The DOI matches its Crossref record; 70 of the 71 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 82 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Cognitive tasks are typically viewed as effortful, frustrating, and repetitive, which often leads to participant disengagement. This, in turn, may negatively impact data quality and/or reduce intervention effects. However, gamification may provide a possible solution. If game design features can be incorporated into cognitive tasks without undermining their scientific value, then data quality, intervention effects, and participant engagement may be improved. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review aims to explore and evaluate the ways in which gamification has already been used for cognitive training and assessment purposes. We hope to answer 3 questions: (1) Why have researchers opted to use gamification? (2) What domains has gamification been applied in? (3) How successful has gamification been in cognitive research thus far? METHODS: We systematically searched several Web-based databases, searching the titles, abstracts, and keywords of database entries using the search strategy (gamif* OR game OR games) AND (cognit* OR engag* OR behavi* OR health* OR attention OR motiv*). Searches included papers published in English between January 2007 and October 2015. RESULTS: Our review identified 33 relevant studies, covering 31 gamified cognitive tasks used across a range of disorders and cognitive domains. We identified 7 reasons for researchers opting to gamify their cognitive training and testing. We found that working memory and general executive functions were common targets for both gamified assessment and training. Gamified tests were typically validated successfully, although mixed-domain measurement was a problem. Gamified training appears to be highly engaging and does boost participant motivation, but mixed effects of gamification on task performance were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Heterogeneous study designs and typically small sample sizes highlight the need for further research in both gamified training and testing. Nevertheless, careful application of gamification can provide a way to develop engaging and yet scientifically valid cognitive assessments, and it is likely worthwhile to continue to develop gamified cognitive tasks in the future.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This systematic review identified 33 studies covering 31 gamified cognitive tasks and found 7 reasons researchers gamify cognitive assessment or training. Gamified tasks generally improved motivation and engagement, but evidence for improved data quality was lacking, and effects on task performance were mixed.
Key findings
- The review included 33 relevant studies and 31 gamified cognitive tasks; working memory and general executive functions were common targets for both gamified assessment and training.
- Gamified assessments were typically validated successfully, with sample intertask correlations of 0.45–0.60 in some simpler validation studies, but mixed-domain measurement was a problem.
- Gamified training appeared highly engaging and boosted participant motivation, but mixed effects on task performance were reported; 21 of 33 studies compared a gamelike task directly against a nongamified counterpart.
- The authors found no evidence that gamified tests improve data quality and some indications they may worsen it, while positive training findings were tentative due to methodological problems.
Methods
- Systematic search of PsycInfo, Medline, ETHOS, EMBASE, PubMed, IBSS, Francis, Web of Science, and Scopus using `(gamif* OR game OR games) AND (cognit* OR engag* OR behavi* OR health* OR attention OR motiv*)`, limited to English papers from January 2007 to October 2015.
- Inclusion required primary empirical research on a novel gamelike task designed to assess or train cognition and either validated or piloted; non–peer-reviewed papers, education/health-promotion/rehabilitation gamification, and non-gamelike VR/3D environments were excluded.
- Papers were screened by one reviewer (JL) in three stages, with a second reviewer (EE) rescreening 20% from the title stage onward; inter-rater agreement was moderate (k=.526, 95% CI 0.416–0.633, P<.001).
Limitations
- The paper states that the review required a narrow scope focused on cognitive training and testing, which led to some papers being excluded on the subjective basis of not being “cognitive research,” and that many included studies were preliminary, making findings tentative.
- The paper states that sample sizes were small in nearly all reviewed studies and only 5 of 33 papers described a power calculation.
- Evident from the text: many training games used only a gamified task, so the effect of gamification could not be dissociated from the intervention effect, and validation standards were heterogeneous.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
0 of 82 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Gamified tests were typically validated successfully”
§ Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy > Abstract > Results
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We found that working memory and general executive functions were common targets for both gamified assessment and training.”
§ Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy > Abstract > Results
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesThe paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“although mixed-domain measurement was a problem”
§ Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy > Abstract > Results
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“mixed effects of gamification on task performance were reported”
§ Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy > Abstract > Results
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We identified 7 reasons for researchers opting to gamify their cognitive training and testing.”
§ Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy > Abstract > Results
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesThe paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Three of the 6 games were very simplistic, with only a few specific game mechanics and carefully designed nongame controls, to make the effects of the game mechanics on the data as apparent as possible.”
§ Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy > Results > Why Do Researchers Use Gamification?
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we found 11 studies (8 games) that used gamification to reduce participant dropout rates over a protracted testing or training programme.”
§ Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy > Results > Why Do Researchers Use Gamification?
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesNone of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Six studies cited evidence that playing video games can be cognitively beneficial and/or stimulating as a key factor in their decision to gamify.”
§ Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy > Results > Why Do Researchers Use Gamification?
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIn the paper
“Five other games were aimed at young children, and reframed the cognitive assessment as a game, to test the children under optimal mental conditions [41].”
§ Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy > Results > Why Do Researchers Use Gamification?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [41] source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Eleven tasks were gamified specifically to enhance appeal with a given age group”
§ Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy > Results > Why Do Researchers Use Gamification?
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes
- It may state two separate claims as one. 44
- Probably not a substantial claim. 19
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Gamified training appears to be highly engaging and does boost participant motivation”
§ Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy > Abstract > Results
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our review identified 33 relevant studies, covering 31 gamified cognitive tasks used across a range of disorders and cognitive domains.”
§ Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy > Abstract > Results
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we found 16 studies that explicitly used gamified tasks to measure or train cognition in a more motivating manner, and the majority (10 of 16) of these studies were assessment studies.”
§ Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy > Results > Why Do Researchers Use Gamification?
