Action video game training for cognitive enhancement

(1)

Article

Reference

Action video game training for cognitive enhancement

GREEN, C. Shawn, BAVELIER, Daphné

Abstract

Here we review the literature examining the perceptual, attentional, and cognitive benefits of playing one sub-type of video games known as ‘action video games,' as well as the mechanistic underpinnings of these behavioral effects. We then outline evidence indicating the potential usefulness of these commercial off-the-shelf games for practical, real-world applications such as rehabilitation or the training of job-related skills. Finally, we discuss potential core characteristics of action video games that allow for wide learning generalization.

GREEN, C. Shawn, BAVELIER, Daphné. Action video game training for cognitive enhancement.

Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences , 2015, vol. 4, p. 103-108

DOI : 10.1016/j.cobeha.2015.04.012

Available at:

http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:85052

Disclaimer: layout of this document may differ from the published version.

(2)

Action video game training for cognitive enhancement C. Shawn Green

¹

and Daphne Bavelier

^2,3

Herewereviewtheliteratureexaminingtheperceptual, attentional,andcognitivebenefitsofplayingonesub-typeof videogamesknownas‘actionvideogames,’aswellasthe mechanisticunderpinningsofthesebehavioraleffects.Wethen outlineevidenceindicatingthepotentialusefulnessofthese commercialoff-the-shelfgamesforpractical,real-world applicationssuchasrehabilitationorthetrainingofjob-related skills.Finally,wediscusspotentialcorecharacteristicsof actionvideogamesthatallowforwidelearninggeneralization.

Addresses

1DepartmentofPsychology,UniversityofWisconsin-Madison,Madison, WI53706,USA

2Universite´ deGene`ve,Faculte´ dePsychologieetSciencesde l’Education(FPSE),Gene`ve,Switzerland

3DepartmentofBrainandCognitiveSciences,UniversityofRochester, Rochester,NY14627,USA

Correspondingauthor:Green,C.Shawn([email protected])

CurrentOpinioninBehavioralSciences2015,4:103–108 ThisreviewcomesfromathemedissueonCognitiveenhancement EditedbyBarbaraJSahakianandArthurFKramer

ForacompleteoverviewseetheIssueandtheEditorial Availableonline5thMay2015

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2015.04.012 2352-1546/#2015ElsevierLtd.Allrightsreserved.

Introduction

Foraslongastherehavebeenstudiesofhumanpercep- tualandcognitivecapacities,therehasbeensimultaneous interest in whether these capabilities can be improved [1,2].Andalthoughitistruethatnearlyallhumanswill show clear improvements on an extensively practiced task, it istypically thecase thatlittle to no benefitsof this training are seen on new tasks—even if the new tasks appear on the surface to be quite similar to the highly practiced task [3–5]. This general phenomenon has been observed across domains—from perception (where for instance, training to identifya targetin one partof thescreenmaynottransfertoadifferentpartof the screen [6]), to cognition (where training on one working memory task may not transfer to a different workingmemorytask[7]),tomotorcontrol(wherelearn- ingtoovercomeonetypeofmotorperturbationmaynot transfertoadifferenttypeofperturbation[8]).Suchlack of generalization across tasks represents a significant

obstacle to the goal of producing real-world training benefits.

Overthepastdecadethough,instancesofmuchbroader trainingeffects,oftenengenderedby‘real-lifeactivities’

such as aerobic activity,participation in sports,meditation,musictraining,or, thefocusofthisreview,playing certaintypesofvideogames,havebeguntopermeatethe literature [9–12]. Indeed, there is now substantial evidence showing that playing one sub-genre of video games,so-called‘action videogames’,leadstoimprove- ments in abroad set of behavioralabilities that extend well beyond the confines of the games themselves [13,14].Hereweprovideabriefreviewofthisliterature withaparticularemphasisonthebreadthofthebenefits, thepossiblemechanisticunderpinningsof theobserved enhancements,thepotential forsuchvideogamestobe usedin practicalapplications, andthecriticalcharacter- isticsofactionvideogamesthatallowforsuchfar-reach- ingeffects toberealized.

What are action video games?

