Bavelier, Green, Pouget & Schrater (2012) reviewed empirical research on the relationship between playing action video games and brain plasticity and learning. Table 7 summarizes these findings and provides a better understanding of the effect of playing videogames on different aspects of the cognitive functions of the players.
Table 7. Research on the effect on cognition of playing video games
Research references |
Aspects of cognition |
(Green & Bavelier, 2006) |
- Videogame Players (VGPs) are better at multitasking than Non-Videogame Players (N-VGPs).
|
(Andrews, Murphy, & Vanchevsky, 2006); (Boot, Kramer, Simons, Fabiani, Gratton, 2008a); (Cain, Landau, & Shimamura, 2012); (Colzato, 2010); (Green, Sugarman, Medford, Klobusicky, & Bavelier, 2012); (Karle, Watter, & Shedden, 2010); (Strobach, Frensch, & Schubert, 2012) |
- VGPs have better task switching abilities than N-VGPs.
|
(Anderson, A.F., Kludt, R., Bavelier, 2011);
(Boot, W.R., Kramer, A.F., Simons, D.J., Fabiani, M., Gratton, 2008) |
- VGPs have better short-term memory than N-VGPs.
|
(Greenfield, 2009); (McClurg, Chaille, 1987); (Subrahmanyam & Greenfield, 1994) |
- VGPs display better spatial cognition than N-VGPs.
|
(Feng, Spence, & Pratt, 2007) |
- VG playing enhances mental rotation abilities.
- VG playing “can eliminate gender difference in spatial attention and simultaneously decrease the gender disparity in mental rotation ability, a higher-level process in spatial cognition…after only 10 hours of training…with women benefiting more than men (Feng et al., 2007, p. 850).
|
(Okagaki & Frensch, 1994) |
- Video game playing improves mental rotation time and spatial visualization time in both males and females.
- There are “reliable and consistent differences between males and females were only obtained on complex mental rotation tasks” (Okagaki & Frensch, 1994, p. 33).
|
(Subrahmanyam & Greenfield, 1994) |
- “video game practice was more effective for children who started out with relatively poor spatial skills” (Subrahmanyam & Greenfield, 1994, p. 13).
- “video games may be useful in equalizing individual differences in spatial skill performance, including those associated with gender” (Subrahmanyam & Greenfield, 1994, p. 13).
|
(Anderson, Kludt, Bavelier, 2011a); (Chisholm, Hickey, Theeuwes, & Kingstone, 2010); (Colzato, 2010); (Karle et al., 2010) |
- VGPs are better than N-VGPs on some aspects of executive function.
|
(Bavelier, D. Green, C. S., Pouget, A., Schrater, 2012) |
- VGPs better employ executive strategies to reduce the effects of distraction, especially in highly complex environments than N-VGPs.
- The extent of the suppression of irrelevant information is directly proportional to the speed of their responses.
- VGPs seem to focus better on the task.
|
(Green & Bavelier, 2006) |
- Video game playing enhances the sense of acuity.
|
(Bavelier, Green, Pouget, Schrater, 2012a)
(Bavelier, Achtman, Mani, & Föcker, 2011)
|
- VGPs have greater flexibility of resource allocation than N-VGPs.
- Resource allocation of VGPs is more automatic and speedy.
- “Video game play leads to not only enhanced resources, but also a more intelligent allocation of these resources given the goals at hand. This is one of the ways action game play may result in learning to learn” (Bavelier, Green, Pouget, Schrater, 2012a, p. 408).
|
(Green, Pouget, & Bavelier, 2010) |
- VG playing enhances learning to learn.
- VG playing enhances transfer of learning.
- VG playing “enhances performance in a wide variety of tasks” (Green, Pouget & Bavelier, 2010, p. 1573).
