M8, T2, Attention and video game training Flashcards
Research questions in video game training (Green and Bavelier, 2003)
- Are there differences in visual attention skills for regular video game players (VGPs) compared to non-video game players (NVGPs)? That is, do VGPs have more attentional resources?
- What happens to the visual attention skills of NVGPs if they are trained on action video games?
Flanker task
“Which way is the central arrow pointing?”
- measure reaction time for compatible versus incompatible trials to see how attention spotlight is deployed
- used to measure attentional breadth/level of attentional resources a given individual possesses by measuring distractor processing
*look up image
Flanker high v low perceptual load task
- Six rings are shown on the computer screen on each trial (100ms)
- Participants decide if either a diamond or square (targets) was shown on each trial inside one of the rings
- Ignore singleton distractor shape presented outside of the six rings.
- Low and high perceptual load manipulated using additional distractors inside the rings
*look up image
Compatibility effects in flanker high v low perceptual load task
Low perceptual load -> compatibility effect is large (faster to process target compatible v incompatible trials)
-> Attentional resources free to process the distractors - broader attention breadth
High perceptual load -> compatibility effect small.
-> Less residual attentional resources for processing irrelevant distractors - narrow attention breadth
Flanker task and VGP v NVGP Green and Bavelier (2003)
- Compare VGPs and NVGPs on flanker task performance across low and high perceptual load
- If video game playing enhances attentional resources, VGPs should show larger distractor effects compared to NVGPs across low and high perceptual load tasks (i.e. have a broader attention breadth).
-> in NVGPs the flanker compatibility effect decreased with increased perceptual load
-> in VGPs the compatibility effect remained with increasing perceptual load
-> Playing video games is associated with a broader scope of attention in the flanker task (i.e. more attentional resources left over)
Enumeration task
- measures how much visual information we can process in a single moment
- Between 1 and 12 squares are presented on the screen for 50 milliseconds
- Participants’ task is to indicate the number of squares shown on each trial
Subitizing range = number of items apprehended at the same time without error
-> Subitizing range predicts how many items can be attended to at once (Most adults - value is 3 or 4 items)
-> Can also be used to measure counting ability when subitizing range is exceeded
Enumeration task, VGP v NVGP Green and Bavelier (2003)
- VGP could subitize more squares than NVGP
- average number items subitized was 4.9 for VGP v 3.3 items for NVGP
- overall, VGP more accurate at the task (78% v 65%)
-> suggest VGP have a broader scope of attention
Functional field of view - size of visual field
- Flanker task and Enumeration Task only measure attention over a small visual field (the size of the visual field we usually play video games on)
- Green and Bavelier (2003) argue that the functional field of view task can be used to see if attention also differs over a larger area of the visual field for VGPs and NVGPs
Functional field of view task
- Participants are briefly shown a display of 24 boxes that subtend 10, 20 or 30° of visual angle from the centre of the visual field.
- One box contains a target shape
- A visual mask is presented to avoid after images
- Participant indicates which spoke on the wheel the target (triangle within a circle) was located.
Functional field of view task, VGP v NVGP Green and Bavelier (2003)
- VGP have much higher accuracy for the task compared to NVGP at all eccentricities (distances)
- suggests that they have much broader scope of attention
- therefore, superior attention extends beyond the visual field in which video games are played
Attention blink task
- Measure of attention over time
- Participants presented sequentially with a rapid stream of letters in the same spatial location
- Letters are shown for 15 msec and the next letter appears 100 msec from the time the previous letter appears
- Most letters in the stream are distractors
- Participants detect two targets in the stream (T1 and T2) was X present?
Detection of the target, attention blink task
- usually T1 accuracy is high
- T2 accuracy varies, depends on how many distractor stimuli are presented between T1 and T2
- hypothesised that the attentional blink might occur due to attentional bottlenecking (Chun and Potter, 1995)
- T1 is attended to via ‘ filtering’ and gets through the ‘bottleneck’ to conscious awareness
- while this is happening, T2 has already occurred and does not get through the ‘bottleneck’
Attention blink task, NVGP v VGP Green and Bavelier (2003)
- VGP have enhanced attention across time- therefore VGP show a reduced attentional blink compared to NVGP
Green and Bavelier (2003) final experiment VGP v NVGP
- Participants’ performance on the enumeration, functional field of view task, and the attentional blink task was measured at baseline.
- Participants then completed 10 x 1-hour long sessions playing either an action video game (Medal of Honour) or a puzzle game (Tetris).
- Participants’ performance on the enumeration, functional field of view task, and the attentional blink task was measured after training
Findings from the final experiment, Green and Bavelier
- improved performance on all three tasks for the action video game training group, Tetris group no improvements
- enumeration task saw a increase of 1.7 items for those from action video game group
- at each eccentricity (ring of functional field of view) there were improvements for action video game group
- attentional blink was smaller after training, suggesting attention deployed more efficiently across time for action video game group
