The Association Between Video Game Play and Cognitive Function: Does Gaming Platform Matter?

Abstract

Despite consumer growth, few studies have evaluated the cognitive effects of gaming using mobile devices. This study examined the association between video game play platform and cognitive performance. Furthermore, the differential effect of video game genre (action versus nonaction) was explored. Sixty undergraduate students completed a video game experience questionnaire, and we divided them into three groups: mobile video game players (MVGPs), console/computer video game players (CVGPs), and nonvideo game players (NVGPs). Participants completed a cognitive battery to assess executive function, and learning and memory. Controlling for sex and ethnicity, analyses showed that frequent video game play is associated with enhanced executive function, but not learning and memory. MVGPs were significantly more accurate on working memory performances than NVGPs. Both MVGPs and CVGPs were similarly associated with enhanced cognitive function, suggesting that platform does not significantly determine the benefits of frequent video game play. Video game platform was found to differentially associate with preference for action video game genre and motivation for gaming. Exploratory analyses show that sex significantly effects frequent video game play, platform and genre preference, and cognitive function. This study represents a novel exploration of the relationship between mobile video game play and cognition and adds support to the cognitive benefits of frequent video game play.

Introduction

The video game industry has grown rapidly over the past decade, contributing 2.3 billion dollars to Canada's annual gross domestic product.¹ With 54 percent of Canadians self-identified as “gamers,” there has been a growing interest in the impact of video game play on individuals' daily lives. In particular, the effect of video game play (VGP) on cognitive function has gained increasing attention over the past few years.

Previous studies suggest that video game players (VGPs) show enhanced performance on a wide range of cognitive abilities than nonvideo game players (NVGPs), including task switching,^2,3 working memory,⁴ visual attention and inhibition,^5,6 visual spatial memory,^7,8 spatial attention,⁹ decision-making processing and abstract thinking,¹⁰ change detection,¹¹ and general processing speed.¹² Several training studies have also suggested a beneficial effect of as little as 10 hours of VGP on cognitive function in NVGPs.^9,13–16 Most of the studies that examine the beneficial effect of VGP on cognitive function have also explored the effect of different video game genres on cognitive performances, with enhanced cognitive performance noted in action VGP than in nonaction VGP.^17–19

Although a substantial body of literature has investigated the benefits of frequent console or computer VGP on cognitive function, few studies have explored the differential effect of frequent mobile device (smart phones, tablets, etc.) VGP on cognitive performance. Given the rise in mobile gamers and the level of accessibility to mobile games,¹ it is important to assess whether the same benefits found for the console/computer platform extend to the mobile platform. However, research on the effect of frequent mobile video game play on cognitive abilities is still in its early stages.

Thompson et al.²⁰ examined the association between mobile device-based puzzle games and cognitive performance in a sample of older adults. Findings suggested that scores on the picture puzzle game was positively correlated with verbal IQ and verbal learning, whereas performance on the number puzzle game was positively correlated with reasoning and problem solving skills. Similarly, in a 4-week mobile cognitive training study,^21–23 it was found that VGP on a mobile device 5 hours a week for 4 weeks selectively enhanced executive function dependent on the video game genre. As such, frequent null findings associated with nonaction VGP (e.g.,^14,16,24) may be a consequence of the methodologies used (i.e., outcome cognitive measures used), rather than the genre of the game itself.

Although these few studies provide important insight into the benefit of mobile gaming on cognitive function, there is a paucity of research that directly examines the differential effect of gaming platform (i.e., computer/console vs. mobile devices) on cognitive performance. Given the increased accessibility of video game play on mobile devices,¹ it is important to identify whether mobile gaming extends the same cognitive benefits, or differential benefits, compared with the traditional console/computer gaming platform. This is especially important for the creation of cognitive training programs. Furthermore, previous studies have mostly focused on the effect of VGP on executive functions (attention, task switching, etc.), while largely ignoring the domain of learning and memory. It is plausible that cognitive demands and the recruitment of cognitive domains may differ between gaming platforms, whereby its impact on cognitive functions may vary. To this end, the objective of this study was threefold: first, to determine whether frequent VGP differs from NVGP in executive function, and learning and memory performance. It was hypothesized that frequent VGPs would score better on all measures of cognitive processes than NVGPs; second, to determine whether frequent mobile VGPs (MVGPs) differ from CVGPs on cognitive performance. As console/computer platforms entail a greater degree of complexity, depth, and continuity in game content and graphics,²⁵ it was hypothesized that preference for action video games would correlate with enhanced performance on tasks of executive function. Finally, this study explored the effects of sex, ethnicity/race, and motivations for CVGP and MVGP.