- “VGPS perform better than N-VGPs do on tasks neither group had previously experienced and that are, as noted earlier, quite different in nature from action game play” (Bavelier, D. Green, C. S., Pouget, A., Schrater, 2012a, p. 399).
|
(Adapted from Bavelier, Green, Pouget & Schrater, 2012)
Research findings provide substantial indication that playing videogames enhances a number of different aspects of the cognitive functions of the players. Videogame players have better task switching and multi-tasking abilities than non-videogame players; they outperformed non-videogame players on tasks requiring mental rotation and spatial cognition; videogame players employed executive strategies to reduce the effects of distraction, and to suppress irrelevant information, especially in highly complex environments; they displayed enhanced resources and demonstrated a greater flexibility in resources allocation and a wiser use of these resources. These enhanced cognitive functions appear to contribute to the development of the learning to learn ability and to promote the transfer of learning.
A recent review of research findings on the effect of playing videogames on the cognitive ability of older adults revealed that “Not only do video games improve specific cognitive domains for older adults, evidence suggests they can affect global cognitive functioning as well” even when most of these video games were not originally design to improve cognitive skills (Kueider et al., 2012). Kueider & al.’s findings provide further evidence that videogame playing enhances many of the same aspects of the cognitive functions as those identified in Bavelier et al.’s review cited above. Table 8 summarizes Kueider & al.’s findings.
Table 8. Research on the effects of playing video games on cognition of older adults (50 to 86 years of age).
Research references |
Intervention |
Duration |
Significant findings on Aspects of Cognition |
(Goldstein et al., 1997) |
SuperTetris |
5 weeks: at least
300 min/week; playing
time varied: 25.5–36.5 hrs. |
Improved reaction time.
|
(Ackerman, Kanfer, & Calderwood, 2010) |
Wii Big Brain Academy |
4 weeks: 5 times/week
for 60 min |
Improved on task-specific fluid, crystallized and perceptual speed measures. |
(Basak, Boot, Voss, & Kramer, 2008) |
Rise of Nations |
4–5 weeks: 3 times/week
for 90 min |
Improved memory, executive function,
and visuo-spatial abilities. |
(Belchior & Mann, 2007) |
UFOV or Medal of Honor |
2 weeks: 2–3 times/week
for 90 min |
Useful field of view
Improved processing speed
No difference between Medal of Honor and Tetris groups. |
(Clark, Lanphear, & Riddick, 1987) |
Pac Man or Donkey Kong |
7 weeks: 120 min/week |
Improved reaction time |
(Drew Benjamin Waters, 1986) |
Atari Crystal Castles |
8 weeks: 2 times/week
for 60 min |
Improved psychomotor speed and global
cognition. |
(Dustman, Emmerson, Steinhaus, Shearer, & Dustman, 1992) |
Breakout, Galazian, Frogger,
Kaboom, Ms. Pacman,
Pengo, and Qix |
11 weeks: 3 times/week
for 60 min |
Improved Reaction Time.
Improved executive function. |
(Torres, 2011) |
QBeez, Super Granny 3,
ZooKeeper, Penguin Push,
Bricks, Pingyn, memory games |
8 weeks: 1 time/week |
Showed less cognitive decline. |
Adapted from (Kueider, Parisi, Gross, & Rebok, 2012b, p. 7)
In summary, research findings seem to indicate that playing videogames enhances the global cognition of older adults and slows their cognitive decline. Findings also suggest that the older adult video game players improve their reaction time, enhance their processing speed and other cognitive functions such as memory, executive function, and visuo-spatial abilities.
A number of companies have developed video game training programs designed at improving the cognitive abilities of older adults (Green & Bavelier, 2008). These training programs require the users to perform tasks “that are highly similar in content and structure with tests used on psychological assessment scales” (C . S. Green & Bavelier, 2008, p. 7). According Green & Bavelier, these types of training “have shown clear improvements in abilities specific to those trained as well as maintenance of those gains from 3 months to 5 years” (p. 7); however they added that there is a lack of empirical evidence on the transfer of those skills in real life situations. Bavelier et al. (2012) came to similar conclusions: “changes in knowledge produce benefits only to the extent to which new tasks share structure with action video games. No benefits are expected in tasks that share no such structure” (p. 410), even though it is well recognized that “some mechanisms of learning appear to be shared across domains” (Green & Bavelier, 2008, p. 8).
