Week 12 - Video games and cognitive performance Flashcards
What does video/computer game
playing do to you?
• Focus on the negative aspects of video or
computer game playing
– violence and aggression
• Positive impact of video/computer games
– Effect on cognition
– Effect on neural activation
Study 1
Video games can be good for you
Green and Bavelier (2003)
• Regularly playing action video games
improved performance on spatial and temporal
attention tasks & enhanced overall attentional
capacity.
• Improved attentional performance found for both
– VGPs: regular video game players (playing on
average 4 one-hour periods per week)
– NVGPs: novice video game players trained for 10
one-hour periods compared to the control group that
played a less attentionally-demanding computer
game for the same training time
Review of Green and Bavelier (2003)
what are the questions asked by the above studied?
• Are there differences in visual attention skills
for regular video game players compared to
non-video games players?
• What happens to the visual attention skills of
non-video game players if they are trained on
action video games?
Tasks of Green and Bavelier (2003)
• Experiments 1-4 - differences between video
game players and non-video game players
across Tasks 1-4
• Experiment 5 - performance of non-video
game players after they had been trained on
an action game or a non-action game.
– Tasks 2-4 were used in this experiment.
– Participants were tested on these tasks before
training and after training.
Flanker Compatibility Task
Green and Bavelier (2003)
• measures attentional capacity
• Six rings are shown on the computer screen
on each trial (100 ms)
• Participants decide if either a diamond/square
(targets) was shown
• Ignore distractor shapes presented outside
one of the six rings.
Flanker Compatibility Task 2
Green and Bavelier (2003)
• Time taken to indicate “square/diamond” is
measured from the time the rings are
presented.
• 50% of trials the target and distractor
represent the same shape (compatible
condition).
• 50% of trials the target and distractors are
different shapes (incompatible condition).
• Vary the number of distractor items shown
within the circles (0, 1, 3 or 5)
Flanker Compatibility Task
3
(Green and Bavelier (2003))
• Distractor Effect = RT difference between
targets with incompatible distractors and
targets with compatible distractors
• Size of this distractor effect = index of
residual attentional resources
• Larger distractor effect = larger capacity of
residual attentional resources
Flanker Compatibility Task 4
Green and Bavelier (2003)
• Flanker compatibility task is easy => distractor
effect is large BUT when task difficulty ↑ this
effect reduces in magnitude.
– Easy condition - attentional resources free to
process the distractors
– Task difficulty increases - less residual attentional
resources for processing irrelevant distractors
• If video game playing enhances attentional
resources then VGPs should show larger
distractor effects than NVGPs
Enumeration Task
Green and Bavelier (2003)
• Between 1 and 12 squares are presented on
the screen for 50 milliseconds
• Participants’ task - indicate the number of
squares shown on each trial
• Number of items apprehended at the same
time without error = subitizing range
• Subitizing range - a measure of attentional
capacity.
• Most adults - value is 3 or 4 items
Enumeration Task 2
Green and Bavelier (2003)
• Enumeration task also examines accuracy
when counting is used
• If video game playing enhances attentional
capacity then VGPs should have a larger
subitizing range and be more accurate at
counting than NVGPs
Useful Field of View Task
Green and Bavelier (2003)
• examines spatial attention
• Participants are briefly presented (6 or 12
msec) with an array of 8 intersecting lines that
form spokes of a circular wheel.
• The task is to indicate the spoke on which the
target (triangle within a circle) is located.
• Spatial attentional demand is manipulated by
↑’ing the degree to which the target is
removed from the centre of the visual field
(10, 20 or 30 deg from centre)
Useful Field of View Task 2
Green and Bavelier (2003)
• If playing action video games enhances
spatial attention then VGPs would be more
accurate than NVGPs in locating the target
Attentional Blink Task
Green and Bavelier (2003)
• 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• 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
Attentional Blink Task 2
Green and Bavelier (2003)
• Identify/detect 2 targets letters within the stream • Target 1 is a white letter – identify • Target 2 is “X” – was X present or absent?
Attentional Blink Task 3
Green and Bavelier (2003)
• Target 1 and Target 2 are separated by a
long time interval (e.g., 500 msec) then both
targets are easily identified/detected
• When the two targets are separated by ~ 200
msec => impaired ability to detect/report the
second target even though high accuracy for
Target 1
Attentional Blink Task 4
Green and Bavelier (2003)
• Performance decrement in the ability to
report/detect the second target = Attentional
Blink (AB) (Raymond, Shapiro & Arnell, 1992).
• AB - if the two targets follow one another
closely in time (100-300 msec) attentional
resources are tied up processing Target 1
when Target 2 is shown
• Target 2 does not get processed and this
leads to impaired Target 2 report.
