The case for causal influences of action videogame play upon vision and attention

Abstract

Over the past decade, exciting findings have surfaced suggesting that routine action videogame play improves attentional and perceptual skills. Apparently, performance during multiple-object tracking, useful-field-ofview tests, and task switching improves, contrast sensitivity and spatial-resolution thresholds decrease, and the attentional blink and backward masking are lessened by short-term training on action videogames. These are remarkable findings showing promise for the training of attention and the treatment of disorders of attentional function. While the findings are interesting, evidence of causal influences of videogame play is not as strong as is often claimed. In many studies, observers with game play experience and those without are tested. Such studies do not address causality, since preexisting differences are not controlled for. Other studies investigate the training of videogame play, with some evidence of training benefits. Methodological shortcomings and potential confounds limit their impact, however, and they have not always been replicated. No longitudinal studies on videogame training exist, but these may be required to provide conclusive answers about any benefits of videogame training and any interaction with preexisting differences. Suggestions for methodological improvement are made here, including recommendations for longitudinal studies. Such studies may become crucial for the field of attentional training to reach its full potential.

The Pervasive Problem With Placebos in Psychology

“…In many previous training studies, participants who trained for 10 to 50 hr on fast-paced, visually demanding action video games showed improved performance on a variety of perceptual and cognitive measures that tap visual processing, attention, and task-switching (e.g., Green & Bavelier, 2003, 2006a, 2006b, 2007Green, Sugarman, Medford, Klobusicky, & Bavelier, 2012;Li, Polat, Makous, & Bavelier, 2009;Li, Polat, Scalzo, & Bavelier, 2010;Strobach, Frensch, & Schubert, 2012; but see also Boot, Blakely, & Simons, 2011;Boot, Kramer, Simons, Fabiani, & Gratton, 2008;Kristjánsson, 2013). Most video-game training studies compare improvements for an action-game group with those for an active control group that played a slower-paced, nonaction game (e.g., Tetris or The Sims) for an equivalent amount of time (e.g., Green & Bavelier, 2003, 2006a, 2006b, 2007Green et al, 2012).…”

Action video game training for cognitive enhancement

“…The limitations associated with the current methodological approaches and potential avenues for improving the status quo have been the topic of a number of recent publications [26][27][28], and have been influential in fostering dialog related to best practices in behavioral interventions. A fuller discussion of some of the issues raised can be found in [17], but a general consensus is emerging around the need for behavioral training studies to be designed such that participants are randomly assigned to the experimental group and to control groups, with at least one control group being an active group following the same training schedule, degree of experimenter contact, and (as much as possible) expectations, as the experimental group.…”

“…Here, in the case of the UFOV task, this is true not only a few days after the last video game training session (2+ days), as the effects persist for at least 5 months. *Data replotted from [28,30].…”

Action video games and improved attentional control: Disentangling selection- and response-based processes

“…That being said, many training studies have been conducted with other paradigms and have provided compelling evidence in favor of a causal link between action video game experience and many of the performance improvements observed in cross-sectional investigations (e.g., Feng et al 2007;Green & Bavelier, 2003, 2006a, 2006bLi et al 2009;however, see Boot et al 2008). Second, in a recent thread of criticism of the field, some has argued that the active recruitment of AVGPs could have influenced or even caused the observed effects (Boot et al 2011;Kristjánsson, 2013). That is, if AVGPs know that they are being recruited specifically for their expertise, they may be particularly motivated to perform better on the task.…”