The DOI matches its Crossref record; 103 of the 103 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Action Video Game Training for Healthy Adults: A Meta-Analytic Study
Open accessAbstract
Action video game (AVG) has attracted increasing attention from both the public and from researchers. More and more studies found video game training improved a variety of cognitive functions. However, it remains controversial whether healthy adults can benefit from AVG training, and whether young and older adults benefit similarly from AVG training. In the present study, we aimed to quantitatively assess the AVG training effect on the cognitive ability of adults and to compare the training effects on young and older adults by conducting a meta-analysis on previous findings. We systematically searched video game training studies published between January 1986 and July 2015. Twenty studies were included in the present meta-analysis, for a total of 313 participants included in the training group and 323 participants in the control group. The results demonstrate that healthy adults achieve moderate benefit from AVG training in overall cognitive ability and moderate to small benefit in specific cognitive domains. In contrast, young adults gain more benefits from AVG training than older adults in both overall cognition and specific cognitive domains. Age, education, and some methodological factors, such as the session duration, session number, total training duration, and control group type, modulated the training effects. These meta-analytic findings provide evidence that AVG training may serve as an efficient way to improve the cognitive performance of healthy adults. We also discussed several directions for future AVG training studies.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Additionally, a meta-analysis found that young adults without prior extensive gaming experience saw benefits in visuospatial ability, attention, and processing speed after video game training [35].”
From Health Benefits of Video Games in Adolescents and Young Adults (2026) · cites this paper as [35]
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.
Citations
Cites
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
Muller, K. E., & Cohen, J. (1989) · Technometrics · doi:10.2307/1270020 · Cited by 99,603
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 · Cited by 56,722
(2000) · Cited by 9,198
Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience
Mirvis, P. H., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1991) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258925 · Cited by 3,758
Emergence and Characterization of Sex Differences in Spatial Ability: A Meta-Analysis
Linn, M. C., & Petersen, A. C. (1985) · Child Development · doi:10.2307/1130467 · Cited by 3,234
Action video game modifies visual selective attention
Green, C. S., & Bavelier, D. (2003) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature01647 · Cited by 2,540
Effects of Cognitive Training Interventions With Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Ball, K., Berch, D. B., Helmers, K. F., Jobe, J. B., Leveck, M. D., Marsiske, M., Morris, J. N., Rebok, G. W., Smith, D. M., Tennstedt, S. L., et al. (2002) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.288.18.2271 · Cited by 2,049
Sex Differences in Cognitive Abilities
Halpern, D. F. (2000) · Psychology Press eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781410605290 · Cited by 1,989
The plastic human brain cortex
Pascual-Leone, A., Amedi, A., Fregni, F., & Merabet, L. B. (2005) · Annual Review of Neuroscience · doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.27.070203.144216 · Cited by 1,929
Is working memory training effective? A meta-analytic review
Melby-Lervåg, M., & Hulme, C. (2013) · Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0028228 · Cited by 1,782
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Borenstein, 2005, Comprehensive Meta-Analysisversion 2.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Meta-analysis of action video game impact on perceptual, attentional, and cognitive skills.
Bediou, B., Adams, D. M., Mayer, R. E., Tipton, E., Green, C. S., & Bavelier, D. (2018) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000130 · Cited by 807
Setting the scientific stage for esports psychology: a systematic review
Pedraza-Ramirez, I., Musculus, L., Raab, M., & Laborde, S. (2020) · International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology · doi:10.1080/1750984x.2020.1723122 · Cited by 373
Cognitive Training Does Not Enhance General Cognition
Sala, G., & Gobet, F. (2019) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2018.10.004 · Cited by 303
Neural Basis of Video Gaming: A Systematic Review
Palaus, M., Marrón, E. M., Viejo-Sobera, R., & Redolar-Ripoll, E. (2017) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2017.00248 · Cited by 317
Video game training does not enhance cognitive ability: A comprehensive meta-analytic investigation
Sala, G., Tatlidil, K. S., & Gobet, F. (2018) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000139 · Cited by 257
Metadata
- Authors
- Wang, P., Liu, H.-H., Zhu, X.-T., Meng, T., Li, H.-J., & Zuo, X.-N.
- Affiliations
- Chinese Academy of Sciences (CN)
- China Youth University for Political Sciences (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Li, Hui-Jie
- Venue
- Frontiers in Psychology
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2016-06-17
- Volume
- 7
- Pages
- 907-907
- ISSN
- 1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4911405
- OpenAlex
- W2419275396
- Cited by
- 145
- References
- 103
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 2
- FWCI
- 21.28
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Institutional Repository of Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences) (submittedVersion)
- Greater South Information System
- Funders
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (973 Program, 81171409)
- Youth Innovation Promotion Association of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (2016084)
- National Key Research and Development Program of China (2015CB351702)
- Youth Innovation Promotion Association (2016084)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Games and Gamification
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
- Keywords
- action video games, video game training, cognitive training, cognitive ability, healthy adults, young and older adults, age differences, training effects, modulation factor, session duration, training duration
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