Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Jan 7:4:1010.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.01010.

Cognitive training with casual video games: points to consider

Affiliations

Cognitive training with casual video games: points to consider

Pauline L Baniqued et al. Front Psychol. .

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.

Keywords: attention; casual games; cognitive training; fluid intelligence; reasoning; transfer of training; video games; working memory.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Mean training game performance as a function of group and session. Group average scores at each session, normalized by each game’s maximum average score: WM-REAS 1: Silversphere = 18.861, TwoThree = 20.265, Sushi-Go-Round = 5785.429, Digital Switch = 8.161; WM-REAS 2: Silversphere = 19.421, Gude Balls = 14.474, Aengie Quest = 20.526, Block Drop = 52.385; Active Control: Alphattack = 51.867, Music Catch = 4032358.24, Crashdown = 6.667, Enigmata = 4.069. Dashed lines indicate games that were adaptive across sessions. Error bars represent ±SEM.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Training game feedback as a function of group and session. Feedback regarding game enjoyment, motivation, engagement, and effort were collected during the first, fifth, and last training sessions. Feedback scale: 1 = least, 5 = neutral, 10 = greatest. Error bars represent ±SEM.
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
Transfer gain as a function of composite and group. Error bars represent ±SEM.
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 4
Perceived improvement as a function of group. Average responses for each group, including data from WM-REAS 1 and active control participants who did not receive a web-based version of the post-experiment survey. Error bars represent ±SEM.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Ackerman P. L. (1988). Determinants of individual differences during skill acquisition: cognitive abilities and information processing. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 117 288–318 10.1037/0096-3445.117.3.288 - DOI
    1. Ackerman P. L., Kanfer R., Calderwood C. (2010). Use it or lose it? Wii brain exercise practice and reading for domain knowledge. Psychol. Aging 25 753–766 10.1037/a0019277 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Arnell K. M., Stubitz S. M. (2010). Attentional blink magnitude is predicted by the ability to keep irrelevant material out of working memory. Psychol. Res. 74 457–467 10.1007/s00426-009-0265-8 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ball K., Berch D. B., Helmers K. F., Jobe J. B., Leveck M. D., Marsiske M., et al. (2002). Effects of cognitive training interventions with older adults: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 288 2271–2281 10.1001/jama.288.18.2271 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Baniqued P. L., Lee H., Voss M. W., Basak C., Cosman J. D., DeSouza S., et al. (2013). Selling points: what cognitive abilities are tapped by casual video games? Acta Psychol. 142 74–86 10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.11.009 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources