↓ Skip to main content

Cognitive training with casual video games: points to consider

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2014
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 (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
8 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
95 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
387 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
Cognitive training with casual video games: points to consider
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.01010
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pauline L. Baniqued, Michael B. Kranz, Michelle W. Voss, Hyunkyu Lee, Joshua D. Cosman, Joan Severson, Arthur F. Kramer

Abstract

Brain training programs have proliferated in recent years, with claims that video games or computer-based tasks can broadly enhance cognitive function. However, benefits are commonly seen only in trained tasks. Assessing generalized improvement and practicality of laboratory exercises complicates interpretation and application of findings. In this study, we addressed these issues by using active control groups, training tasks that more closely resemble real-world demands and multiple tests to determine transfer of training. We examined whether casual video games can broadly improve cognition, and selected training games from a study of the relationship between game performance and cognitive abilities. A total of 209 young adults were randomized into a working memory-reasoning group, an adaptive working memory-reasoning group, an active control game group, and a no-contact control group. Before and after 15 h of training, participants completed tests of reasoning, working memory, attention, episodic memory, perceptual speed, and self-report measures of executive function, game experience, perceived improvement, knowledge of brain training research, and game play outside the laboratory. Participants improved on the training games, but transfer to untrained tasks was limited. No group showed gains in reasoning, working memory, episodic memory, or perceptual speed, but the working memory-reasoning groups improved in divided attention, with better performance in an attention-demanding game, a decreased attentional blink and smaller trail-making costs. Perceived improvements did not differ across training groups and those with low reasoning ability at baseline showed larger gains. Although there are important caveats, our study sheds light on the mixed effects in the training and transfer literature and offers a novel and potentially practical training approach. Still, more research is needed to determine the real-world benefits of computer programs such as casual games.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 387 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 6 2%
Spain 5 1%
Poland 3 <1%
United Kingdom 3 <1%
Switzerland 2 <1%
India 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Cuba 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Other 2 <1%
Unknown 362 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 66 17%
Student > Bachelor 60 16%
Student > Master 54 14%
Researcher 53 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 27 7%
Other 67 17%
Unknown 60 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 154 40%
Computer Science 33 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 27 7%
Neuroscience 20 5%
Social Sciences 17 4%
Other 55 14%
Unknown 81 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 25 March 2021.
All research outputs
#2,013,233
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#3,984
of 31,442 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,027
of 309,169 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#41
of 180 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,442 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 309,169 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 180 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.