↓ Skip to main content

How to build better memory training games

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Readers on

mendeley
193 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
How to build better memory training games
Published in
Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, January 2015
DOI 10.3389/fnsys.2014.00243
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jenni Deveau, Susanne M. Jaeggi, Victor Zordan, Calvin Phung, Aaron R. Seitz

Abstract

Can we create engaging training programs that improve working memory (WM) skills? While there are numerous procedures that attempt to do so, there is a great deal of controversy regarding their efficacy. Nonetheless, recent meta-analytic evidence shows consistent improvements across studies on lab-based tasks generalizing beyond the specific training effects (Au et al., 2014; Karbach and Verhaeghen, 2014), however, there is little research into how WM training aids participants in their daily life. Here we propose that incorporating design principles from the fields of Perceptual Learning (PL) and Computer Science might augment the efficacy of WM training, and ultimately lead to greater learning and transfer. In particular, the field of PL has identified numerous mechanisms (including attention, reinforcement, multisensory facilitation and multi-stimulus training) that promote brain plasticity. Also, computer science has made great progress in the scientific approach to game design that can be used to create engaging environments for learning. We suggest that approaches integrating knowledge across these fields may lead to a more effective WM interventions and better reflect real world conditions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 193 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
United States 2 1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 186 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 45 23%
Student > Master 27 14%
Researcher 25 13%
Student > Bachelor 18 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 6%
Other 38 20%
Unknown 28 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 82 42%
Neuroscience 17 9%
Computer Science 11 6%
Social Sciences 10 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 5%
Other 30 16%
Unknown 34 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 February 2016.
All research outputs
#3,189,218
of 24,143,470 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience
#301
of 1,390 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,733
of 360,157 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience
#10
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,143,470 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,390 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 360,157 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.