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Heterogeneous study designs and typically small sample sizes”
§ Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy > Abstract > Conclusions
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Many of these games were used in an unobserved, nonlaboratory setting; therefore, the tasks made use of motivational features that made the training and testing intrinsically more appealing and less of a burden to perform on a regular basis.”
§ Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy > Results > Why Do Researchers Use Gamification?
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“One game, Watermons [38], was designed, using Self Determination Theory [50,51], to maximize participant intrinsic motivation and make any motivational effects of game mechanics as apparent as possible.”
§ Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy > Results > Why Do Researchers Use Gamification?
What the sources say
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Again, working memory was a popular target, closely followed by EF and inhibitory control training.”
§ Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy > Results > What Are the Application Areas of Gamification?
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Many games tested several cognitive domains and/or general EF, highlighting the difficulty of examining gamification effects on specific cognitive domains (and therefore comparing performance to standard cognitive tasks).”
§ Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy > Results > What Are the Application Areas of Gamification?
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is also worth noting that the numbers of studies investigating cognitive testing (17) and training (15) were very similar”
§ Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy > Results > What Are the Application Areas of Gamification?
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“General executive function (EF), attention, and inhibition were also commonly tested domains.”
§ Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy > Results > What Are the Application Areas of Gamification?
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Great Brain Experiment aimed to keep task sessions below 5 minutes in duration and found that the shortest task, the Stop Signal Task, was the most popular mini game.”
§ Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy > Results > Why Do Researchers Use Gamification?
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We found comparable numbers of games used for cognitive testing (17) and training (13), with one game that can be used for both testing and training”
§ Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy > Results > What Are the Application Areas of Gamification?
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“these games tended to build simple game-archetypes, such as space invaders or whack-a-mole, around an existing cognitive task; with the goal of encouraging self-motivation, improving participant enjoyment, and even reducing test anxiety [17].”
§ Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy > Results > Why Do Researchers Use Gamification?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [17] McPherson, J, 2007, Behav Res Methods source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For example, use of exploratory factor analysis showed that Whack-a-Mole’s primary output measure was correlated with 2 of the 3 EFs of interest: inhibition (r (22)=.60, P<.001) and updating (r (22) = .35, P<.05) [33].”
§ Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy > Results > Does Gamification Work?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [33] source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Validation studies varied in their design, and some studies reported complex correlations between gamified and nongamified tasks with multiple outputs.”
§ Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy > Results > Does Gamification Work?
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There is a smaller overlap in domains covered by cognitive training tasks; test batteries tend to test a wide range of domains, whereas training focuses on 1 or 2 domains exclusively.”
§ Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy > Results > What Are the Application Areas of Gamification?
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The initial study was successful, with Space Code’s output measure correlating well with a conventional measure of processing speed (r (58)=.55, P<.001).”
§ Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy > Results > Does Gamification Work?
Strength:boosted· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Continuous Performance Task-II detected more commission errors from the ADHD adults as expected (mean [M]=56, standard deviation [SD]=13 vs M=46, SD=10), but Retirement Party did not (M=14.4, SD=5.8 vs M=13.2, SD=4.3)”
§ Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy > Results > Does Gamification Work?
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We saw several games aimed at training and testing people with ADHD, and overall, these games appear highly engaging to users, in some cases, even increasing the time spent training.”
§ Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy > Discussion > Principal Results
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Indeed, gamification was reported as both motivational and positive by study authors and participants alike.”
§ Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy > Discussion > Conclusions
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our review found no evidence to support that gamified tests can be used to improve data quality, either by reducing between-subject noise or by improving participant performance”
§ Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy > Discussion > Conclusions
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“3D graphics were quite prevalent, as was the use of avatars, points, levels, and dynamically growing game worlds”
§ Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy > Discussion > Differences Between Training and Assessment Tasks
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast, assessment games were simpler, predominantly using 2D graphics, sound effects, score, and theme to create the appearance of a game.”
§ Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy > Discussion > Differences Between Training and Assessment Tasks
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Training games typically contained many features and were similar in appearance to commercial video games.”
§ Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy > Discussion > Differences Between Training and Assessment Tasks
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Cognitive training normally requires several sessions to be effective.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Papers were only included in the review on the agreement of both JL and EE.”
§ Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy > Methods > Screening
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We used Cohen K to assess inter-rater reliability of paper inclusion at the 20% data check stage (7590 papers checked). There was moderate agreement between the 2 reviewers (k=.526, 95% CI, 0.416 to 0.633, P<.001).”
§ Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy > Results > Search Results
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Furthermore, using games as a vehicle to deliver cognitive training may also be advantageous simply because video games appear to have positive effects on a number of outcomes, including working memory, attentional capacity, problem solving, motivation, emotional control, and prosocial behaviors [6].”
§ Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [6] source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A second reviewer (EE) rescreened 20% of the papers from the title stage onward to ensure that no relevant papers were missed.”
§ Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy > Methods > Screening
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In a similar vein, cognitive assessment has been accused of being ecologically invalid [60].”
§ Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy > Results > Why Do Researchers Use Gamification?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [60] source
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Furthermore, patients with ADHD react differently from controls to rewards and feedback: they prefer strong reinforcement and immediate feedback, as well as clear goals and objectives, all of which can easily be delivered in a gamelike environment [22,24,62].”
§ Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy > Results > Why Do Researchers Use Gamification?
What the sources say
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“There is good evidence that video game players outperform nongamers on tests of working memory [52] visual attention [53,54] and processing speed [55,56].”
§ Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy > Results > Why Do Researchers Use Gamification?
What the sources say
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is likely due to its ease of testing and also because working memory deficit is a common symptom in many disorders.”
§ Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy > Results > What Are the Application Areas of Gamification?
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Working memory deficit is a common symptom in many disorders.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“As Dunbar et al explain [8], games are uniquely suited to some forms of cognitive training as they give the player freedom to make choices and experience feedback on the effects of those choices; in other words, they provide opportunities for experiential learning [61].”
§ Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy > Results > Why Do Researchers Use Gamification?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [8] source
- Not checked yetcites [61] Kolb, D, 1984, Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the slightly smaller proportion of games used to deliver cognitive training is likely explained by the relative recency of the field.”
§ Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy > Results > What Are the Application Areas of Gamification?
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Gamification aims to increase engagement with tasks that might otherwise be perceived as demotivating [48]”
§ Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy > Results > Why Do Researchers Use Gamification?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [48] ErikssonBMusialikMWagnerJStudent essay20120862016-07-08Gamification - Engaging the Future https://gupea.ub.gu.se/handle/2077/30037
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Commercial gamification is often used to create long-term interest around a user experience, product, or event [13].”
§ Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy > Results > Why Do Researchers Use Gamification?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [13] source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Broadly speaking, these were well-designed and well-powered studies, and together, they provide encouraging evidence that cognitive tests can be gamified and still be useful as a research tool.”
§ Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy > Results > Does Gamification Work?
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Such a performance boost resulting from gamelike elements is a disadvantage when performing cognitive assessment but is likely to be desirable in a cognitive training scenario.”
§ Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy > Results > Does Gamification Work?
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The fact that Space Code was thought to be a fairly pure measure in one study and then was shown to be mixed-domain in the next highlights the fact that designing gamified cognitive tasks is difficult, and multiple, well-powered validation studies may be required to ensure a task is measuring what is intended.”
§ Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy > Results > Does Gamification Work?
Tests✓ Asserted: passes? Checkable: unclear✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Given the relatively large combined sample size of these studies (N=200), they provide good evidence that game mechanics can be included in cognitive tests without invalidating the data and with the desired effect of increasing motivation.”
§ Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy > Results > Does Gamification Work?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [9] source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The dopaminergic system is thought to be abnormal in ADHD [66,67].”
§ Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy > Discussion > Principal Results
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [66] source
- Not checked yetcites [67] 1996, Mol Psychiatry
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Gamified tasks may be valuable for assessing ADHD patients as computer games are particularly appealing to them: with rapid rewards, immediate feedback, and time-pressure being exactly the type of stimulus the ADHD brain craves [64,65].”
§ Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy > Discussion > Principal Results
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [64] Kok, A, 2002, Autism source
- Not checked yetcites [65] WebMD20122016-04-19Video Games and ADHD: What's the Link? http://www.webmd.com/add-adhd/childhood-adhd/features/adhd-and-video-games-is-there-a-link?print=true
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The Great Brain Experiment [39] and GAME [46] both showed gamelike tasks to be appropriate for measuring and training working memory.”
§ Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy > Results > Does Gamification Work?
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“McNab and Dolan showing that data collected from 2 very different gamified and nongamified tasks could fit similar models of working memory capacity.”
§ Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy > Results > Does Gamification Work?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [39] source
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Children in the gamelike condition were also more engaged and enjoyed the training more, as measured by “absence time.””
§ Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy > Results > Does Gamification Work?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [24] source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“They found that these gamelike features increased the effect of training, reducing reaction times and switch costs, compared against a non–gamelike version of the training.”
§ Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy > Results > Does Gamification Work?
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [38] source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“An additional consideration is that many of the studies reviewed were of a preliminary nature, and as such, the findings reported here should be considered tentative.”
§ Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy > Discussion > Limitations
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“thus making the participant experience less effortful and potentially reducing drop-outs in longitudinal studies.”
§ Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy > Discussion > Conclusions
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Tasks of this nature represent gamification at its simplest, but they were well received by users, implying that minimal gamification is better than no gamification.”
§ Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy > Discussion > Differences Between Training and Assessment Tasks
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The simplicity of gamification employed is likely due to the constant tension between creating an engaging task and the risk of undermining the task’s scientific validity: including unknown game mechanics might have deleterious effects on the data collected.”
§ Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy > Discussion > Differences Between Training and Assessment Tasks
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and served to sustain engagement over a long period.”
§ Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy > Discussion > Differences Between Training and Assessment Tasks
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“papers were only included in the review on consensus from both reviewers (JL and EE), and a 20% selection check was performed by EE on papers from the title-screening stage onward.”
§ Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy > Discussion > Limitations
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However, Katz et al [34] and Miranda and Palmer [36] highlight that this can be difficult balancing act, with several game mechanics having unforeseen deleterious effects on performance.”
§ Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy > Discussion > Principal Results
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The results of references [9,17,18,38], show that gamified tasks can be used to improve motivation, while still maintaining a scientifically valid task.”
§ Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy > Discussion > Principal Results
What the sources say
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Many training games used a gamified task only, meaning the effect of gamification cannot be dissociated from the effect of the intervention.”
§ Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy > Discussion > Validating Gamified Tasks
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“this may improve player performance and motivation.”
§ Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy > Discussion > Principal Results
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Gamelike tasks may also reduce feelings of test anxiety and allow alternative interfaces to cognitive tests that would otherwise be difficult to deliver in certain populations.”
§ Gamification of Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: A Systematic Review of Applications and Efficacy > Discussion > Conclusions
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
Cognitive tasks are typically viewed as effortful, frustrating, and repetitive.
“Cognitive tasks are typically viewed as effortful, frustrating, and repetitive, which often leads to participant disengagement.”
The paper relies on this without support.
To the authors' knowledge, there have been no systematic reviews of gamification in cognitive research.
“To our knowledge, there have been no systematic reviews of gamification in cognitive research.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The highly repetitive nature of cognitive tasks means they are ripe for improvement.
“the highly repetitive nature of cognitive tasks means they are ripe for improvement.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Cognitive tests are typically a one-off measure, and replayability is not a requirement.
“Cognitive tests are typically a one off measure, and replayability is not a requirement.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Working memory deficit is a common symptom in many disorders.