Methods

Participants

The study sample consisted of 88 university students, of which 56.8 percent were female and 45.5 percent were Caucasian, with a mean age of 21.11 years (SD = 3.21). Owing to easy access of video game play on mobile phones, NVGPs (n = 29) were defined as individuals who play <5 hours a week. Participants were categorized as VGPs (n = 59) if they reported 5hours or more a week of video game play for the past 6 months. VGPs were further categorized as either CVGPs (n = 34) or MVGPs (n = 25) based on self-report of playing primarily on console/computer or mobile device (i.e., which platform do you play on the most?), which was then verified by number of hours per week spent on each platform. VGP participants were further categorized into action and nonaction genre depending on self-report preference. Significant group differences were found for age [F(2, 84) = 3.41, p = 0.04, partial η² = 0.07], with MVGPs being significantly older than CVGPs M_difference = 2.12, SE = 0.83, 95% CI [0.08, 4.15], and for sex [χ² (2) = 25.67, p < 0.001, Cramer's V = 0.54], and ethnicity, χ² (6) = 18.53, p = 0.005, Cramer's V = 0.32. Age, sex, and ethnicity were, therefore, entered as covariates in all analyses (Table 1).

Table 1.

Demographic and Variable Information Across Group

	NVGPs (n = 29)	CVGPs (n = 34)	MVGPs (n = 25)	P
Age, M (SD)	20.83 (3.16)	20.38 (2.42)	22.50 (3.89)	0.04^a
Female (%)	24 (82.8)	8 (23.5)	18 (72.0)	<0.001
Caucasian (%)	16 (55.2)	14 (41.2)	10 (40.0)	0.44
Genre preference—action VG (%)	5 (17.2)	33 (97.1)	12 (48.0)	<0.001
Motivation for video game use, M (SD)
Social interaction	9.59 (1.30)	18.06 (1.36)	11.64 (1.30)	^b
Competition	8.78 (0.97)	15.47 (1.00)	13.48 (1.04)	^b
Fantasy escape	4.50 (0.65)	7.59 (0.54)	6.28 (0.69)
Fantasy arousal	13.78 (1.47)	18.50 (1.10)	16.79 (1.12)
Unwind	8.57 (0.95)	12.06 (0.72)	12.28 (0.74)
Challenge	4.56 (0.41)	5.12 (0.30)	6.08 (0.19)
Diversion	7.46 (0.72)	7.35 (0.48)	9.40 (0.57)

A one-way ANOVA was conducted to examine group differences in age. Although there was a significant omnibus age difference between the three groups, post hoc t test with Bonferroni correction (α = 0.02) revealed that there were no significant age differences between groups.

Please see the Motivation for video game play section for group differences.

CVGP, computer/console video game player; MVGP, mobile video game player; NVGP, nonvideo game player; VG, video game.

Measures

After the provision of consent, participants completed the modified video game behavior questionnaire, which surveys demographic information, frequency and duration of video game play, video game platform, and genre preference. It also contained a modified version of the Motivation for Video Game Use Scale,^12,26,27 which contains seven motivations for video game use, including social interaction, competition, fantasy escape, fantasy arousal, unwind, challenge, and diversion. Each item was answered on a seven-point Likert-style scale, ranging from 1 (Completely disagree) to 7 (Completely agree). Example items include “I play video games to meet new people” or “I play video games to be the best.” The scale was shown to exhibit good internal consistency with the subscales containing Cronbach's alpha levels ranging from 0.62 to 0.89 in adolescent males.²⁶ Within the current sample, the Motivation for Video Game Use Scale evidenced poor to excellent internal consistency with subscales' alpha levels ranging from 0.47 (95% CI [0.19, 0.65]) to 0.90 (95% CI [0.86, 0.93]).

