improving motivation/engagement in the context of cognitive training. We discuss the shortcomings in the current literature and provide recommendations for future research.

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 · 10.2196/18644

Cites

93 of 93 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • Three of the included studies had participants less than 18 years of age (Soveri et al. 2017; Vermeir et al. 2020; Gathercole et al. 2019), and all studies had participants who were older than 55 years of age.

    “Three of the included studies had participants less than 18 years of age (Soveri et al. 2017; Vermeir et al. 2020; Gathercole et al. 2019), and all studies had participants who were older than 55 years of age.”

    From Examining Working Memory Training for Healthy Adults—A Second-Order Meta-Analysis (2024) · cites this paper as Vermeir et al. 2020

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 1 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Three included studies had healthy and clinical samples (Gathercole et al. 2019; Cásedas et al. 2020; Vermeir et al. 2020).

    “Three studies included healthy and clinical samples (Gathercole et al. 2019; Cásedas et al. 2020; Vermeir et al. 2020).”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 94 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. [35]Brezovszky B Lehtinen E McMullen J Rodriguez G Veermans K Training Flexible and Adaptive Arithmetic Problem Solving Skills Through Exploration With Numbers: the Development of Numbernavigation Game Proceedings of the 7th European Conference on Games Based Learning 2013 ECGBL'13 October 3-4, 2013 Porto, Portugal
  2. [45]Garolera M Berga N Quintana M Chico G Cerulla N López M Donaire Y Rimbau J Active-U: Playing to Stimulate your Brain Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Gamification in Health 2015 11 gHealth'15 10-13 November 2015 Barcelona, Spain 2 7
  3. [64]Kiili K Ninaus M Koskela M Tuomi M Lindstedt A Developing Games for Health Impact: Case Brains vs Zombies Proceedings of the 7th European Conference on Games Based Learning 2013 ECGBL'13 October 3-4, 2013 Porto, Portugal
  4. [69]Codish D Ravid G Personality Based Gamification- Educational Gamification for Extroverts and Introverts Proceedings of the 9th CHAIS Conference for the Study of Innovation and Learning Technologies: Learning in the Technological Era 2014 CHAIS'14 December 11, 2014 Raanana, Israel 36 44
  5. [71]Böckle M Novak J Bick M Towards Adaptive Gamification: A Synthesis of Current Developments Proceedings of the 25th European Conference on Information Systems 2017 ECIS'17 June 5-10, 2017 Guimarães, Portugal

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vermeir, J. F., White, M. J., Johnson, D., Crombez, G., & Van Ryckeghem, D. M. L.
Affiliations
  • Queensland University of Technology (AU)
  • Ghent University (BE)
Corresponding author
Vermeir, Julie F
Venue
JMIR Serious Games
Published
2020-08-10
Volume
8
Issue
3
Pages
e18644
ISSN
2291-9279 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3048708821
Cited by
172
References
94
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 53 · 2024: 44 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 1
FWCI
2.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JMIR Serious Games (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • QUT ePrints (Queensland University of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Open Repository and Bibliography (University of Luxembourg) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Games and Gamification
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
Keywords
gamification, computerized cognitive training, motivation, user engagement, game elements, social competition, training difficulty

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