The difference between videogame playing and cognitive training is that in video game playing, the user is usually engaged in more than one cognitive function at once; however cognitive training programs are mostly designed to train users in one specific cognitive domain at a time (Green & Bavelier, 2008). The separation of domains for training “leads to faster learning during the acquisition phase, yet it can be detrimental during the retention phase, leading to less robust retention and to lesser transfer across tasks” (Green & Bavelier, 2008, p. 7). On the other hand, these authors point out that “variability in learning experience will result in less extensive learning during the acquisition phase but larger transfer to new tasks during retention tests (Green & Bavelier, 2008, p. 8)”. In the same way, “tasks that require very low-level representations will show less generalization of learning than those that rely on higher levels of representation” (C S Green & Bavelier, 2008, p. 8). It is important to keep in mind that Green & Bavelier cautioned that this theory still needs to be tested.
Kueider at al. (2012) performed a review of research findings (a) on the effect of cognitive training on the cognition of older adults (Table 9) and (b) on the effect of training using neuropsychological software on the cognition of older adults (Table 10). It is interesting to note that research on these two types of training come to similar findings and that these findings are in line with those on the effect of playing video games on the cognition of older adults.
Table 9. The effect of cognitive training on the cognition of older adults
Research references |
Intervention |
Duration |
Significant findings on Aspects of Cognition |
(Bherer et al., 2005) |
Dual task training: variable or fixed priority |
3 weeks: 2 times/week
for 60 min |
Both groups (variable or fixed) improved reaction time, no difference between groups. |
(Bherer et al., 2008) |
Dual task training: variable or
fixed priority |
3 weeks: 2 times/week
for 60 min |
Reaction time decreased and task accuracy improved in both groups (variable or fixed), no difference between groups. |
(Buschkuehl et al., 2008) |
Working memory training |
12 weeks: 2 times/week
for 45 min |
Improved on all working memory and reaction time measures and several non-trained memory measures. |
(Dahlin, Neely, Larsson, Bäckman, & Nyberg, 2008) |
Executive function training |
5 weeks: 3 times/week
for 45 min |
Improved training-specific executive function
measures. |
(Edwards et al., 2002) |
Processing speed training |
2 weeks: 2 times/week
for 60 min |
Improved processing speed;
control group improved verbal fluency/executive function. |
(Edwards, J. D., Wadley, V.G., Vance, D.E., Wood, K., Roenker, D.L., 2007) |
Processing speed training |
5 weeks: 2 times/week
for 60 min |
Improved processing speed. |
(Hinman, 2002) |
Biodex Balance System |
4 weeks: 3 times/week
for 20 min |
Reaction time did not improve. |
(Klusmann, V., Evers, A., Schwarzer, R., Schlattmann, P., Reischies, E. M., Heuser, I., and Dimeo, n.d.) |
Complex cognitive tasks |
24 weeks: 3 times/week
for 90 min |
Improved memory and executive function. |
(Mozolic, Long, Morgan, Rawley-Payne, & Laurienti, 2011) |
Selective visual and auditory
attention training |
8 weeks: 1 time/week
for 60 min |
Improved executive function, working memory and reaction time. |
(Roenker, Cissell, Ball, Wadley, & Edwards, 2003) |
Processing speed training |
2 weeks for a total
of 4.5 hours |
IG UFOV performance equal to no contact
group at post-test, improved RT. |
(Slegers, Van Boxtell, & Joles, 2009) |
Training: introduced and practiced with computers; Intervention: equipped with a computer and internet access,
received no specific instructions |
Training: 2 weeks:
3 4 hour sessions
Intervention:
52 weeks |
Improved memory and executive functions;
no training groups showed decreased performance. |
(Vance et al., 2007) |
Processing speed training, discussed how speed of processing was related to
everyday activities |
3–68 weeks (M = 12 weeks): ten 60 min sessions |
Improved processing speed and attention. Improved visuo-spatial abilities, psychomotor speed and memory. |
(Bisson, Contant, Sveistrup, & Lajoie, 2007) |
Virtual reality group & computer- based biofeedback training |
10 weeks: 2 times/week
for 30 min |
Both groups improved functional balance and mobility and decreased reaction time with training. |
(Cassavaugh & Kramer, 2009) |
Attention, visuo-spatial working memory, and manual control tasks |
8, 90 min sessions |
Improved executive function, attention, processing speed, and increased accuracy. |
(Finkel & Yesavage, 1989) |
Computer Assisted Instruction: using method of loci mnemonic;
amount of training not specified |
Total of 14 hours
for 2 hrs/day |
Improved memory. |
(Jennings, Webster, Kleykamp, & Dagenbach, 2005) |
Repetition lag memory training: recollection or recognition practice |
3 weeks: 2 times/week
for 60 min |
Recollection group improved memory,
psycho-motor speed, and executive function accuracy. |
(Lajoie, 2004) |
Balance training |
8 weeks: 2 times/week
for 60 min |
Improved reaction time. |
(Li et al., 2008) |
Spatial working memory training |
12 weeks: 45 daily sessions for 15 min |
Improved spatial working memory and executive function. |
(Lustig & Flegal, 2008) |
Memory-training procedures (1) under
specific strategy instructions designed to encourage semantic, integrative encoding, or (2) in a condition that
encouraged time and attention to encoding but allowed participants to choose their own strategy |
3 weeks: 8 110 min
sessions |
Both groups improved training-specific memory measure and executive function.
