Do Action Video Games Improve Perception and Cognition?
Open accessAbstract
Frequent action video game players often outperform non-gamers on measures of perception and cognition, and some studies find that video game practice enhances those abilities. The possibility that video game training transfers broadly to other aspects of cognition is exciting because training on one task rarely improves performance on others. At first glance, the cumulative evidence suggests a strong relationship between gaming experience and other cognitive abilities, but methodological shortcomings call that conclusion into question. We discuss these pitfalls, identify how existing studies succeed or fail in overcoming them, and provide guidelines for more definitive tests of the effects of gaming on cognition.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
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?
These crossover interactions artificially produced large effect sizes and are responsible for the significant effect of N-back training and transfer to nonverbal ability.
“These crossover interactions thus artificially produced large effect sizes (Boot, Blakely, & Simons, 2011; Fischer-Baum, 2015; Redick, 2015; Redick & Webster, 2014), and are responsible for the significant effect of N-back training and transfer to nonverbal ability.”
From Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer” (2016) · cites this paper as Boot, Blakely, & Simons, 2011
In 'Inadequate Baseline for Transfer Effects' (page unavailable), the paper says a control group’s lack of expected test–retest improvement can make a training benefit appear greater. That supports the general concern about inflated apparent effects, but the passage does not identify crossover interactions, quantify large effect sizes, or link them to N-back training and transfer to nonverbal ability. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredVideo game features such as first-person perspective, combat interactions, control of multiple objects, passive win conditions, and high time pressure are most strongly associated with improvements in attention and perception.
“Video game features such as first-person perspective, combat interactions, control of multiple objects, passive win conditions, and high time pressure are most strongly associated with improvements in attention and perception [38–40].”
From Health Benefits of Video Games in Adolescents and Young Adults (2026) · cites this paper as [39]
The cross-sectional studies table lists reported visual and attentional differences among action-game players, but it does not link those differences to the specified game features or rank features by strength of association. The “Improved Evidence for Gaming Effects” section says that methodological concerns make claims of gaming benefits tentative. The source therefore supports the broad attention-and-perception connection, not the specific feature-level claim. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredCognitive transfer outcomes for action video games vary substantially across studies.
“Cognitive transfer outcomes for action video games vary substantially across studies [38–40].”
From Health Benefits of Video Games in Adolescents and Young Adults (2026) · cites this paper as [39]
Placebo effects are a major concern in cognitive training research because participant expectancies and effort alone may improve performance.
“As Boot et al. (2011) have noted, placebo effects are a big concern for researchers studying cognitive training as participant expectancies and effort alone may improve performance.”
From A simultaneous examination of two forms of working memory training: Evidence for near transfer only (2016) · cites this paper as Boot et al. (2011)
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 40 · Cited by 472
- Authors
- Boot, W. R., Blakely, D. P., & Simons, D. J.
- Affiliations
- Florida State University (US)
- University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
- Corresponding author
- Boot, Walter R.
- Venue
- Frontiers in Psychology
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2011
- Volume
- 2
- Pages
- 226-226
- ISSN
- 1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC3171788
- OpenAlex
- W2166469297
- Cited by
- 472
- References
- 40
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 36 · 2017: 45 · 2016: 52 · 2015: 50 · 2014: 51 · 2013: 45 · 2012: 24
- FWCI
- 51.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- 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
- action video games, video game training, cognitive enhancement, perceptual skills, transfer of training, methodological limitations, cognitive ability
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
