Meta-Analysis of Action Video Game Impact on Perceptual, Attentional, and Cognitive Skills
Meta-Analysis of Action Video Game Impact on Perceptual, Attentional, and Cognitive Skills
复制标题
DOI：
10.1037/bul0000130
复制
发表时间：
2018-01-01
影响因子：
22.4
通讯作者：
Bavelier, Daphne
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bediou, Benoit;Adams, Deanne M.;Bavelier, Daphne
电子游戏在当今社会中无处不在，这引起了人们对它们对大脑和行为的影响以及利用游戏的可能性的极大兴趣。目前的荟萃分析集中在一个特定的游戏类型上，这个类型一直是科学界特别感兴趣的动作电子游戏，涵盖2000年至2015年期间。为了评估动作电子游戏对认知各个领域的长期影响，我们首先考虑了横截面研究，这些研究告诉我们习惯性动作电子游戏玩家的认知概况，并记录了大约一半标准偏差的积极平均影响（g = 0.55）。然后，我们转向长期干预研究，该研究告诉我们，通过玩动作视频游戏可能会导致认知变化，结果显示，平均影响较小，只有三分之一的标准差（g = 0.34）。因为只有使用其他商业电子游戏类型作为控制的干预研究被纳入其中，后一种结果强调了并非所有游戏都对认知产生同等影响的事实。调节分析表明，动作类电子游戏可显著增强自上而下的注意力和空间认知领域，在感知方面表现出令人鼓舞的迹象。然而，发表偏倚仍然存在，在已发表的文献中，其平均影响估计比在完整文献中要大30%。因此，我们鼓励该领域进行更大规模的队列研究和更多的干预研究，特别是那些超过30小时培训的研究。
The ubiquity of video games in today's society has led to significant interest in their impact on the brain and behavior and in the possibility of harnessing games for good. The present meta-analyses focus on one specific game genre that has been of particular interest to the scientific community-action video games, and cover the period 2000-2015. To assess the long-lasting impact of action video game play on various domains of cognition, we first consider cross-sectional studies that inform us about the cognitive profile of habitual action video game players, and document a positive average effect of about half a standard deviation (g = 0.55). We then turn to long-term intervention studies that inform us about the possibility of causally inducing changes in cognition via playing action video games, and show a smaller average effect of a third of a standard deviation (g = 0.34). Because only intervention studies using other commercially available video game genres as controls were included, this latter result highlights the fact that not all games equally impact cognition. Moderator analyses indicated that action video game play robustly enhances the domains of top-down attention and spatial cognition, with encouraging signs for perception. Publication bias remains, however, a threat with average effects in the published literature estimated to be 30% larger than in the full literature. As a result, we encourage the field to conduct larger cohort studies and more intervention studies, especially those with more than 30 hours of training.