Participants then completed a battery of cognitive tests, including the California Verbal Learning Test Second Edition, Short Form (CVLT-II),²⁸ a measure of immediate and delayed verbal learning and memory; the Go-No-Go task (GNG),²⁹ a measure of sustained attention and inhibition; the N-Back Task,³⁰ a measure of working memory at three levels of increasing difficulty (0-back, 1-back, and 2-back, the larger the number N, the greater the working memory load).

Analysis

Data were tested for normality and assumptions for parametric testing. To examine the difference in cognitive task performance between NVGP, CVGP and the MVGP group, separate multivariate analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs and MANCOVAs) followed by post hoc group comparisons using bootstrap method were conducted between video game platform (NVGP vs. CVGP vs. MVGP) and cognitive performance on the CVLT (short delay and long delay recall of words), N-back (mean reaction time (RT), accuracy, and efficiency scores), and GNG (mean RT, accuracy, and efficiency score). Similar MANCOVAs were conducted to examine the association between video game genre (i.e., action vs. nonaction video games) and cognitive outcomes. Furthermore, MANCOVA with bootstrap method was conducted to determine the relationship between platform preference (mobile or computer/console) and motivation for video game play. Finally, to examine the relationship between gender and ethnicity for all measures, two separate MANOVAs were conducted. All analyses were performed using SPSS 22 (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences). Results were considered significant at the 5 percent alpha level.

Results

Frequent video game play, gaming platform, and cognitive outcomes

Verbal learning and memory

MANOVA showed no significant effect of frequent VGP (p = 0.69) or platform (p = 0.86) on CVLT performance.

Sustained attention and inhibition

MANCOVA showed a significant effect of frequent VGP on GNG performance, Λ = 0.70, F(4, 79) = 8.25, p < 0.001, partial η² = 0.29. This result was driven by group difference on the GNG efficiency score, with VGPs displaying higher mean efficiency than the NVGP group (M_difference = 24.68, SE = 12.39, p = 0.04, 95% CI [0.20, 49.52]). Furthermore, differential group performance on GNG RT was trending, with VGPs showing a quicker response time than NVGPs, (M_difference = 11.78, SE = 6.45, p = 0.07, 95% CI [−1.05, 24.6]).

MANOVA did not reveal a significant effect of VG platform on GNG performance (p < 0.05). See Table 2 for means and SE.

Table 2.

Mean (Standard Error) Performance on Executive Function Tasks Across Group

	NVGPs (n = 29)	CVGPs (n = 34)	MVGPs (n = 24)
GNG
False alarms	13.52 (1.30)	12.85 (1.43)	16.54 (1.65)
Accuracy	177.48 (2.14)	178.50 (2.63)	174.83 (3.00)
RT (msec)	328.09 (4.97)	320.58 (4.83)	315.39 (4.61)
Efficiency (msec)	371.62 (8.30)	389.33 (9.83)	394.86 (9.05)
N-Back
1-Back accuracy	40.28 (1.19)	43.28 (1.15)	47.60 (1.9)
2-Back accuracy	34.00 (1.34)	36.63 (1.81)	41.00 (2.17)
1-Back RT (msec)	561.72 (16.13)	504.67 (14.17)	485.03 (18.33)
2-Back RT (msec)	603.03 (19.83)	560.63 (22.99)	542.67 (21.46)
1-Back efficiency (msec)	660.25 (42.95)	532.87 (17.40)	526.94 (76.44)
2-Back efficiency (msec)	872.14 (74.45)	772.72 (74.67)	703.07 (50.12)

GNG, Go-No-Go task; RT, reaction time.

