Cited by 77Cognitive Abilities and TestingDigital Games and MediaEducational Games and Gamification

Are videogame training gains specific or general?

Open access
Oei, Adam C., Patterson, Michael D.·2014·Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience

Abstract

Many recent studies using healthy adults document enhancements in perception and cognition from playing commercial action videogames (AVGs). Playing action games (e.g., Call of Duty, Medal of Honor) is associated with improved bottom-up lower-level information processing skills like visual-perceptual and attentional processes. One proposal states a general improvement in the ability to interpret and gather statistical information to predict future actions which then leads to better performance across different perceptual/attentional tasks. Another proposal claims all the tasks are separately trained in the AVGs because the AVGs and laboratory tasks contain similar demands. We review studies of action and non-AVGs to show support for the latter proposal. To explain transfer in AVGs, we argue that the perceptual and attention tasks share common demands with the trained videogames (e.g., multiple object tracking (MOT), rapid attentional switches, and peripheral vision). In non-AVGs, several studies also demonstrate specific, limited transfer. One instance of specific transfer is the specific enhancement to mental rotation after training in games with a spatial emphasis (e.g., Tetris). In contrast, the evidence for transfer is equivocal where the game and task do not share common demands (e.g., executive functioning). Thus, the "common demands" hypothesis of transfer not only characterizes transfer effects in AVGs, but also non-action games. Furthermore, such a theory provides specific predictions, which can help in the selection of games to train human cognition as well as in the design of videogames purposed for human cognitive and perceptual enhancement. Finally this hypothesis is consistent with the cognitive training literature where most post-training gains are for tasks similar to the training rather than general, non-specific improvements.

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 · 10.3389/fnsys.2014.00054

Cites

91 of 91 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?

  • Cognitive benefits from action video games observed via laboratory tasks may be due to overlapping attentional and perceptual demands.

    “For example, cognitive benefits from action video games observed via laboratory tasks may be due to overlapping attentional and perceptual demands [37].”
  • Cognitive tasks designed to prime the performer can subsequently improve performance of videogames and cognitive tasks.

    “Research has shown that cognitive tasks, designed to prime the performer, can subsequently improve performance of videogames (Oei and Patterson 2014) and cognitive tasks (Lemaire and Brun 2018; Wexler et al. 2016).”

    From Warming Up Body and Mind: Combined Cognitive and Exercise Priming Improves 1‐Mile Time Trial Performance in Recreational Runners (2026) · cites this paper as Oei and Patterson 2014

    The Introduction (page unavailable) discusses videogame training followed by improvements on cognitive tasks—the opposite sequence from the one attributed to this source. Searches for priming and for cognitive-task training improving subsequent videogame performance found no passage addressing that claim. The other citations attached to cognitive-task performance are outside this verdict. (LLM, conf=0.74)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Cohen J. E. Green C. S. Bavelier D. (2008). “ Training visual attention with video games: not all games are created equal,” in Computer Games and Team and Individual Learning, eds O’neil H. F. Perez R. S. (Oxford, UK: Elsievier), 205– 228

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Oei, A. C., & Patterson, M. D.
Affiliations
Nanyang Technological University (SG)
Corresponding author
Patterson, Michael D.
Venue
Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience
Published
2014-04-08
Volume
8
Pages
54-54
ISSN
1662-5137 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2075984367
Cited by
77
References
88
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 3
FWCI
0.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience (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, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Games and Media
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Games and Gamification
Keywords
transfer of training, visual perception, attention, multiple object tracking, attentional shift, peripheral vision, mental rotation, Tetris, executive function, cognitive training, cognitive enhancement

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