Attentional Blink Task 5
Green and Bavelier (2003)
• If video games enhance temporal attention
then VGPs should show a reduced attentional
blink compared to NVGPs
Experiment 5
Green and Bavelier (2003)
• Effect of video game training on attention
• Two groups: action video game and nonaction
control game
• Stage 1: Participants tested on enumeration
task, useful field of view task and attentional
blink task (pre-test).
• Stage 2: Participants completed 10 x 1 hour
sessions playing either Medal of Honor or
Tetris (training).
• Stage 3: Participants tested on three tasks as
for Stage 1 (post-test).
Predictions
of experiment 5
(Green and Bavelier (2003))
• No group difference apparent at pre-test
(stage 1).
• If training on action video games enhances
attention then participants in the Medal of
Honor group should perform better than the
participants in the non-action video game
(Tetris) on all three tasks at post-test.
Training effect
Green and Bavelier (2003)
• Medal of Honor group training sessions 1- 8
continued playing the game
• Compared participant games scores for first
level Medal of Honor for session 9 and
session 10
• Medal of Honor participants improved on
game
• Tetris participants also improved on game
through training
Enumeration task
Green and Bavelier (2003)
• Performance improved from pre to post-test
for Medal of Honor group by 1.7 items
• Tetris group did not improve from pre to post
test.
Conclusion Green & Bavelier (2003)
• Regular video game players showed superior
attentional skills
• Non-video game players trained on an action
video game showed an improvement in tests
of attention after training compared to there
pre-test scores.
• This effect did not happen for the non-action
video game group
• Video games are not so bad after all!
Study 2 Dyslexia & Video Games
Franceshini et al (2013)
Dyslexia & Video Games Franceshini et al (2013)
• Dyslexia associated with
– auditory or speech processing issues
– motor, memory and attention issues
• Would visual attention training improve reading in
dyslexics?
• Assessed “reading” skills in 20 dyslexic children
before & after playing video games (none had
action video game experience)
– Trained 10 dyslexics on action VG & 10 on non-action
VG
– Groups matched IQ, age, readings & phonological skills
Franceshini et al
(2013) part 2
• Trained participants on Ramon’s Raving Rabbids • Mini games – 10 action genre and 10 non-action genre – Action video gamers – Non-action video gamers
Franceshini et al (2013) part 3
• Played games 12 hours across 9 days (9 x 80
mins daily)
• Attention & reading assessed at pre-test &
post-test
• Attention: focused spatial attention, distributed
spatial attention, cross modal attention task
• Auditory & speech-sound task: phoneme
blending
• Word reading: single words (time 1 only),
pseudowords, pieces of written text
Franceshini et al (2013)
part 4
- Focused Attention Task
- Divided Attention Task
- Focused and Divided Attention Tasks
- Focused and Divided Attention Task
Franceshini et al (2013)
• Pseudo-word reading
– Read nonwords – assess phonological decoding
Franceshini et al (2013)
• Word text reading
– Reading fluency and errors in age standardised
text passages
Franceshini et al (2013)
General reading ability
General reading ability = mean 3 nonword reading
inefficiency and the word text reading inefficiency scores
Franceshini et al (2013)
results
• Both groups improved on their games
• Reading Improvements
– Reading inefficiency = ratio of speed to accuracy
– Action game group improved more than the nonaction
game group on text & pseudowords
– ↑speed but no↓ accuracy (confirmed syllable/sec
analysis and ↑ > than dyslexic 12 months traditional
training program)
– No groups difference on phoneme blending: Action
VG do not assist phonological processing
– Improvements remained 2 months after videogames
Franceshini et al (2013)
• Attention Improvements
• Attention Improvements
– Only action gamers improved focused &
distributed spatial attention
– Action gamers improved more on cross modal
attention task (know this result no need to know
the task used for cross modal attention)
• Correlation between gains in attention and
reading measures
– Attention improvement accounted for 50% unique
variance in reading improvement
– Maybe improved efficiency of magnocellular
dorsal pathway (action stream)
Franceshini et al (2013) questions/discussions
• Why did the video games work when they did not
actually teach reading?
• Italian – shallow orthography (spelling-sound
correspondences good)
• Italian children can learn to read by computing
pronunciations across groups of letters (can
speed this up as learning progresses)
• Video games may have improved this speed of
mapping letters and sounds
• How would this work with English?
• May be most efficient in Dyslexics with
attention deficits (magnocellular problems?)
• Demands of the video-game are vital for
determining improvement
– Action; visuo-motor control, precise aiming
– Non-action: fast motor action but not so much
control
Study 3 VG help your brain
Bavelier, Achtman & Focker (2012)
Bavelier, Achtman & Focker (2012)
• Compared to Non-Video game players
(NVGPs), Video gamers players (VGPs) have
better Spatial attention, Selective attention
and Temporal attention (top-down attention)
• Compared NVGPs & VGPs on visual search
task (easy and difficult levels) and how this
affected the processing of irrelevant motion
information
• Top-down attention – dorsal fronto-parietal
network (control & regulate attention)
Bavelier, Achtman & Focker (2012)
What’d they examine?