Working memory

MANCOVA showed a significant effect of frequent VGP on N-Back performance, Λ = 0.68, F(9, 72) = 3,77, p = 0.001, partial η² = 0.32. Univariate analyses showed frequent VGP to associate with better performance on the 1-Back trials, with respect to RT [F(1, 80) = 14.67, p < 0.001, partial η² = 0.15], accuracy [F(1, 80) = 7.12, p = 0.01, partial η² = 0.07], and a trend for efficiency [F(1, 80) = 3.69, p = 0.06, partial η² = 0.04]; and on the 2-Back with respect to RT [F(1, 80) = 7.12, p = 0.01, partial η² = 0.08] and a trend for accuracy [F(1, 80) = 3.34, p = 0.07, partial η² = 0.04].

MANCOVA showed a significant effect of VG platform on the N-Back performance, Λ = 0.54, F (18, 144) = 2.86, p < 0.001, partial η² = 0.26. Univariate analyses showed that this relationship was driven by 1-Back RT [F(2, 80) = 6.69, p = 0.002, partial η² = 0.14] and accuracy F(2, 79) = 3.57, p = 0.03, partial η² = 0.08).

Post hoc analyses showed that the NVGP group displayed a slower RT on the 1-Back than the CVGP group (M_difference = 57.05, SE = 21.48, 95% CI [18.20, 101.97]) group and the MVGP group (M_difference = 76.69, SE = 23.89, 95% CI [29.83, 123.68]). The NVGP group also performed slower on the 2-Back trials than the MVGP group (M_difference = 60.36, SE = 28.98, 95% CI [5.36, 118.51]), but did not significantly differ from the CVGP group (M_difference = 42.40 SE = 30.63, 95% CI [−17.05, 103.40]). Group comparisons also revealed that the NVGP group displayed lower accuracy on the 1-Back and 2-Back trials than the MVGP group (M_difference = −7.32, SE = 2.28, 95% CI [−11.62, −2.64] and M_difference = −7.00, SE = 2.45, 95% CI [−11.74, −2.44], respectively), but did not differ from the CVGP group (ps > 0.05). However, post hoc comparisons using bootstrap did not find any significant differences between CVGP and MVGP groups (ps > 0.05). See Table 2 for group means and SE.

Video game genre and cognitive outcome

The two video game platforms (MVGP and CVGP) significantly differed in genre preference, χ² (1) = 19.16, p < 0.001, Cramer's V = 0.57. Specifically, CVGPs largely preferred action video games (n = 33 preferred action and n = 1 preferred nonaction), whereas an equal number of participants in the MVGP group reported preference for action and nonaction video game genre (n = 12 preferred nonaction and n = 13 preferred action). However, video game genre across platform was not associated with sustained attention, inhibition, working memory, or verbal learning and memory (ps > 0.05). As such, no mediation analyses were conducted.

Motivation for video game play

There was a significant multivariate effect of video game platform on motivation for gaming [Λ = 0.67, F(14, 140) = 2.22, p = 0.01, partial η² = 0.18]. Specifically, the CVGP group were more likely to report social interaction as their motivation for gaming than the MVGP group (F(2, 76) = 6.30, p = 0.003, partial η² = 0.14, M_difference = 6.82, SE = 2.18, 95% CI [1.49, 12.41]).

Exploratory assessment of gender and ethnicity

Sex and cognitive outcomes

Males performed significantly better than females on the GNG task [Λ = 0.78, F(4, 53) = 3.65, p = 0.01, partial η² = 0.21], evidenced by fewer false alarms and higher accuracy (M_difference = −5.03, SE = 2.14, 95% CI [−9.31, −.75] and M_difference = 12.76, SE = 3.67, 95% CI [5.1, 20.12], respectively). These differences remained significant after controlling for frequent VGP and age. Males did not differ from females on the CVLT or N-Back task (p > 0.05).

Sex, VGP, and genre preference

Males were less likely to report nonfrequent VGP than females [χ² (2) = 11.86, p = 0.001, Cramer's V = 0.36], were less likely than females to report preference for the mobile gaming platform [χ² (2) = 25.66, p < 0.001, Cramer's V = 0.54], were more likely than females to report preference for action video games χ² (2) = 16.17, p < 0.001, Cramer's V = 0.44), and were also more likely than females to report competition [F(1, 74) = 10.27, p = 0.002, partial η² = 0.12] as their motivation for gaming.