The superordinate category label ‘video game’ encom- passes an incredibly wide variety of experiences—so muchsothattosomeextent,thetermhasnopredictive valueatall.Littletonothingcanbeinferredbymerely knowingthatanindividualplays‘videogames,’as‘video games’ can mean anythingfrom simplistic matching of coloredblocksonamobiledeviceupthroughnavigating highly complex, laboriously designed virtual worlds on thenewestconsoles[15].Researchersacrosspsychology have thus typically focused their investigations at the levelofspecificgamegenres,whereingamesaregrouped by,amongotherthings,commonalitiesinformat,content, dynamics, and mechanics. In terms of the potential to alterbasicperceptual,attentional,andcognitiveabilities, themajorityoftheresearch hascenteredonthe‘action videogame’genre. Gameswithinthisgenreare charac- terized bycomplex 3Dsettings, quickly moving and/or highly transient targets, strong peripheral processing demands, substantial amounts of clutter, and the need toconsistentlyswitchbetweenhighlyfocusedandhighly distributedattentionallwhilemakingrapid,butaccurate actions[16].

Studying the effects of action video games

Beforeoutliningtheactualeffectsofplayingactionvideo games,itisworthquicklydiscussinghowstudiesinthis domainareconducted andconclusionsarereached[17].

As is true of the literature on music, aerobic activity, meditation and sports training—because it is the case thatsomeindividuals,aspartoftheirdailylife,chooseto

(3)

engageinsubstantialamountsofactionvideogameplay, whileotherstotallyrefrainfromvideogameplay—itis thus possible for researchers to conduct cross-sectional

‘experiments of nature’ wherein the perceptual, attentional,or cognitiveskillsof avidaction gamersarecom- pared against those of their non-action game playing peers.However,whilesuchstudiescandemonstratean association between choosing to play action games and enhanced performance, they cannot establish that the relationship is causal. For this, intervention studies are conductedwhereinindividualswhodonotnaturallyplay videogamesare firstpre-testedonmeasuresof interest beforebeingrandomlyassignedto playeither anaction videogameoracontrolvideogame(acommercialgame matchedforgeneralinterest,flow,arousal,amongothers, butlackingallactioncomponents—seeFigure1).Par- ticipantsthenplaytheirassignedgameforasetperiodof time;workinthefieldhasutilizedtrainingdurationsfrom 10 to 50hours spaced over the course of weeks to months—as video game training, like all other forms oflearningisfarmoreeffectivewhenpracticeisdistrib- utedratherthanmassed[18,19].Finally,atleast24hours after the final play session (the delay ensures that any transienteffectsofgameplayareeliminatedaspotential

concerns),theindividualsarepost-testedonthemeasures of interestwith the criticalquestionbeingwhether the actiontrainedgroupimprovesmorefrompre-testtopost- testthanthecontrolvideogametrainedgroup.

There are of course many challengesin evaluating the efficacy of any intervention where it is necessarily the case that the participants cannot be kept blind to the contentoftheintervention—somethingthatistrueofall behavioral interventions, whether the intervention is basedonvideogames,aerobicexercise,meditation,ath- letics,or music. For instance,there isalwaysthe possi- bility thatit is notthe content oftheintervention that leads to improvements per se, but it is instead the participants’ expectation that they should improve that causesimprovements.Andalthoughinthecaseofaction videogames,thepreponderanceoftheevidencetodate hassuggested thatthese confoundscannot explainthe effectsobserved in thefield (e.g.studies wherepartici- pantsarerecruitedin suchawaythattheydonotknow theirgamingisofrelevancetendtoshowthesameeffects asstudieswhereparticipantsareovertlyrecruitedbased ontheir gaming [20–25]), there is nonetheless always virtue in improving methodology to minimize the

104 Cognitiveenhancement

Figure1

(a) (b)