“working memory deficit is a common symptom in many disorders.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Cognitive training normally requires several sessions to be effective.
“Cognitive training normally requires several sessions to be effective”
The paper relies on this without support.
Engagement will be the key to collecting high-quality data as cognitive research moves out of the laboratory and onto personal computers and mobile devices.
“As cognitive research begins to move out of the laboratory and onto personal computers and mobile devices, engagement will be the key to collecting high-quality data.”
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?
In the citing paper
“Those authors found improvements in time management and planning/organization, and a reduction in hyperactivity symptoms in a group of students with ADHD who received an SG intervention.”
From Serious Games and Their Effect Improving Attention in Students with Learning Disabilities (2019) · cites this paper as [16]
In the citing paper
“These results are in line with previous research stating that playing videogames can increase concentration and other cognitive variables, such as processing speed or visual discrimination [12,13,14,15,16].”
From Serious Games and Their Effect Improving Attention in Students with Learning Disabilities (2019) · cites this paper as [16]
Statistics that don’t add up
Each reported p-value recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom.
p-value fits an unstated one-tailed test: r (22) = .35, p < .05
MinorThe paper reports p < .05 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .094 (two-tailed). The reported value is what a one-tailed test gives, but the paper does not say near this result that a one-tailed test was used.
Reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .094
“r (22) = .35, P<.05”
p-value fits an unstated one-tailed test: r (22)=.60, p < .001
MinorThe paper reports p < .001 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .002 (two-tailed). The reported value is what a one-tailed test gives, but the paper does not say near this result that a one-tailed test was used.
Reported p < .001 · recomputed p = .002
“r (22)=.60, P<.001”
Statistics recomputed
Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.
- Doesn’t add upr(22) = 0.6reported p < .001 · recomputed p = .002
“r (22)=.60, p < .001”
- Doesn’t add upr(22) = 0.35reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .094
“r (22) = .35, p < .05”
- Consistentr(58) = 0.55reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“r (58)=.55, p < .001”
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.
Trapp study has conflicting publication years
MinorTable 1 dates the Trapp et al study to 2008, while its matching reference lists BMC Psychiatry 2013.
“| Trapp et al, 2008 [19] | Cognitive remediation improves cognition and good cognitive performance increases time to relapse—results of a 5-year catamnestic study in schizophrenia patients | Xcog | Training |”
“19. Trapp W Landgrebe Michael Hoesl Katharina Lautenbacher Stefan Gallhofer Bernd Günther Wilfried Hajak Goeran Cognitive remediation improves cognition and good cognitive performance increases time to relapse--results of a 5 year catamnestic study in schizophrenia patients BMC Psychiatry 2013 13 184”
Ninaus finding points to a different reference
MinorThe text attributes the working-memory performance finding to Ninaus et al but cites reference 48, which is an essay by Eriksson and colleagues. The Ninaus study is listed as reference 46.
“With Ninaus et al, presenting evidence that gamification can improve overall participant performance in a working memory training task [48]”
“48. Eriksson B Musialik M Wagner J Student essay 2012 08 6 2016-07-08 Gamification - Engaging the Future”
Citations
Cites
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037//0003-066x.55.1.68 · Cited by 54,599 · cited 1×
“One game, Watermons [38], was designed, using Self Determination Theory [50,51], to maximize participant intrinsic motivation and make any motivational effects of game mechanics as apparent as possible.”
Method(1983) · Cited by 33,192
Moral Identity and Developmental Theory
Lapsley, D. K. (2015) · Human Development · doi:10.1159/000435926 · Cited by 3,843
The motivational pull of video games: a self-determination theory approach
Ryan, R. M., Rigby, C. S., & Przybylski, A. (2006) · Motivation and Emotion · doi:10.1007/s11031-006-9051-8 · Cited by 3,332 · cited 1×
“One game, Watermons [38], was designed, using Self Determination Theory [50,51], to maximize participant intrinsic motivation and make any motivational effects of game mechanics as apparent as possible.”
MethodReality is Broken Why Games Make Us Better and How They Can Change the World
(2012) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.49-6095 · Cited by 2,933 · cited 1×
“By their nature, games present users with difficult challenges to overcome and use narrative structure, complex graphics, strategic elements, and intuitive rules to engage the user [3].”
BackgroundEysenbach, G. (2005) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.7.1.e11 · Cited by 2,524 · cited 1×
“This is a particular problem for Web-based studies where participants can simply close the browser window and drop out of the study the moment they decide it is not worth their time [5].”
BackgroundIs working memory training effective? A meta-analytic review
Melby-Lervåg, M., & Hulme, C. (2013) · Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0028228 · Cited by 1,782 · cited 1×
“Cognitive training has often suffered from a lack of transferability [57-59].”
BackgroundVideo game training enhances cognitive control in older adults
Anguera, J. A., Boccanfuso, J., Rintoul, J. L., Al-Hashimi, O., Faraji, F., Janowich, J., Kong, E., Larraburo, Y., Rolle, C., Johnston, E., et al. (2013) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature12486 · Cited by 1,666 · cited 2×
“…of treated cases with bulimia nervosa Fagundo et al, 2013 [29] Training Neuroracer Video game training enhances cognitive control in older adults Anguera et al, 2013 [30] Training Braingame Brian A pilot study of the efficacy of a computerized executive functioning remediation training with…”
BackgroundBoyle, E. A., Hainey, T., Connolly, T. M., Gray, G., Earp, J., Ott, M., Lim, T., Ninaus, M., Ribeiro, C., & Pereira, J. (2016) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.003 · Cited by 1,133 · cited 1×
“Furthermore, using games as a vehicle to deliver cognitive training may also be advantageous simply because video games appear to have positive effects on a number of outcomes, including working memory, attentional capacity, problem solving, motivation, emotional control, and prosocial behaviors [6].”
MethodDopamine and the regulation of cognition and attention
Nieoullon, A. (2002) · Progress in Neurobiology · doi:10.1016/s0301-0082(02)00011-4 · Cited by 1,131 · cited 1×
“However, it is thought that playing video games can facilitate the release of extrastriatal dopamine, which plays a role in focusing attention and heightening arousal [68,69]; this may improve player performance and motivation.”
Background
Flagged first, then by citations
1 of the 71 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Gamberini, L, 2010, Stud Health Technol Inform, 154, 29
- 1996, Mol Psychiatry, 1, 121
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 501–584 of 584
Gibbs-Dean, T., Katthagen, T., Hu, R., et al. (2024) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-5357057/v1
Li, A., Li, J., Geng, Y., Qiang, Y., & Zhao, J. (2024) · doi:10.2196/preprints.68755
Distance-Based Integration of ERP Correlation Analysis
Srimaharaj, W. (2024) · Computer Science · doi:10.7494/csci.2024.25.4.6070
Vermeir, J. F., White, M. J., Johnson, D., et al. (2023) · doi:10.2196/preprints.50635
Video Games and Gamification for Assessing Mild Cognitive Impairment: Scoping Review (Preprint)Preprint
Chen, Y., Gerling, K., Verbert, K., et al. (2025) · doi:10.2196/preprints.71304
Investigating the effects of a novel gamified cognitive training on adolescent mental healthPreprint
Grunewald, K., Minihan, S., Andrews, J. L., Songco, A., Blakemore, S., Chau, A. K. C., Fischer, J., Fox, E., Nelissen, A. B., Raffe, W. L., et al. (2025) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-5900018/v1
Louis, L.-E., Moussaoui, S., Ravoux, S., & Milleville-Pennel, I. (2024) · JMIR Formative Research · doi:10.2196/63491
“The reason is because cognitive tasks are perceived as demotivating and frustrating given their repetitive and effortful aspects (Lumsden et al [14]) which may impact on perceived playfulness (PP).”
Opportunities arising from the tech revolution
Čepukaitytė, G., & Chan, D. (2025) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-822240-9.00006-5
Imazaki, P. H. D., Lewandowski, C., Magana, M. L., Rohmer, M., Bailly, J., & David, L. (2025) · Journal of Veterinary Medical Education · doi:10.3138/jvme-2024-0151 · Cited by 1
Classification of Gamified Go/NoGo Tasks using Single-Channel EEG Device and Machine Learning
Rony, J. H., Ishtiaque, F., Sarker, F., et al. (2024) · IEEE International Conference on Biomedical Engineering, Computer and Information Technology for Health (BECITHCON) · doi:10.1109/becithcon64160.2024.10962583
“In addition, Gamification in cognitive research has been shown to improve participant engagement and motivation [7].”
Students' Perceptions of and Experience With Online Test Preparation (Rehearsal) and Testing
Liu, Y., Zhang, J., McIntyre, M. M., Seferoğlu, G., & Wart, M. V. (2025) · International Journal of Adult Education and Technology · doi:10.4018/ijaet.375385 · Cited by 2
“…have found that gamification is effective in general and popular format for automatically scored activities in lieu of traditional homework (Lumsden et al., 2016; Metwally et al., 2021); others have found gamification to have limited impact on performance and satisfaction (e.g., Butler &…”
Gobbis, A. D., Malavolta, M., Beukelaer, N. D., et al. (2025) · doi:10.2196/preprints.77109
Hadjiaros, M., Shimi, A. G., Neokleous, K., Pattichis, C. S., & Avraamides, M. N. (2025) · JMIR Formative Research · doi:10.2196/65836 · Cited by 3
“…search trials, (2) RT increases significantly with display size, a phenomenon known as the “display size effect,” but only in conjunction search trials [15,17,18], and (3) RT remains relatively constant across display sizes in feature search trials, a phenomenon known as the “pop-out effect” [19].”
Lettuce entertain you: Assessing Sandwich Builder as a measure of auditory short-term memory
McLaughlin, D. J., & Samuel, A. G. (2025) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-025-02707-1
“One increasingly popular approach in psychological science for circumventing this issue is experiment gamification (Lumsden et al., 2016).”
Mantell, R., Hwang, Y. I., Dark, M., et al. (2024) · doi:10.2196/preprints.65252
Jahanikia, S., Sharma, N., Gor, A., Lao, S., Park, E., Nanjanagud, S., Wang, J., & Srivastava, D. (2025) · Preprints.org · doi:10.20944/preprints202506.1643.v1
Evaluating planning through play: Exploring the use of mini games to assess planning abilities
Cunningham, E. G., Bavelier, D., & Green, C. S. (2025) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.105252 · Cited by 1
Piece by Piece: A Puzzle-Based Serious Game for Engaging Children with ADHD (Preprint)Preprint
Malekshahi, S., Doost, M. T. K., Rostami, R., & Hamid Soltanian-zadeh, A. (2025) · doi:10.2196/preprints.81496
Silva, E. A., Rocha, D. S., Silva, M. B., et al. (2025) · World Congress on Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, September 7 - 12, 2009, Munich, Germany · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-93646-3_5
Ameur, M. A. A., Yang, E., McGeown, W. J., & Zhang, Y. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-00652-3_8
Let’s Play! The Use of Online Games in Systemic Family Therapy
Dalai, J., Campaioli, G., & Pomini, V. (2025) · European Family Therapy Association series · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-92225-1_9
Gobbis, A. D., Malavolta, M., Beukelaer, N. D., et al. (2025) · JMIR Serious Games · doi:10.2196/77109
“In their review, Lumsden et al [15] highlighted that serious games are often used to improve motivation and enhance appeal for a particular age group (either older or younger participants) during cognitive assessments.”