Ethnicity, cognitive outcomes, and motivation for video game play

No significant multivariate effect of ethnicity on cognitive measures, platform genre, or motivation for gaming was found (ps > 0.05).

Discussion

Mobile devices have made video game play an affordable and accessible pastime for a rapidly growing number of North Americans. Past research supports an association between action gaming on computer or console platforms and enhanced cognitive function, but research to date has not investigated whether similar cognitive benefits are found for mobile gaming platforms and nonaction video game play. To our knowledge, this was the first study to directly compare the differential cognitive effects of mobile verses console/computer gaming platform, compared with nonvideo game play.

The current findings support previous research demonstrating a positive association between video game play and executive function. Specifically, this study demonstrates that frequent video game play is associated with enhanced working memory and sustained attention relative to nonfrequent VGP, but is not associated with enhanced inhibition. Previous research on the association between VGP and working memory has been mixed, including both positive⁷ and null findings.³¹ In this study, frequent VGPs displayed greater accuracy on the working memory task (i.e., the N-Back task) than nongamers, without displaying a speed–accuracy trade off, thus providing evidence for the advantage of VGP on working memory.

Contrary to our hypothesis, there was no significant difference between video gaming platforms (CVGPs vs. MVGPs) on executive function. However, analyses may suggest a slight advantage of gaming platform compared with nongaming platform. Specifically, frequent gamers who were identified as mobile platform gamers were significantly better on the N-Back than NVGPs, whereas CVGPs did not significantly differ from MVGPs or NVGPs (mean performance lying in the middle of these two group means). A possible explanation is that mobile video games commonly require players to remember game rules or strategies and visually search for common patterns (e.g., Candy Crush), thus targeting working memory. However, this hypothesis needs further investigation.

In support of our hypothesis, no effect of frequent VGP was found for verbal learning and memory. However, it is important to note that this hypothesis was generated based on the target sample, namely university students. It may be speculated that comparable between-group performance is due to confounding effects of education,³² and homogeneity of the study sample. Future research is needed to test the same hypothesis in middle-age populations wherein greater heterogeneity in sample characteristics, including education and literacy level, may be present.

This study found that different motivations were associated with gaming platform. Specifically, CVGPs were more likely than MVGPs to report social engagement as their primary motivation. Given that many console/computer video games are offered through online multiplayers format (e.g., call on duty) or massive multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPGs; e.g., World of Warcraft), these gaming platforms provide individuals with either real and/or virtual social engagement with friends or other players from around the world. Indeed, previous studies have indicated that frequent MMORPGs and/or multiplayer gamers reported a greater sense of community and acquired friendships.^33,34

Although CVGPs showed greater preference for action video games, with 97 percent of CVGPs reporting a preference for action games over nonaction games, 52 percent of MVGPs reported preference for action games, which may reflect the development of hybrid games, combining action and nonaction genres, bringing into question the utility of dichotomous action/nonaction groups in video game research.

Although exploratory in nature, significant gender differences were found in the performance of the GNG task, platform preference, and motivations for gaming. Given that majority of self-identified video game players are males³⁵ and that males spent more time on video game play,³⁶ it is plausible that males may experience greater benefit through frequent exposure than females. However, whether enhanced performance among males is attributed to VGP is not supported by this study, as video game group was not significantly associated with performance on the GNG task (and no interactions were found, data not shown). Furthermore, recent industry statistics also revealed that the gender gap in gamers has become closer. As such, future studies should further explore the effect of gender on VGP and cognitive performance among community samples and professional gamers.