Control Game Action Game 10, 30, 50 hours

training

Time Time

Control Action

% Improvement

10 20

2+

Days

5+

Months 0

Post-testing Pre-testing

Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences

Interventionstudiestoassessacausalrelationshipbetweenactionvideogamingandimprovedbehavioralabilities.(a)Participantswithlittletono actionvideogameexperience,andlittleoverallvideogameexperience,arefirstpre-testedonthepsychologicalmeasuresofinterest(herethe UsefulFieldofViewtask—left).Theparticipantsarethenrandomlyassignedtoplayeitheranactionentertainmentvideogame(middle,top)ora controlentertainmentvideogame(middle,bottom)foraspecifiedperiodoftime(typicallybetween10and50hours,withsessionsproperly spacedtoavoidthedeleteriouseffectsofmassedpractice).Finally,atleast24hoursafterthelastgamingsession,individualstakethesame psychologicalmeasuresagain.(b)Thecriticalmeasureiswhetherindividualsintheactiongroupimprovedmorefrompre-testtopost-testthan individualsinthecontrolgroup.Here,inthecaseoftheUFOVtask,thisistruenotonlyafewdaysafterthelastvideogametrainingsession(2+

days),astheeffectspersistforatleast5months.*Datareplottedfrom[28,30].

(4)

potentialforconfounds.Thelimitationsassociatedwith the current methodological approaches and potential avenues for improving the status quo have been the topic ofa numberof recent publications[26–28], and havebeeninfluentialinfosteringdialogrelatedtobest practicesinbehavioralinterventions.Afullerdiscussion ofsomeoftheissuesraisedcanbefoundin[17],buta general consensus is emerging around the need for behavioral training studies to be designed such that participantsarerandomlyassignedtotheexperimental group andto controlgroups, with atleast one control groupbeinganactivegroupfollowingthesametraining schedule,degreeofexperimentercontact,and(asmuch as possible) expectations, as the experimental group.

The use ofmeasuresthat arenot just basedonfaster reactiontimesorhigheraccuracyisalsohighlyvaluable.

Forexample,someoftheconclusionsaboutattentional control in the action video game literature rest on differences in performance between conditions (i.e.

interactions)andnotjustinmaineffects.Suchinterac- tionswouldbeextremelydifficult,ifnotimpossible,for participants to intuit based on their expectations of performing betterandthusconcernsrelatedtoexpec- tation effects are minimized. A fascinating question remains, however, given that participants cannot be kept blind to the content of their intervention. That questionconcernstheextenttowhichleading partici- pantstobelievethatthetrainingtheywillundergowill makethemexcelwillindeedresultinenhancedperfor- manceandwhichcognitivedomainsare/arenotsuscep- tible to such effects. Experiments that address the amount of variance explained solely by expectation effects would movethe field forward by allowing the properevidence-basedassessmentforplaceboeffectsin the contextofbehavioralinterventions.

Changes in perceptual, attentional, and cognitive skills

The enhancementsassociatedwithplayingactionvideo gamesrangeallthewayfromlow-levelperceptualskills up through high-levelcognitive flexibility.This includes improvementsinvisualsensitivity[24,29],basicperimetry [20],perceptualdecisionmaking[30],speedofprocessing [31,32], perceptual simultaneityandtemporalorder judg- ments[21],inthecapacitytoselecttaskrelevantinformation acrossspace[23,33,34–36,37,38]andtime[23,33,39,40], toovercomeattentionalcapture[41,42]andutilizecognitive control[25],intheabilitytotrackmultiplemovingobjects [23,43,44], tomentally rotate complexshapes [36], to re- member visually presented information [45,46], and to eitherrapidlyswitchbetweentasks[47,48–52]ortoperform multipletasksconcurrently[51,53](althoughsee[54–57]for failures to find such effects).The available researchalso stronglycontradictsthepopularconceptionofthe‘trigger- happy’videogameplayerwhoiswillingtotradereductions inaccuracyforincreasedspeed.Instead,intasksthatmea- surebothreactiontimeandaccuracy,actiongamerstendto

showdecreasedreactiontimesascomparedtonon-gamers, butwithequivalentlevelsofaccuracy(andhigherlevelsof accuracyintasksthatmeasureonlypercentcorrect—[31]).

Finally,andcritically,thesterile,lab-basedtasksthathave beenutilizedtoassessbehavioralfunctionshavebornlittle resemblance to action videogames thus demonstrating a significantdegreeoflearningtransfer.

Mechanistic underpinnings of action video games: ‘learning to learn’

The enhanced performance observed on various tasks following action video game experience has typically been framed in the literature as reflecting ‘transfer effects,’whereintrainingononetaskconveysanimme- diatebenefitwhenconfrontedwithanewtask.However, recent work has suggested an alternative viewpoint wherein action videogameexperience,ratherthan producing immediate benefitsonnewtasks,conveysupon userstheabilitytomorequicklyandeffectivelylearnto perform new tasks. In other words, action video game playershave‘learnedtolearn.’Dataconsistentwiththis alternative frameworkhasbeenobserved inthepercep- tual and the motor domain [58,59]. In both cases, no advantage was noted between avid action gamers and non-action gamers on the earliest trials of a new task (gaboridentificationormotortrackinglearning).Howev- er, in both cases, action game player performance improved significantlymore rapidly thannon-action game player performance and also reached better asymptotic levels. Underthis viewpoint,‘learningto learn’abilities emerge as a result of enhanced attentional control en- abling more efficient suppression of sources of noise or distractionand,thus,fasterandmorefaithfulextractionof task-relevant information[60,61,62].

Potential practical applications

Given thescopeand scaleof theobservedaction video gamebenefits,severalresearchgroupshaveexaminedthe possibilityofutilizingoff-the-shelfactionvideogamesfor practicalpurposes—either inrehabilitationorforjob- relatedtraining. Forexample,intheareaofrehabilita- tion,actionvideogameshavebeenshowntobenefitboth visualcapabilitiesinadultswithamblyopia(insomeless severecasesevenresultinginareturntonormalacuity) [63] andreading capabilities inchildren withdyslexia (presumably mediatedbychangesinvisual attentional abilities, rather thanchanges inphonological or ortho- graphicprocessing)[64].Andintheareaofjob-related training,therenowexistsaburgeoningliteratureexam- ining the potential of utilizing action video games as trainingtoolsforlaparoscopicsurgeons[65–67]orpilots [68].

Critical features of video games to produce wide benefits

One significant disadvantage of studying the effect of media consumption on behavioral abilities is that the

(5)

formsofmediaconsumeddonotremainstaticovertime.

Thisiscertainlytrueofvideogames,wheregenresthat previously were quite distinct in terms of content and mechanicsnowhaveconsiderableoverlap.Forinstance, althoughadecadeagofantasyvideogamesweretypically ratherslowandturn-based(i.e.theplayerhadanunlim- itedamount of time to choose and execute acourse of action),todaygamesinthefantasygenreareoften,atleast atfirstglance,relativelyindistinguishablefromfirst-per- son shooter action games (the differences betweenthe genres today having to dowith storyline or player pro- gression factors). This state of affairs calls strongly for replacing the genre-based approach to studying video game effects (e.g. action, real time strategy, among others) with an approach that focuses on thestructural characteristicsthatdrivebehavioralenhancements(struc- turalcharacteristicsthatmightbepresentingamesacross manygenres)[69,70].

Inthis endeavorit maybevaluable to differentiate be- tweenthosestructuralcharacteristicsofvideogamesthat arecommontonearlyalleffectivelearningplatformsand those that may be uniquely responsible for the broad learning generalization discussed above. For example, allsuccessfulvideogamesengenderhighlevelsofmotiva- tionandarousal,provideimmediateinformativefeedback, areintrinsicallyrewarding,andutilizedifficultylevelsthat areincreasedinamannercommensuratewithplayerskill, witheach ofthese characteristicsbeing knownto foster time-on-taskandpromotemore effective learning[71].

Becausenotallvideogamesleadtothedegreeoflearning generalizationdescribedabovethough,thissuggeststhat theremust be additionalgamefeatures thatfoster such breadth and whichare found onlyin a sub-setof video games.Onepossibilityisthemannerin whichvarietyis incorporated into some games. In particular, while researchers have long noted the relationship between training variety and transfer [4], endless variety would actually dissuade learning (in that if every situation is brandnew,thereislittlethatcanbelearned).Instead,it ispossiblethatthereisacriticalblendofvarietyatthelevel of stimuli, actions, and inferences, which will prevent automaticityandthusspecificity[72],andstructuralregu- larities in the game, which will ensure there is always something to learn and that which can be learned is reasonablytaskindependent[73,74].Anotherprospectis the need to utilize attention in a highly flexible, but controlledmanner. Inparticular, certainclassesof video gamesrequire aheightened abilityto adaptively switch attentiontodifferenttaskcharacteristicsastheybecome goalrelevantortoswitchbetweenahighlyfocusedatten- tional state (e.g. as is essential when engaged with a particularlydifficultenemy)andamorediffuseattentional state(e.g.whengatheringinformation).Bydemandingthat players’employattentioninthisflexiblemanneracrossa wide variety of levels of resolution, the games may, in essence,teachthemeta-skillofattentionalcontrol.

Conclusions

While standard perceptual or cognitive training para- digms often produce learning that is highly specific to theexactcontextofthetrainedtask,thebenefitsofaction videogameplayhavebeenshowntoextendwellbeyond theconfines ofthegames.Clearenhancementsinbasic perceptualskills,intheabilitytoutilizeselectiveatten- tion, and in cognitive flexibility have been noted as a resultofactionvideogameplay.Althoughmoreworkon thereallifeimplications of theseeffects isneeded,the extentandsizeoftheeffectsalreadyappearsufficientfor somereal-worldapplications. Recentworksuggeststhat this breadthis aresult of ‘learningto learn’—wherein actiongamesteachskillsandknowledgethatallownew tasks to be more quickly learned. Current hypotheses suggestthatthecriticalgamecharacteristicsdrivingthis learning outcome include variety (of stimuli, actions, inferences,amongothers)andtheneedtoflexiblyutilize attention (either to switch betweendifferent character- isticsastheybecometaskrelevant,ortoswitchbetween differentstatesofattention).Animportantlineoffuture workwillbetotestandfurthercharacterizethosegame characteristicsthatfosterlearningto learn.

Conflict of interest statement

DB is on the advisory board and a co-founder of Akili Interactive, and holds the following pending patents:

PatentonMethod and System for Treating Amblyopia (USPat.Appln.No.61/403585);PatentonMethodand SystemforTraining‘NumberSense’(USPat.Appln.No.

13/301392).

Acknowledgements

ThisworkwassupportedbyanOfficeofNavalResearchgrant#N00014- 14-1-0512.

References and recommended reading

Papersofparticularinterest,publishedwithintheperiodofreview, havebeenhighlightedas:

ofspecialinterest

1. ThorndikeEL,WoodworthRS:Theinfluenceofimprovementin onementalfunctionupontheefficiencyofotherfunctions.

PsycholRev1901,8:247-261.

2. JamesW:ThePrinciplesofPsychology. NewYork:Dover PublicationsInc.;1890.

3. BarnettSM,CeciSJ:Whenandwheredoweapplywhatwe learn?.:Ataxonomyforfartransfer.PsycholBull2002,128:612- 637.

4. SchmidtRA,BjorkRA:Newconceptualizationsofpractice:

commonprinciplesinthreeparadigmssuggestnewconcepts fortraining.PsycholSci1992,3:207-217.

5. FahleM:Perceptuallearning:specificityversusgeneralization.

CurrOpinNeurobiol2005,15:154-160.

6. AhissarM,HochsteinS:Taskdifficultyandthespecificityof perceptuallearning.Nature1997,387:401-406.

7. Melby-LervagM,HulmeC:Isworkingmemorytraining effective?Ameta-analyticreview.DevelopPsychol2013, 49:270-291.

(6)

8. TremblayS,HouleG,OstryDJ:Specificityofspeechmotor learning.JNeurosci2008,28:2426-2434.

9. HillmanCH,EricksonKI,KramerAF:Besmart,exerciseyour heart:exerciseeffectsonbrainandcognition.NatRevNeurosci 2008,9:58-65.

10. MannDT,WilliamsAM,WardP,JanelleCM:Perceptual- cognitiveexpertiseinsport:ameta-analysis.JSportExerc Psychol2007,29:457-478.

11. SchellenbergEG:MusiclessionsenhanceIQ.PsycholSci2004, 15:511-514.

12. DavidsonRJ,McEwenBS:Socialinfluencesonneuroplasticity:

stressandinterventionstopromotewell-being.NatNeurosci 2012,15:689-695.

13. GreenCS,BavelierD:Learning,attentionalcontrolandaction videogames.CurrBiol2012,22:R197-R206.

14. BavelierD,GreenCS,PougetA,SchraterP:Brainplasticity throughthelifespan:learningtolearnandactionvideo games.AnnRevNeurosci2012,35:391-416.