• Examine top-down attention – dorsal frontoparietal
network
• Flanker task with low and high levels of
perceptual load
– Ring shapes – was there a square or diamond?
– Vary homogeneity of shapes for difficulty
• BOLD measure = difference between easy
and hard levels for the two groups
– Allowed control RT differences between groups
– Allowed to examine the ↑ in difficulty on brain
function
Bavelier, Achtman & Focker (2012)
predictions?
• Should be an ↑ dorsal fronto-parietal network
activation from easy to hard conditions
• Is this dorsal fronto-parietal network ↑ the
same for VGPs and NVGPs?
• Also examined distractor suppression –
patches random dots (static or moving)
– Estimate of left over processing resources as task
difficulty increases (harder task fewer left over
resources)
– Compare MT/MST activation for moving patterns
(central & peripheral) for VGPs & NVGPs
Bavelier, Achtman & Focker (2012)
participants
• Male NVGPs - < 1hr action video game per week
in last 12 months
• Male VGPs- played action video games min 5 hrs
per week in last 12 months
• Trained participants on flanker task
• fMRI scans during flanker task performance
• RT – effect task difficulty (perceptual load) same
in both groups and shorter RTs VGPS than NVGPs
• RT & error data – irrelevant motion in periphery
more disruptive for NVGPs than VGPs
Bavelier, Achtman & Focker (2012)
• fMRI whole brain results
– Similar for central & peripheral patterns so combined
in analysis
Bavelier, Achtman & Focker (2012)
• NVGPs
- ↑ fronto-parietal network activation
with task ↑load
– Frontal areas (bilateral activation): superior &
inferior frontal regions, pre-central & post-central
gyri, supplementary motor area, dorsal anterior
cingulate
– Parietal areas (bilateral activation): inferior parietal
cortex, superior parietal cortex extending to
precuneus & cuneus
– Visual areas (bilateral activation): superior &
middle occipital regions, inferior & middle temporal
gyri
Bavelier, Achtman & Focker (2012)
• VGPs
– showed some ↑ activation in
some regions with ↑ task load
– Frontal areas : no significant activation
hard compared to easy
– Parietal areas (bilateral activation): small
regions of inferior parietal cortex & superior
parietal cortex
– Visual areas (greatest activation here):
superior & middle occipital regions
(bilateral activation), left inferior temporal
gyrus
Bavelier, Achtman & Focker (2012)
brain scans showed
NVGPs had > activation than VGPs in frontal, parietal & visual areas (more brain effort required to do task)
Bavelier, Achtman & Focker (2012)
results 2
• Region of Interest (ROI) analysis examine
differences in MT/MST activation for NVGPs &
VGPs
• Split central & peripheral moving patterns for this
analysis
• Peripheral patterns similar activation both groups
• Central patterns lower MT/MST activation for
VGPs than NVGPs
– VGPs better at filtering irrelevant information
Bavelier, Achtman & Focker (2012)
vgps were more efficient than nvgps in
VGPs more efficient than NVGPs in operation
of
• Fronto-parietal attention networks
• Visual processing
• Filtering out irrelevant movement information
Study 4
VG and your cortical thickness
Kuhn et al (2014)
• Behavioural studies show benefits video
game playing on visual and cognitive skills
• Imaging studies show differences between
VGPS and NVGPS
• But are their structural brain differences
between VGPs and NVGPS?
• Not a lot of research in this area
• Kuhn et al. (2014) – add to the research in
this area
Kuhn et al (2014)
• Aim:
examine association between spontaneous
video game playing and cortical thickness in
adolescents (14 years olds)
• 152 participants (M & F)
• Questionnaire – video game playing habits
– Hours per weekday
• Excessive VGP score 4, addition score 7.
• Cortical thickness assessed structural MRI
kuhn et al 2014 results 1
• Video game play – M = 12.6 (SD = 12.9, range
63) hours per week
– M > hours per week than F
– More F did not play VGP regularly
• Whole Brain Analysis – variation in brain region
cortical thickness that was associated with hours
per week of gaming (controlled age, sex &
scanner)
• +ve correlation between game time and cortical
thickness in the left DLPC and left frontal eyefields
– Further analysis showed no M&F diff & only marginal
age effect
kuhn et al 2014 results 2
• Compared low users of VGs to excessive and
addicted gamers in cortical thickness
• Difference in DLPFC but not FEF (controlling,
sex, age & scanner)
kuhn et al 2014 results 3
• Positive relationship between hour of gaming
and increased cortical thickness in DLPFC and
FEF
• DLPFC – executive functions
• FEF –visuo-motor integration, attention
control
• VG playing is related to changes in the cortex
• Future research needed to determine causality
of these e
KUHN et al 2014 SUMMARY
• Video (action) games useful for – Improved visual attention – Reading improvements – Neural benefits or efficiency – Brain Changes