Although this study provides new insight into the beneficial effect of mobile gaming, there are several limitations that should be noted. First, the study sample consisted of undergraduate students, and a disproportionate number of females were in the NVGP group. As such, the study sample was nonrepresentative and may not be extended to other demographics, including age, sex, and education level. Although gender was controlled for in all analyses, the striking difference in gender representation in the two groups may have incurred residual confounding effects. Second, the relatively modest sample size may have minimized generalizability of the study findings. However, using G-Power,³⁷ an a priori power analysis (medium effect size, α = 0.05, β = 0.80) yielded a total sample size of 72. As such, the current sample size (N = 88) had sufficient power to support group differences found in this study. Furthermore, it is important to note that reported effect sizes were medium-to-large,³⁸ which indicates that the present findings were meaningful. Nevertheless, future studies should further examine the effect of gaming platforms to replicate current findings. Third, as with the majority of video game research, it was not possible to recruit naive, or pure nonvideo gamers, especially in this young adult cohort. Nongamers were defined as individuals who play <5 hours a week. However, a majority of participants had at least one game installed on their phone, which is likely due to the ease of access and free access to mobile games. This limitation also extends to the ability to differentiation between pure CVGP and pure MVGP due to the increased accessibility of mobile games and the frequent game play on both platforms among CVGPs and MVGPs. Accordingly, this limitation may have underestimated true group differences observed in cognitive performance. It may be postulated that <5 hours of video game play per week may have beneficial effects on cognitive performance and that VGPs who engage in frequent game play on both gaming platforms (i.e., computer/console and mobile devices) may have a “booster” effect on their cognitive performance compared with those who solely play on one platform or the other. As such, more controlled studies with stringent criteria of VGPs/NVGPs and CVGPs/MVGPs are required to enable firmer inferences about the data.

Despite the aforementioned limitations, the current findings provide preliminary evidence for the use of mobile video games as a potential tool for enhancement of executive processes. This is the first observational study that directly compares the differential impact of gaming platform on cognitive functions. It serves as a stepping stone for future studies to further understand the underlying mechanisms that contribute to the differential effect of the traditional console platform and the new expanding mobile platform on executive functions. Future research should concentrate efforts on identifying the elements of game play that foster game engagement and exercise of cognitive skills, which can then be used to assess how combinations of different video game content (e.g., social interaction, viewer perspective, and player autonomy) integrate to shape cognitive function.

Footnotes

Author Disclosure Statement

No competing financial interests exist.

References

Entertainment Software Association of Canada. (2014) Essential facts about the Canadian video game industry. http://theesa.ca/wpcontent/uploads/2014/11/ESAC-Essential-Facts-2014.pdf (accessed Feb. 2017).

Boot

, Kramer

, Simons

, et al. The effects of video game playing on attention, memory, and executive control. Acta Psychologica, 2008; 129:387–398.

Karle

, Watter

, Shedden

. Task switching in video game players: benefits of selective attention but not resistance to proactive interference. Acta Psychologica, 2010; 134:70–78.

Colzato

, van den Wildenberg

WPM

, Zmigrod

, et al. Action video gaming and cognitive control: playing first person shooter games is associated with improvement in working memory but not action inhibition. Psychological Research, 2013; 77:234–239.

Bavelier

, Achtman

, Mani

, et al. Neural bases of selective attention in action video game players. Vision Research, 2012; 61:132–143.

Cain

, Prinzmetal

, Shimamura

, et al. Improved control of exogenous attention in action video game players. Frontiers in Psychology, 2014; 5:1–9.

Blacker

, Curby

. Enhanced visual short-term memory in action video game players. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysiology, 2013; 75:1128–1136.

De Castell

, Larios

, Jenson

, et al. The role of video game experience in spatial learning and memory. Journal of Gaming & Virtual Worlds, 2015; 7:21–40.

Feng

, Spence

, Pratt

. Playing an action video game reduces gender differences in spatial cognition. Psychological Science, 2007; 18:850–855.

10.

Buelow

, Okdie

, Cooper

. The influence of video games on executive functions in college students. Computers in Human Behaviour, 2015; 45:228–234.

11.

Clark

, Fleck

, Mitroff

. Enhanced change detection performance reveals improved strategy use in avid action video game players. Acta Psychologica, 2011; 136:67–72.

12.

Dye

MWG

, Green

, Bavelier

. Increasing speed of processing with action video games. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2009; 18:321–326.