15. ApperleyTH:Genreandgamestudies:Towardacritical approachtovideogamegenres.SimulationandGaming2006, 37:6-23.

16. SpenceI,FengJ:Videogamesandspatialcognition.RevGen Psychol2010,14:92-104.

17. GreenCS,StrobachT,SchubertT:Onmethodological standardsintrainingandtransferexperiments.PsycholRes 2014,78:756-772.

18. BaddeleyA,LongmanD:Theinfluenceoflengthandfrequency oftrainingsessionsontherateoflearningtotype.Ergonomics 1978,21:627-635.

19. StaffordT,DewarM:Tracingthetrajectoryofskilllearningwith averylargesampleofonlinegameplayers.PsycholSci2014, 25:511-518.

20. BuckleyD,CodinaC,BhardwajP,PascalisO:Actionvideogame playersanddeafobservershavelargerGoldmannvisual fields.VisRes2010,50:548-556.

21. DonohueSE,WoldorffMG,MitroffSR:Videogameplayersshow moreprecisemultisensorytemporalprocessingabilities.

AttenPerceptPsychophys2010,72:1120-1129.

22. HutchinsonCV,StocksR:Selectivelyenhancedmotion perceptionincorevideogamers.Perception2013,42:675-677.

23. DyeMWG,BavelierD:Differentialdevelopmentofvisual attentionskillsinschool-agechildren.VisRes2010, 50:452-459.

24. AppelbaumLG,CainMS,DarlingEF,MitroffSR:Actionvideo gameplayingisassociatedwithimprovedvisualsensitivity, butnotalterationsinvisualsensorymemory.AttenPercept Psychophys2013,75:1161-1167.

25. ColzatoLS,vandenWildenbergWPM,ZmigrodS,HommelB:

Actionvideogamingandcognitivecontrol:playingfirst personshootergamesisassociatedwithimprovementin workingmemory,butnotactioninhibition.PsycholRes2013, 77:234-239.

26. BootWR,SimonsDJ,StothartC,StuttsC:Thepervasive problemwithplacebosinpsychology:whyactivecontrol groupsarenotsufficienttoruleoutplaceboeffects.Perspect PsycholSci2013,8:445-454.

27. BootWR,BlakelyDP,SimonsDJ:Doactionvideo

gamesimproveperceptionandcognition.FrontCogn2011, 2:226.

28. KristjanssonA:Thecaseforcausalinfluencesofactionvideo gameplayuponvisionandattention.AttenPerceptPsychophys 2013,75:667-672.

29. LiR,PolatU,MakousW,BavelierD:Enhancingthecontrast sensitivityfunctionthroughactionvideogametraining.Nat Neurosci2009,12:549-551.

30. GreenCS,PougetA,BavelierD:Improvedprobabilistic inferenceasageneralmechanismforlearningwithaction videogames.CurrBiol2010,23:1573-1579.

31. DyeMWG,GreenCS,BavelierD:Increasingspeedof processingwithactionvideogames.CurrDirPsycholSci2009, 18:321-326.

32. DyeMWG,GreenCS,BavelierD:Thedevelopmentofattention skillsinactionvideogameplayers.Neuropsychologia2009, 47:1780-1789.

33.

GreenCS,BavelierD:Actionvideogamemodifiesvisual selectiveattention.Nature2003,423:534-537.

The first report to identify action video games as being particularly beneficialtovisualandattentionalprocessing.

34. GreenCS,BavelierD:Effectofactionvideogamesonthe spatialdistributionofvisuospatialattention.JExpPsychol:

HumPerceptPerform2006,32:1465-1478.

35. GreenCS,BavelierD:Action-video-gameexperiencealtersthe spatialresolutionofvision.PsycholSci2007,18:88-94.

36. FengJ,SpenceI,PrattJ:Playinganactionvideogamereduces genderdifferencesinspatialcognition.PsycholSci2007, 18:850-855.

37.

WuS,SpenceI:Playingshooteranddrivingvideogames improvestop-downguidanceinvisualsearch.AttenPercept Psychophys2013,75:673-686.

Demonstratedthat‘actionvideogames’isnotnecessarilysynonymous with‘shooting’or‘violent’videogames.Similarbehavioralbenefitswere inducedbyplayingbothafirst-personshootervideogameandanaction cardrivingvideogames.