InfluentialGamification Approaches to Boost Attention Span in Pediatric Cochlear Implant Users
Kapoor, M., & Sankar, A. S. (2025) · Lecture notes in mechanical engineering · doi:10.1007/978-981-96-6414-6_2
Jogos sérios na conscientização e no tratamento do TDAH: um levantamento nos anais do SBGames
Souza, J., dos Santos, A. C., & de Oliveira, V. A. P. (2025) · doi:10.5753/sbgames.2025.9641
UnnMindFlex: A prototype mobile application and case study on HRV-guided cognitive enhancement
Olawuwo, S., Viakhireva, V., Demarev, A., et al. (2025) · Journal on Interactive Systems · doi:10.5753/jis.2025.5574
Bernini, S., Valcarenghi, A., Panzarasa, S., Quaglini, S., Costa, A. C., Ramusino, M. C., Picascia, M., Barbieri, M., Tassorelli, C., Vecchi, T., et al. (2025) · GeroScience · doi:10.1007/s11357-025-02006-9
Computerized attention measure: a web-based open-source test battery to evaluate students’ attention
Pinelli, M., Palluel, E., Dessus, P., Joët, G., Eichenlaub, J., Brugniaux, J. V., & Portrat, S. (2025) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2025.1540817
Response Inhibition in borderline personality disorder assessed with a gamified stop signal task
Barakat, N., Dechant, M., Poulet, E., Cailhol, L., Brunelin, J., Friehs, M. A., & Neige, C. (2025) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-30255-3 · Cited by 1
“One emerging strategy to address this challenge is the usage of playful design: On one side, the application of game design elements to enhance user engagement 14,15 which is referred as gamification.”
Choco Stack: An experiment on Gamification of the Tower of London cognitive task
Sawian, J., Sharma, A., & Naik, V. (2025) · International Conference of Human-Computer Interaction Design & Research · doi:10.1145/3768633.3770134
“Prior studies suggest gamification can enhance engagement [19].”
InfluentialPas, M. T., Bouwman, R. A., Rikkert, M. G. M. O., Oosterbos, E., Tonino, P. A. L., Jansen, S. W. M., Kessels, R. P. C., & Buise, M. P. (2025) · Brain Sciences · doi:10.3390/brainsci15121342
“Gamification—the incorporation of game elements into non-game contexts—has been shown to increase motivation and reduce test anxiety, even among older adults, who are increasingly adopting smartphones and tablets regardless of prior experience with touchscreen technology [12–15].”
Vugts, M. A. P., Joosen, M. C. W., Mert, A., Zedlitz, A. M. E. E., & Vrijhoef, H. J. (2018) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.9739 · Cited by 13
Wang, Y., Su, F., & Lin, D. (2025) · Current Psychology · doi:10.1007/s12144-025-08691-1
“Gamification is a promising strategy for enhancing user engagement in cognitive training by incorporating game elements into non-game contexts (Lumsden et al., 2016).”
Panarello, E., Vignapiano, A., Monaco, F., Landi, S., Longobardi, A., Gruttola, B. D., Stefano, V. D., Pullano, I., Malvone, R., Marenna, A., et al. (2025) · International Journal of Social Psychiatry · doi:10.1177/00207640251400797
“Gamification may alleviate these burdens by transforming therapeutic tasks into more accessible and enjoyable experiences (Lumsden et al., 2016).”
Vasta, N., Mulatti, C., & Treccani, B. (2026) · Psychological Research · doi:10.1007/s00426-025-02224-y
Dynamic thumb localization and its adaptation: quantification with a novel robotic task
Garcia-Fernandez, L., Farrens, A. J., Johnson, C. A., et al. (2026) · Experimental Brain Research · doi:10.1007/s00221-025-07211-8
“Evidence supports this approach, as gamified cognitive tasks have been shown to sustain attention and motivation while maintaining scientific validity (Lumsden et al. 2016).”
Digital neuropsychology in Latin America: A scoping review
Flórez, J. F. M., Tabares, I. C., del Río, N. A. O., Vélez, S. R., Mejía, L. S., Trujillo, N., & Escudero, J. P. S. (2026) · The Clinical Neuropsychologist · doi:10.1080/13854046.2026.2615104
Salem, A. A. G. G., Trierweiler, C. S., de Lins, E. K. R. M., Cidade, B. G., Scheffler, E. L., de Cerqueira, B. B., Cardoso, C. D. O., Dias, N. M., Mossmann, J. B., Barth, M., et al. (2026) · Applied Neuropsychology Adult · doi:10.1080/23279095.2026.2613740
Jeon, B., Noh, C. H., Noh, S. R., Shim, Y., Cho, S. B., & Cho, S. (2026) · doi:10.2196/preprints.92334
Digital neuropsychology: transforming cognitive assessment and rehabilitation in the digital age
Slanbekova, G. K. (2026) · Eurasian Journal of Current Research in Psychology and Pedagogy · doi:10.46914/2959-3999-2025-1-4-22-29
“Gamified interventions demonstrated higher adherence and engagement compared with non-gamified programs, suggesting motivational benefits [11].”
Zakani, Z., Moradi, H., Ghasemzadeh, S., Riazi, M., & Mortazavi, F. (2026) · Multimedia Tools and Applications · doi:10.1007/s11042-026-21195-9 · Cited by 2
Rebollo, C., Castellar, R. G., Remolar, I., & Rossano, V. (2026) · Entertainment Computing · doi:10.1016/j.entcom.2026.101093 · Cited by 2
Browne, R., Shinada, T., Ogawa, T., & Taki, Y. (2026) · Journal of Ageing and Longevity · doi:10.3390/jal6010023
“The gamification is intended to lead to continued usage by the player, through being enjoyable to spend time playing, providing a sense of achievement in solving in-game puzzles, and offering motivating rewards such as setting a new high score, or unlocking new mini-games or in-game items [6].”