13.

Anguera

, Boccanfuso

, Rintoul

, et al. Video game training enhances cognitive control in older adults. Nature, 2013; 501:97–101.

14.

Green

, Bavelier

. Action video game modifies visual selective attention. Nature, 2003; 423:534–537.

15.

Green

, Bavelier

. Enumeration versus multiple object tracking: the case of action video game players. Cognition, 2006; 101:217–245.

16.

Green

, Bavelier

. Effect of action video games on the spatial distribution of visuospatial attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2006; 32:1465–1478.

17.

Cain

, Landau

, Shimamura

. Action video game experience reduces the cost of switching tasks. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysiology, 2012; 74:641–647.

18.

Chiappe

, Conger

, Liao

, et al. Improving multi-tasking ability through action videogames. Applied Ergonomics, 2013; 44:278–284.

19.

Dye

MWG

, Green

, Bavelier

. The development of attention skills in action video game players. Neuropsychologia, 2009; 47:1780–1789.

20.

Thompson

, Barrett

, Patterson

, et al. Examining the neurocognitive validity of commercially available, smartphone-based puzzle games. Psychology, 2012; 3:525–526.

21.

Oei

, Patterson

. Enhancing cognition with video games: a multiple game training study. PLoS One, 2013; 8:e58546.

22.

Oei

, Patterson

. Playing a puzzle video game with changing requirements improves executive functions. Computers in Human Behaviour, 2014; 37:216–228.

23.

Oei

, Patterson

. Enhancing perceptual and attentional skills requires common demands between the action video games and transfer tasks. Frontiers in Psychology, 2015; 6:1–11.

24.

Green

, Bavelier

. Action-video-game experience alters the spatial resolution of vision. Psychological Science, 2007; 18:88–94.

25.

Przybylski

, Rigby

, Ryan

. A motivational model of video game engagement. Review of General Psychology, 2010; 14:154–166.

26.

Bijvank

, Konijn

, Bushman

. “We don't need no education”: video game preferences, video game motivations, and aggressiveness among adolescent boys of different educational ability levels. Journal of Adolescence, 2012; 35:153–162.

27.

Terlecki

, Newcombe

. How important is the digital divide? The relation of computer and videogame usage to gender differences in mental rotation ability. Sex Roles, 2005; 53:433–441.

28.

Delis

, Kramer

, Kaplan

, et al. (2000) California verbal learning test. 2nd ed. Adult version. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.

29.

Allen

, Weber

, Madden

. Adult age differences in attention: filtering or selection?. Journal of Gerontology, 1994; 49:213–222.

30.

Kirchner

. Age differences in short-term retention of rapidly changing information. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1958; 55:352–358.

31.

McDermott

, Bavelier

, Green

. Memory abilities in action video game players. Computers in Human Behaviours, 2014; 34:69–78.

32.

Van Der Elst

WIM

, Van Boxtel

, Van Breukelen

, et al. Rey's verbal learning test: normative data for 1855 healthy participants aged 24–81 years and the influence of age, sex, education, and mode of presentation. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 2005; 11:290–302.

33.

Smyth

. Beyond self-selection in video game play: an experimental examination of the consequences of massively multiplayer online role-playing game play. CyberPsychology & Behaviour, 2007; 10:717–721.

34.

Sublette

, Mullan

. Consequences of play: a systematic review of the effects of online gaming. International Journal of Mental Health & Addiction, 2012; 10:3–23.

35.

Meredith

, Hussain

, Griffiths

. Online gaming: a scoping study of massively multi-player online role playing games. Electronic Commerce Research, 2009; 9:3.

36.

Poels

, Annema

, Verstraete

, et al. Are you a gamer? A qualitative study on the parameters for categorizing casual and hardcore gamers. IADIS International Journal on www/Internet, 2012; 10:1–16.

37.

Faul

, Erdfelder

, Lang

, et al. G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 2007; 39:175–191.

38.

Richardson

JTE

. Eta squared and partial eta squared as measures of effect size in educational research. Educational Research Review, 2011; 6:135–147.