Week 12 - Video games and cognitive performance

Question 1

What does video/computer game

playing do to you?

Answer 1

• 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

Question 2

Study 1
Video games can be good for you
Green and Bavelier (2003)

Answer 2

• 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

Question 3

Review of Green and Bavelier (2003)

what are the questions asked by the above studied?

Answer 3

• 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?

Question 4

Tasks of Green and Bavelier (2003)

Answer 4

• 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.

Question 5

Flanker Compatibility Task

Green and Bavelier (2003)

Answer 5

• 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.

Question 6

Flanker Compatibility Task 2

Green and Bavelier (2003)

Answer 6

• 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)

Question 7

Flanker Compatibility Task
3

(Green and Bavelier (2003))

Answer 7

• 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

Question 8

Flanker Compatibility Task 4

Green and Bavelier (2003)

Answer 8

• 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

Question 9

Enumeration Task

Green and Bavelier (2003)

Answer 9

• 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

Question 10

Enumeration Task 2

Green and Bavelier (2003)

Answer 10

• 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

Question 11

Useful Field of View Task

Green and Bavelier (2003)

Answer 11

• 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)

Question 12

Useful Field of View Task 2

Green and Bavelier (2003)

Answer 12

• If playing action video games enhances
spatial attention then VGPs would be more
accurate than NVGPs in locating the target

Question 13

Attentional Blink Task

Green and Bavelier (2003)

Answer 13

• 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

Question 14

Attentional Blink Task 2

Green and Bavelier (2003)

Answer 14

• Identify/detect 2
targets letters within
the stream
• Target 1 is a white
letter – identify
• Target 2 is “X” – was
X present or absent?

Question 15

Attentional Blink Task 3

Green and Bavelier (2003)

Answer 15

• 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

Question 16

Attentional Blink Task 4

Green and Bavelier (2003)

Answer 16

• 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.

Question 17

Attentional Blink Task 5

Green and Bavelier (2003)

Answer 17

• If video games enhance temporal attention
then VGPs should show a reduced attentional
blink compared to NVGPs

Question 18

Experiment 5

Green and Bavelier (2003)

Answer 18

• 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).

Question 19

Predictions
of experiment 5
(Green and Bavelier (2003))

Answer 19

• 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.

Question 20

Training effect

Green and Bavelier (2003)

Answer 20

• 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

Question 21

Enumeration task

Green and Bavelier (2003)

Answer 21

• 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.

Question 22

Conclusion Green & Bavelier (2003)

Answer 22

• 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!

Question 23

Study 2 Dyslexia & Video Games

Franceshini et al (2013)

Answer 23

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

Question 24

Franceshini et al

(2013) part 2

Answer 24

• Trained participants
on Ramon’s Raving
Rabbids
• Mini games – 10
action genre and 10
non-action genre
– Action video gamers
– Non-action video
gamers

Question 25

Franceshini et al (2013) part 3

Answer 25

• 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

Question 26

Franceshini et al (2013) | part 4

Answer 26

* Focused Attention Task * Divided Attention Task * Focused and Divided Attention Tasks * Focused and Divided Attention Task

Question 27

Franceshini et al (2013) | • Pseudo-word reading

Answer 27

– Read nonwords – assess phonological decoding

Question 28

Franceshini et al (2013) • Word text reading

Answer 28

– Reading fluency and errors in age standardised | text passages

Question 29

Franceshini et al (2013) | General reading ability

Answer 29

General reading ability = mean 3 nonword reading | inefficiency and the word text reading inefficiency scores

Question 30

Franceshini et al (2013) | results

Answer 30

• 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

Question 31

Franceshini et al (2013) | • Attention Improvements

Answer 31

• 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)

Question 32

Franceshini et al (2013) questions/discussions

Answer 32

• 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

Question 33

Study 3 VG help your brain | Bavelier, Achtman & Focker (2012)

Answer 33

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)

Question 34

Bavelier, Achtman & Focker (2012) | What'd they examine?

Answer 34

• 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

Question 35

Bavelier, Achtman & Focker (2012) | predictions?

Answer 35

• 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

Question 36

Bavelier, Achtman & Focker (2012) | participants

Answer 36

• 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

Question 37

Bavelier, Achtman & Focker (2012) | • fMRI whole brain results

Answer 37

– Similar for central & peripheral patterns so combined | in analysis

Question 38

Bavelier, Achtman & Focker (2012) | • NVGPs

Answer 38

- ↑ 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

Question 39

Bavelier, Achtman & Focker (2012) | • VGPs

Answer 39

– 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

Question 40

Bavelier, Achtman & Focker (2012) | brain scans showed

Answer 40

``` NVGPs had > activation than VGPs in frontal, parietal & visual areas (more brain effort required to do task) ```

Question 41

Bavelier, Achtman & Focker (2012) | results 2

Answer 41

• 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

Question 42

Bavelier, Achtman & Focker (2012) | vgps were more efficient than nvgps in

Answer 42

VGPs more efficient than NVGPs in operation of • Fronto-parietal attention networks • Visual processing • Filtering out irrelevant movement information

Question 43

Study 4 VG and your cortical thickness Kuhn et al (2014)

Answer 43

• 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

Question 44

Kuhn et al (2014) | • Aim:

Answer 44

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

Question 45

kuhn et al 2014 results 1

Answer 45

• 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

Question 46

kuhn et al 2014 results 2

Answer 46

• Compared low users of VGs to excessive and addicted gamers in cortical thickness • Difference in DLPFC but not FEF (controlling, sex, age & scanner)

Question 47

kuhn et al 2014 results 3

Answer 47

• 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

Question 48

KUHN et al 2014 SUMMARY

Answer 48

``` • Video (action) games useful for – Improved visual attention – Reading improvements – Neural benefits or efficiency – Brain Changes ```