38. CastelAD,PrattJ,DrummondE:Theeffectsofactionvideo gameexperienceonthetimecourseofinhibitionofreturnand theefficiencyofvisualsearch.ActaPsychol(Amst)2005, 119:217-230.

39. LiR,PolatU,ScalzoF,BavelierD:Reducingbackwardmasking throughactiongametraining.JVis2010,10:1-33.

40. PohlC,KundeW,GanzT,ConzelmannA,PauliP,KieselA:

Gamingtosee:actionvideogamingisassociated withenhancedprocessingofmaskedstimuli.FrontPsychol 2014,5:70.

41. ChisholmJD,KingstoneA:Improvedtop-downcontrolreduces oculomotorcapture:thecaseofactionvideogameplayers.

AttenPerceptPsychophys2012,74:257-262.

42. ChisholmJD,HickeyC,TheeuwesJ,KingstoneA:Reduced attentionalcaptureinactionvideogameplayers.AttenPercept Psychophys2010,72:667-671.

43. GreenCS,BavelierD:Enumerationversusmultipleobject tracking:thecaseofactionvideogameplayers.Cognition 2006,101:217-245.

44. TrickLM,Jaspers-FayerF,SethiN:Multiple-objecttracking inchildren:the‘‘CatchtheSpies’’task.CognDev2005, 20:373-387.

45. SungurH,BodurogluA:Actionvideogameplayersformmore detailedrepresentationofobjects.ActaPsychol(Amst)2012, 139:327-334.

46. BlackerKJ,CurbyKM:Enhancedvisualshort-termmemoryin actionvideogameplayers.AttenPerceptPsychophys2013, 75:1128-1136.

47.

ColzatoLS,vandenWildenbergWP,HommelB:Cognitive controlandtheCOMTVal(1)(5)(8)Metpolymorphism:genetic modulationofvideogametrainingandtransfertotask- switchingefficiency.PsycholRes2014,78:670-678.

Demonstratedthatthebeneficialeffectsofactionvideogametrainingare modulated byindividual differences in genotype—particularlygenes relatedtodopaminepathways.

48. KarleJW,WatterS,SheddenJM:Taskswitchinginvideo gameplayers:benefitsofselectiveattentionbutnot resistancetoproactiveinterference.ActaPsychol(Amst) 2010,134:70-78.

(7)

49. ColzatoLS,vanLeeuwenPJ,vandenWildenbergWPM, HommelB:DOOM’dtoswitch:superiorcognitiveflexibilityin playersoffirstpersonshootergames.FrontPsychol2010,1:8.

50. GreenCS,SugarmanMA,MedfordK,KlobusickyE,BavelierD:

Theeffectofactionvideogamesontaskswitching.Comput HumBehav2012,12:984-994.

51. StrobachT,FrenschPA,SchubertT:Videogamepractice optimizesexecutivecontrolskillsindual-taskandtask switchingsituations.ActaPsychol2012,140:13-24.

52. CainMS,LandauAN,ShimamuraAP:Actionvideogame experiencereducesthecostofswitchingtasks.AttenPercept Psychophys2012,74:641-647.

53. ChiappeD,CongerM,LiaoJ,CaldwellJL,VuKL:Improving multi-taskingabilitythroughactionvideogames.ApplErgon 2013,44:278-284.

54. BootWR,KramerAF,SimonsDJ,FabianiM,GrattonG:The effectsofvideogameplayingonattention,memory,and executivecontrol.ActaPsychol2008,129:387-398.

55. GasparJG,NeiderMB,CrowellJA,LutzA,KaczmarskiH, KramerAF:Aregamersbettercrossers?Anexaminationof actionvideogameexperienceanddualtaskeffectsina simulatedstreetcrossingtask.HumFactors2014,56:443-452.

56. vanRavenzwaaijD,BoekelW,ForstmannBU,RatcliffR, WagenmakersEJ:Actionvideogamesdonotimprovethe speedofinformationprocessinginsimpleperceptualtasks.J ExpPsycholGen2014,143:1794-1805.

57. MurphyK,SpencerA:Playingvideogamesdoesnotmakefor bettervisualattentionskills.JArtSupportNullHypoth2009,6:1-20.

58.