Friehs, M. A., Schroeder, P. A., Barlow, K. M., & Stein, A. (2026) · Journal of Cognitive Enhancement · doi:10.1007/s41465-026-00345-9 · Cited by 1
Adaptive Mental Health Interventions: Integrating VR and Generative AI in Learning Environments
Greca, A. D., Amaro, I., & Barra, P. (2026) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-17604-2_1
Bernardoni, F., King, J. A., Seidel, M., Schoemann, M., Kasaeva, N., Gramatke, K., Weidner, K., Roessner, V., Scherbaum, S., & Ehrlich, S. (2026) · Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences · doi:10.1111/pcn.70041
Lü, P., Yu, C., Tang, D., 杨, 晓., Zhou, Y., Zhao, J., & Ying, L. (2026) · Healthcare · doi:10.3390/healthcare14050557
“While cognitive tasks are naturally easier to gamify through software interfaces [115], sensory interventions often require sophisticated external hardware and precise calibration.”
Gaze Strategy Adaptation in VR Multitasking Training: Links to Task Performance and EEG
Qiao, H., & Iramina, K. (2026) · Advanced Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.14326/abe.15.128
Pressure sensing technology for remote control: Can we motivate users to stay on the learning curve?
Crowe, E. M., Castle-Green, S. D., Beecroft, D., & Caleb-Solly, P. (2026) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0340667
“In a systematic review, Lumsden, Edwards [25] concluded that gamified tasks were highly engaging and boosted participant motivation in cognitive training tasks, which can be considered similar to the sensorimotor training required to become proficient at using a new control system.”
Kramarov, S. A., Saharova, L., Popov, O., & Mityasova, O. (2026) · Publishing Center RIOR eBooks · doi:10.29039/02184-2
Effects of 3D-MOT with ultrasonic haptic feedback on cognitive and motor–cognitive performance
Chen, P.-H., Huang, C.-C., Chen, Y.-R., Shi, Q.-W., Wang, C., & Huang, C.-H. (2026) · Ultrasonics · doi:10.1016/j.ultras.2026.108058 · Cited by 1
Sundareswaran, S., & Athuraliya, B. (2026) · International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Information and Communication (ICAIIC) · doi:10.1109/icaiic68212.2026.11454178
“Validated by systematic reviews [12], gamified batteries have been shown to serve as robust proxies for traditional cognitive tests.”
The card game Dobble as a diagnostic tool
Šolcová, A., & Děchtěrenko, F. (2026) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2026.106696
Colton, E., McLean, C. P., Anderson, A. C., Hanegraaf, L., & Verdejo-García, A. (2026) · JMIR Serious Games · doi:10.2196/79784 · Cited by 2
“Multiple mechanisms are assessed in a single session, allowing outcomes to be analyzed and interpreted in a holistic manner, while using gamification to maximize consumer engagement [67-69].”
Puyjarinet, F. (2019) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/a90a8473z03e2z4d1azb9c6za58155f7da5e
Brain–Computer Interface Games for Cognitive Assessment: A Scoping Review
Alsubaie, M., Alshammari, S., Ahmed, Y., Esmail, S., Adams, K. D., Rouhani, H., & Rincón, A. R. (2026) · Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · doi:10.1017/cjn.2026.10606
Biased yet flexible weighting of perceptual and value information during decision-makingPreprint
Garcia, B., Wyart, V., & Bavelier, D. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-9140831/v1
Chen, Z. F., Chen, D.-P., Zhu, Z., Lin, X., Li, H., & Lin, R. (2026) · The Gerontologist · doi:10.1093/geront/gnag094
Neuropsychologische Therapie bei psychischen Erkrankungen
Buschert, V. C., Semler, E., & Diemer, J. (2026) · Springer Reference Medizin · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-45028-0_39-2
Tommasi, V., Spinelli, A., Siena, V., Romano, C., Bruno, F., Nardacchione, G., & Marinelli, C. V. (2026) · Frontiers in Child and Adolescent Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/frcha.2026.1801077 · Cited by 1
Liu, Z., Xu, Z., Muroi, F., Chang, F., Yang, H., & Zhu, D. (2026) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2026.2658852 · Cited by 1
Vorreuther, A., Tagalidou, N., Lingelbach, K., Hubert, A., Bareiß, L., Nittel, T., Ristau, M., & Vukelić, M. (2026) · OPUS Publication Server of the University of Stuttgart (University of Stuttgart) · doi:10.18419/opus-18362
Platform, modality, and gamification effects on digit span task performance
Türüdü, S., Aktaş, E. B., Can, M., & Ercan, M. K. (2026) · iScience · doi:10.1016/j.isci.2026.116018
“This discrepancy illustrates the gamification paradox, 22 which strongly implies that the performance boost was not mediated by self-reported positive affect, 33 a finding that is inconsistent with some studies where positive affect was a key mediator for reducing task disengagement.”
InfluentialA Cross-Platform Cognitive Support Tool for Memory and Daily Recall
Alahmadi, T. J., Alromeh, R. M., AlSaadan, R. E., AlQasem, R. M., AlManea, N. M., & AlWaheeby, J. M. (2026) · International Web for All Conference (W4A) · doi:10.1145/3800424.3800433
Characterizing the behavioural correlates of error awareness with the novel speeded inference task
Nießen, E., Wickert, J., Schober, M., Fink, G. R., Weiss, P. H., & Stähl, J. (2026) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-026-56114-3 · Cited by 1
“One of many ways to increase motivation is by making experimental tasks more appealing to participants 35 .”
StepMind: Integrated Foot-Interaction System for Cognitive-Motor Executive Training
Gai, W., Zang, C., Zang, C., Lv, G., Yang, Y., & Yang, C. (2026) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-981-95-7195-6_33
Ceyhan, I., & Akyürek, G. (2026) · Physical & Occupational Therapy In Pediatrics · doi:10.1080/01942638.2026.2689070
Faisal, H., Podell, K., Shelton, A., et al. (2026) · doi:10.2196/preprints.105624
Turning cognitive science into game-based biomarkers: Acute stress detection with tunnel runner
Markovitch, B., Kamps, J. C. C., Orij, J. C., Markopoulos, P., & Birk, M. V. (2026) · Computers in Human Behavior Reports · doi:10.1016/j.chbr.2026.101176 · Cited by 1
Gomes, M. D. A. A., Rosa, M., Silva, C. G., et al. (2026) · Perceptual and Motor Skills · doi:10.1177/00315125261468074
Song, D., Guo, J., Rao, X., Hu, X., Gu, X., & Chen, J. (2026) · Journal of Intelligence · doi:10.3390/jintelligence14070150
“…and sustained engagement of experimental and training tasks and therefore to facilitate the measurement and training of cognitive abilities, including attention, executive functions such as working memory and attentional control, and processing speed (Khaleghi et al., 2021; Lumsden et al., 2016).”
Enhancing Diagnosis Using Machine Learning: Challenges and New Perspectives
Luongo, M., Simeoli, R., Milano, N., et al. (2026) · Lecture notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-26235-6_7
Jeon, B., Noh, C. H., Noh, S. R., Shim, Y., Cho, S. B., & Cho, S. (2026) · JMIR Serious Games · doi:10.2196/92334
Broer, M. I., Barendse, M. E. A., van den Brink-Steinmann, L. J., Snijders, A. L., Meijer, M. N., Paludanus, S., van der Weijden-Germann, M., Bilder, R. M., Ophoff, R. A., & van Haren, N. E. M. (2025) · JMIR Formative Research · doi:10.2196/86998
Children’s willingness to engage cognitive control
Niebaum, J. C., Laurence, P. G., Lin, T.-C., & Munakata, Y. (2026) · Advances in child development and behavior · doi:10.1016/bs.acdb.2026.07.005
Research Methods in Neuropsychology
López‐Caneda, E., Leganes‐Fonteneau, M., & Carbia, C. (2026) · Neuromethods · doi:10.1007/978-1-0716-5340-1_2
Digital gamification in chronic pain management in adulthood: a systematic review
He, J., Kwok, T. T. O., Tse, M. M. Y., Ho, S., Hu, W., & Chen, Z. (2026) · Family Practice · doi:10.1093/fampra/cmag069
Alignment in Gamified Cognitive Assessment
Bauge, K., & Babić, A. (2026) · World Congress on Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, September 7 - 12, 2009, Munich, Germany · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-37739-5_29
Kucirkova, N. I., Vahey, P., Patterson, D., & Dockterman, D. (2026) · Educational Technology Research and Development · doi:10.1007/s11423-026-10732-w
Faisal, H., Podell, K., Shelton, A., Xu, J., Boustani, M. A., & Taffet, G. E. (2026) · JMIR Research Protocols · doi:10.2196/105624
Color discrimination in action: High-throughput measurement in immersive VR
Agosti, G., Hadnett-Hunter, J., & Gegenfurtner, K. R. (2026) · Journal of Vision · doi:10.1167/jov.26.10.2 · Cited by 1
Loia, A., Sperduti, G., & Bolognesi, M. (2026) · Text and Talk · doi:10.1515/text-2025-0120
“The playful nature of activities and the incentive for speed can increase the frequency of typos or inat-tentive mistakes, especially on small mobile keyboards (Lumsden et al. 2016).”
Metadata
- Authors
- Lumsden, J., Edwards, E. A., Lawrence, N. S., Coyle, D., & Munafò, M. R.
- Affiliations
- University of Bristol (GB)
- Queen Mary University of London (GB)
- University of Exeter (GB)
- University College Dublin (IE)
- Corresponding author
- Lumsden, Jim
- Venue
- JMIR Serious Games
- Publisher
- JMIR Publications Inc.
- Published
- 2016-07-15
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- e11
- ISSN
- 2291-9279 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4967181
- OpenAlex
- W2465353856
- Semantic Scholar
- 4f2c6684a94d57d5dc731e41341a6b0109778428
- Cited by
- 555
- References
- 71
- Citations by year
- 2026: 57 · 2025: 77 · 2024: 74 · 2023: 52 · 2022: 61 · 2021: 56 · 2020: 70 · 2019: 43 · 2018: 37 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 6
- FWCI
- 6.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- JMIR Serious Games (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Open Research Exeter (University of Exeter) (acceptedVersion)
- Arrow@dit (Dublin Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
- Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Research Repository UCD (University College Dublin) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Funders
- Wellcome Trust (092731)
- United Kingdom Clinical Research Collaboration
- Cancer Research UK
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR-IPF-16-10-04)
- British Heart Foundation
- University of Bristol (092731, MC_UU_12013/6)
- Medical Research Council (MC_UU_12013, MR/K023195/1, 092731, MC_UU_12013/6)
- Economic and Social Research Council (ES/G007489/1, 1325188)
- 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 › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
- Keywords
- gamification, cognitive assessment, cognitive training, participant engagement, working memory, executive function, game elements, task validation, motivation, neuropsychological assessment
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
