Topic 7: Video Games Flashcards
What is the context behind video games and cognitive neuroscience?
video gaming is very much mainstream now (with an estimated 2.5 billion players in the world!)
this is thanks in part to the rise in popularity of the “causal” gamer (e.g. smart phone games)
given this, questions related to what effects video games might have on our cognition, and/or brain, seem more relevant now than ever
it used to be the case that the focus was on possible harm (especially related to exposure to violent content), though much of the contemporary cognitive neuroscience research has found various benefits
What is one complication of studying video games?
not all video games are the same, and (for better or worse) a log standing assumption in the literature has been that a defining feature of games is genre
and how much can be generalize from our results?
typically, “action” games are compared to games in other genres in the cognitive neuroscience literature
What is the general experimental framework for studying video games?
starting with a particular kind of experience, and trying to connect it to cognitive or neurological systems that may be affected/relevant in some way
this type of investigation should also speak more generally to experience-dependent plasticity
What are the unique set of characteristics associated with the “action” video game genre identified by Dale et al. (2020)?
fast pace (constant constraints related to time pressure)
need to distribute attention across the whole visual field (including periphery)
need to deploy focused attention at times
multitasking
sufficient variability and unpredictableness that automatization cannot occur
What are the two main approaches in the literature for studying video games?
quasi-experimental designs: one major complication is do video games enhance cognitive/perceptual abilities, or do people who already have enhanced cognitive/perceptual abilities choose to play games more often?
true experimental designs
What cognitive constraints might be relevant or affected by video games?
attention, working memory, task switching, cognitive flexibility
What do action video games demonstrate regarding fine perceptual discrimination when compared to non-action video games?
lower contrast thresholds for detecting low-contrast stimuli
better identification of small stimuli in crowded displays
better multi-sensory temporal processing (e.g., determine which came first, a beep or a flash on the screen)
larger “useful” field of view
What do action video games demonstrate regarding consistently faster response times when compared to non-action video games?
faster response times across a range of response methods (voice, manual, saccadic)
importantly, this occurs independent of any evidence for a speed-accuracy tradeoff
What do action video games demonstrate regarding better working memory and/or executive control when compared to non-action video games?
better performance o visual short-term memory tasks (e.g., change detection)
better updating/monitoring of working memory
faster task switching
better general multi-tasking capabilities
What do action video games demonstrate regarding enhanced attention when compared to non-action video games?
better visual search performance
a better ability to flexibly distribute attention over space, as well as monitoring/tracking objects
What were the methods of the Wu et al. (2012) study on changes in early vs. late stage selection?
trained participants on one of two games (one control game and one first-person shooter) and measured both early and late ERPs in response to stimuli
What were the results of the Wu et al. (2012) study on changes in early vs. late stage selection?
N1 and P1 relatively unaffected after the manipulation, speaking to (a lack of?) early attentional effects
on the other hand, those in the FPS condition demonstrated larger amplitudes for the P2 and P3 components following the manipulation
a follow-up analysis also grouped the participants in the FPS group according to whether they improved at the game after training (FPS+), or not (FPS-)
notice that the change in components seems to be restricted to those participants who improved at the game (FPS+)
did they get better because they had larger responses to the stimuli? or vice versa? or something else altogether?
What is the physiological evidence for better attentional control in action video games?
later ERPs do seem to differ in action video game players
relying on fMRI, we can also see that playing action games is associated with changes in the parietal lobe (which would be expected to be more closely related to attentional control), rather than changes in the occipital lobe (which would be expected to be more closely related to early sensory processing)
steady-state visually evoked potentials (measured using EEG) indicate that AVGPs demonstrate better filtering abilities which attenuate signals related to distractions
although potentially different in various ways, the effect discussed on the previous slide may be comparable to effects in which attentional selection and/or attention filtering can be detrimentally impacted after PFC damage
using fMRI, it has been shown that motion sensitive areas medial temporal and medial superior temporal cortex (MT/MST) become activated less by moving distractors in AVGPs
What are the two networks that AVGPs demonstrate enhanced connectivity for?
the central executive network, important for working memory, planning, etc.
the salience network, important for the integration of sensory, emotional, interoceptive signals, and salient stimulus detection, etc.
What were the methods of the Green and Baveller (2003) study on behavioral evidence?
compared behavior of video game players (VGP) to non-video game players (NVGP) in the flanker task (i.e., a correlational study)
they also trained participants on one of two games and compared performance in the attentional blink paradigm, before and after training (i.e., a true experiment)
What was the flanker task in the Green and Baveller (2003) study?
flaker task: requires various kinds of responses to trials presenting stimuli in the center and periphery of the screen
in this particular version, participants must identify whether a square or diamond is presented within the rings
a compatibility effect is typically observed, such that compatible trials (those in which the flanking distractor is the same as the target) is responded to more quickly overall
What is the attentional blink paradigm in the Green and Baveller (2003) study?
the attentional blink paradigm uses rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) to display a stream of stimuli
participants are given multiple targets to look for in stream
perception of the second (or third) of multiple targets presented in close temporal contiguity (“T2”, “T3”) is seldom reported
various explanatory theories have been proposed (e.g. attentional bottlenecks related to basic perceptual processing, updating of representations in memory, etc.)
What were the results of the Green and Baveller (2003) study on attentional resources in video games?
the group which self-identified as VGP continued to experience distractor interference for the “hard” trails (as demonstrated by a compatibility effect persisting for those trials)
the NVGP group did not show a compatibility effect at the higher difficulty levels, suggesting their resources were “maxed out” (and hence the compatibility effect wasn’t relevant)
could relate this result to “load theory” (the idea that attentional resources are finite and once we’re “maxed out”, we no longer process distractors because we don’t have any residual perceptual capacity)
What were the results of the Green and Baveller (2003) study on better temporal attention in video games?
the action video game (but not control) group showed improvements in their temporal attention, as evidenced by enhanced performance in the attentional blink following training