BejjankiVR,ZhangR,LiR,PougetA,GreenCS,LuZL,BavelierD:

Actionvideogameplayfacilitatesthedevelopmentofbetter perceptualtemplates.ProcNatlAcadSciUSA2014,111:16961- 16966.

Demonstratedthatthebenefitsofactionvideogameplayareconsistent witha‘learningtolearn’account.Actiongamersandnon-actiongamers performedsimilarlyontheearliesttrialsofanewtask,butactiongamers showedsteeperlearningfunctions.

59. GozliDG,BavelierD,PrattJ:Theeffectofactionvideogame playingonsensorimotorlearning:evidencefromamovement trackingtask.HumMovSci2014,38C:152-162.

60.

MishraJ,ZinniM,BavelierD,HillyardSA:Neuralbasisof superiorperformanceofactionvideogameplayersinan attention-demandingtask.JNeurosci2011,31:992-998.

Foundenhancedneuralsuppressionoftaskirrelevantitemsinactionvideo gameplayersascomparedtonon-actionvideogameplayers,thedegreeof whichwascorrelatedwithenhancementsinbehavioralperformance.

61. KrishnanL,KangA,SperlingG,SrinivasanR:Neuralstrategies forselectiveattentiondistinguishfast-actionvideogame players.BrainTopogr2013,26:83-97.

62. WuS,ChengCK,FengJ,D’AngeloL,AlainC,SpenceI:Playinga first-personshootervideogameinducesneuroplastic change.JCognNeurosci2012,24:1286-1293.

63.

LiRW,NgoC,NguyenJ,LeviDM:Video-gameplayinduces plasticityinthevisualsystemofadultswithamblyopia.PLoS Biol2011,9:e1001135.

Showedimprovedvisualperformanceinadultswithamblyopiafollowing actionvideogametraining.

64. FranceschiniS,GoriS,RuffinoM,ViolaS,MolteniM,FacoettiA:

Actionvideogamesmakedyslexicchildrenreadbetter.Curr Biol2013,23:462-466.

65. SchlickumMK,HedmanL,EnochssonL,KjellinA,Fellander- TsaiL:Systematicvideogametraininginsurgicalnovices improvesperformanceinvirtualrealityendoscopicsurgical simulators:aprospectiverandomizedstudy.WorldJSurg 2009,33:2360-2367.

66. KolgaSchlickumM,HedmanL,EnochssonL,KjellinA,Fellander- TsaiL:Transferofsystematiccomputergametrainingin surgicalnovicesonperformanceinvirtualrealityimage guidedsurgicalsimulators.StudHealthTechnolInform2008, 132:210-215.

67. Rosser JCJr,LynchPJ,CuddihyL,GentileDA,KlonskyJ, MerrellR:Theimpactofvideogamesontrainingsurgeonsin the21stcentury.ArchSurg2007,142:181-186.

68. McKinleyRA,McIntireLK,FunkeMA:Operatorselectionfor unmannedaerialsystems:comparingvideogameplayersand pilots.AviatSpaceEnvironMed2011,82:635-642.

69. KingD,DelfabbroP,GriffithsM:Videogamestructural characteristics:anewpsychologicaltaxonomy.IntJMent HealthAddiction2010,8:90-106.

70. ClearwaterDA:Whatdefinesvideogamegenre?Thinking aboutgenrestudyafterthegreatdivide.Loading...JCanGame StudiesAssoc2011,5:29-49.

71.

GentileDA,GentileJR:Violentvideogamesasexemplary teachers:aconceptualanalysis.JYouthAdolesc2008, 37:127-141.

Outlinesthewaysinwhichvideogamesnaturallyinstantiatemanyofthe knownbestpracticestoinducelearningandneuroplasticity.

72. FulvioJM,GreenCS,SchraterPR:Task-specificresponse strategyselectiononthebasisofrecenttrainingexperience.

PLoSComputBiol2014,10:e1003425.

73. TenenbaumJB,KempC,GriffithsTL,GoodmanND:Howtogrow amind:statistics,structure,andabstraction.Science2011, 331:1279-1285.

74. KempC,GoodmanND,TenenbaumJB:Learningtolearncausal models.CognSci2010,34:1185-1243.