Enhancing cognition with video games: a multiple game training study

Abstract

Background: Previous evidence points to a causal link between playing action video games and enhanced cognition and perception. However, benefits of playing other video games are under-investigated. We examined whether playing non-action games also improves cognition. Hence, we compared transfer effects of an action and other non-action types that required different cognitive demands.

Methodology/principal findings: We instructed 5 groups of non-gamer participants to play one game each on a mobile device (iPhone/iPod Touch) for one hour a day/five days a week over four weeks (20 hours). Games included action, spatial memory, match-3, hidden- object, and an agent-based life simulation. Participants performed four behavioral tasks before and after video game training to assess for transfer effects. Tasks included an attentional blink task, a spatial memory and visual search dual task, a visual filter memory task to assess for multiple object tracking and cognitive control, as well as a complex verbal span task. Action game playing eliminated attentional blink and improved cognitive control and multiple-object tracking. Match-3, spatial memory and hidden object games improved visual search performance while the latter two also improved spatial working memory. Complex verbal span improved after match-3 and action game training.

Conclusion/significance: Cognitive improvements were not limited to action game training alone and different games enhanced different aspects of cognition. We conclude that training specific cognitive abilities frequently in a video game improves performance in tasks that share common underlying demands. Overall, these results suggest that many video game-related cognitive improvements may not be due to training of general broad cognitive systems such as executive attentional control, but instead due to frequent utilization of specific cognitive processes during game play. Thus, many video game training related improvements to cognition may be attributed to near-transfer effects.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Figure 1. Attentional blink task.

Sample of a single trial of the attentional blink task. T1 is the white letter G. In this trial, the “X” (T2) appeared in Lag 2.

Figure 2. and b. Filter task.

Samples from the 2 targets 6 distractors (2a) and 8 targets 0 distractors conditions (2b). Both samples include changed orientation of a single target.

Figure 3. Visual search/spatial working memory task.

Sample trial for dual task condition. Note that figure is in reverse contrast.

Figure 4. Complex span task.

Sample trial for a complex span task with a two-letter load and two operations. Participants were asked to recall all the letters in order while performing the operations. In this case, one operation would be “5+2−1 = 6” and the last operation would be “6+1−2 = 5”. Hence, the correct answer in this trial is GC5.

Figure 5. and 5b.

Attentional blink performance. (A) Depicts changes in T2 detection accuracy from pre to post training for each training group. (B) T2 detection accuracy during post training for each training group. Asterisks represent statistically significant pre to post-training improvements. Error bars denote 95% confidence interval (CI) .

Figure 6. and b. Filter task performance.

(A) Depicts pre and post-training performance for each training group in 2 target 6 distractor condition for cognitive control. (B) Depicts pre and post-training performance for each training group in the 8 target 0 distractor condition for multiple-object tracking. Asterisks represent statistically significant pre to post-training improvements. Error bars denote 95% CI.

Figure 7. Visual search accuracy.

Visual search accuracy from pre to post training for match-3 group. Asterisks represent statistically significant pre to post-training improvements. Error bars denote 95% CI.

Figure 8.Visual. Visual search RT.

Pre and post training search RT for hidden-object (A), memory matrix (B) and match-3 (C) groups. Asterisks represent statistically significant pre to post-training improvements. Error bars denote 95% CI.

Figure 9. Spatial working memory accuracy.

Spatial working memory performance from pre to post training for hidden-object (A) and memory matrix (B) groups. Asterisk represent statistically significant pre to post-training improvements. Error bars denote 95% CI.

Figure 10. Complex verbal span performance.

Complex verbal span performance from pre to post training. Asterisks represent statistically significant pre to post training improvements (α ≤.01). Error bars denote 95% CI. Note that The Sims group was marginally non-significant after Bonferroni correction of α –level.