Integrated sentences group improved on a non-trained memory measure.
|
(Ralls, 1997) |
Logical reasoning and spatial ability training: basic computer course |
Training: 3 120 min
sessions; Computer
course: 6 weeks:
once a week for 90 min |
Improved spatial orientation. |
(Wadley et al., 2006) |
Lab or home-based Processing
speed training |
5 weeks: 2 times/week
for 60 min |
Both groups improved processing speed;
No difference between groups. |
Adapted from (Kueider et al., 2012b, p. 4, 5)
Table 10. The effect of training using neuropsychological software on cognition of older adults.
Research references |
Intervention |
Duration |
Significant findings on Aspects of Cognition |
(Blackford, 1989) |
Einstein Memory Trainer: focused on names and faces,
method of loci, peg word, important dates and phone numbers; or classroom instruction: Einstein Memory
manual |
8 weeks: Twice/week |
Classroom group improved more than
computer group on visuo-spatial abilities.
Computer group improved more than no contact controls.
Classroom group improved more than no contact controls on delayed measure of visuo-spatial ability. |
(Bottiroli & Cavallini, 2009) |
NeuroPsychological Training |
3 weeks: once/week
for 120 min |
Improved training-specific memory measures.
Improved on transfer memory measures. |
(Eckroth-Bucher & Siberski, 2009) |
Sound Smart and Captain’s Log programs, paper and
pencil-based activities |
6 weeks: twice/week
for 45 min |
Non-impaired group improved logical memory. |
(Mahncke et al., 2006) |
Memory, sensation, motor control, and cognition tasks |
8–10 weeks: 5 times/week
for 60 min |
Improved on task-specific measures,
gains generalized to non-trained measures of memory. |
(Peretz et al., 2011) |
CogniFit Personal CoachH |
12 weeks: 3 times/week
for 20–30 min |
Improved focused and sustained attention, Improved memory recognition, and mental flexibility;
Improved memory recall, visuo-spatial learning/working memory, and executive function.
Participants with lower baseline scores benefited the most. |
(Rasmusson, Rebok, Bylsma, & Brandt, 1999) |
Colorado Neuropsychological
Test memory tasks |
9 weeks: once/week for
90 min |
Improved memory.
Performance decreased on prospective memory compared to control group. |
(Rebok, Rasmusson and Brandt, 1996) |
Colorado Neuropsychological
Test memory tasks |
9 weeks: once/week for
90 min |
Improved on implicit and explicit
Memory. |
(Smith et al., 2009) |
Posit Science Brain Fitness Program |
8–10 weeks: 4–5 times/week
for 60 min |
Improved auditory memory/attention,
memory, and processing speed. |
(Berry et al., 2010) |
Lab or home-based Posit Science
Sweep Seeker visual training |
3–5 weeks: 3–5 times/week
for 40 min |
Improved on trained and untrained perceptual tasks. |
Adapted from (Kueider et al., 2012b, p. 6)
Like this:
Like Loading...
Learn More