Gaming to see: action video gaming is associated with enhanced processing of masked stimuli

Abstract

Recent research revealed that action video game players outperform non-players in a wide range of attentional, perceptual and cognitive tasks. Here we tested if expertise in action video games is related to differences regarding the potential of shortly presented stimuli to bias behavior. In a response priming paradigm, participants classified four animal pictures functioning as targets as being smaller or larger than a reference frame. Before each target, one of the same four animal pictures was presented as a masked prime to influence participants' responses in a congruent or incongruent way. Masked primes induced congruence effects, that is, faster responses for congruent compared to incongruent conditions, indicating processing of hardly visible primes. Results also suggested that action video game players showed a larger congruence effect than non-players for 20 ms primes, whereas there was no group difference for 60 ms primes. In addition, there was a tendency for action video game players to detect masked primes for some prime durations better than non-players. Thus, action video game expertise may be accompanied by faster and more efficient processing of shortly presented visual stimuli.

Light Video Game Play is Associated with Enhanced Visual Processing of Rapid Serial Visual Presentation Targets

“…Boot, Kramer, Simons, Fabiani, & Gratton, 2008;Donohue, Woldorff & Mitroff, 2010;Dye & Bavelier, 2010;Green & Bavelier, 2006b;Pohl et al, 2014). Whether or not they differ with respect to performance on the RSVP task and the attentional blink is less clear.…”

“…There is some evidence suggesting that VGPs do employ faster processing of sensory stimuli and potentially greater levels of temporal resolution in their perception of brief events. For example, Pohl et al (2014) showed VGPs and NVGPs a number of masked semantic primes and measured the influence of these primes at various presentation durations. VGPs were more able to detect these masked primes than NVGPs, suggesting more rapid visual processing of these briefly presented mask stimuli.…”

Action video games and improved attentional control: Disentangling selection- and response-based processes

“…However, recent work has provided evidence against this postdecisional motor account as an explanatory basis for a range of AVGP advantages (Dye, Green, & Bavelier, 2009;Green et al, 2010;Hubert-Wallander, Green, Sugarman, & Bavelier 2011b). Instead, the evidence suggests that more efficient responding could stem from AVGPs' enhanced visual acuity (Green & Bavelier, 2007) or ability to acquire sensory information more quickly (Appelbaum, Cain, Darling, & Mitroff, 2013;Pohl et al 2014;Wilms, Petersen, & Vangkilde, 2013), both of which are gated by attentional processing and can result in more efficient perceptual decision-making (Green et al 2010). This notion of AVGPs being more efficient at processing task-relevant information may provide a general mechanism that not only accounts for the present findings but also may provide a basis for the improved attentional control proposed to account for the breadth of AVGP benefits.…”

Video Games as Tools to Achieve Insight into Cognitive Processes

“…This research suggests that action video game play is associated with superior perceptual and cognitive abilities. Cain et al (2014) and Pohl et al (2014) in this Research Topic present evidence in favor of cross-sectional differences between action gamers and non-gamers on measures of vision and attention. However, evidence from cross-sectional and training studies used to support action game effects has been criticized for a variety of methodological reasons (Boot et al, 2011(Boot et al, , 2013bKristjánsson, 2013;Bisoglio et al, 2014;Ferguson, 2014).…”

“…However, evidence from cross-sectional and training studies used to support action game effects has been criticized for a variety of methodological reasons (Boot et al, 2011(Boot et al, , 2013bKristjánsson, 2013;Bisoglio et al, 2014;Ferguson, 2014). Importantly, Cain et al (2014) and Pohl et al (2014) provide a full report of their methods and the ways in which participants were recruited, following the best reporting practices outlined by critics of game effects. In their large-sampled training study, Baniqued et al (2013) found limited transfer of training, but blunt the potential criticism of placebo effects being responsible for the transfer effects that were observed by measuring participants' expectations regarding the type of training they received (see Blacker et al, 2014; for a similar approach).…”