↓ Skip to main content

Cognitive enhancement through action video game training: great expectations require greater evidence

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 (89th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
194 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
Cognitive enhancement through action video game training: great expectations require greater evidence
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00136
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joseph Bisoglio, Timothy I. Michaels, Joshua E. Mervis, Brandon K. Ashinoff

Abstract

Action video game training may hold promise as a cognitive intervention with the potential to enhance daily functioning and remediate impairments, but this must be more thoroughly evaluated through evidence-based practices. We review current research on the effect of action video game training on visual attention and visuospatial processing, executive functions, and learning and memory. Focusing on studies that utilize strict experimental controls and synthesize behavioral and neurophysiological data, we examine whether there is sufficient evidence to support a causal relationship between action video game training and beneficial changes in cognition. Convergent lines of behavioral and neurophysiological evidence tentatively support the efficacy of training, but the magnitude and specificity of these effects remain obscure. Causal inference is thus far limited by a lack of standardized and well-controlled methodology. Considering future directions, we suggest stringent adherence to evidence-based practices and collaboration modeled after clinical trial networks. Finally, we recommend the exploration of more complex causal models, such as indirect causal relationships and interactions that may be masking true effects.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 194 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 2%
United States 3 2%
Canada 2 1%
Poland 2 1%
Spain 2 1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 179 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 34 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 16%
Researcher 30 15%
Student > Bachelor 21 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 7%
Other 40 21%
Unknown 25 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 90 46%
Neuroscience 12 6%
Computer Science 11 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 6%
Social Sciences 9 5%
Other 27 14%
Unknown 34 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 12 August 2015.
All research outputs
#2,859,629
of 24,143,470 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#5,481
of 32,434 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,314
of 314,515 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#55
of 180 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 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 32,434 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 314,515 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 89% 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.