2015
DOI: 10.1167/15.12.1334
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

It’s in the game: Exploring Cognitive Differences between Professional Gamers and Novices

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 0 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Additionally, both the general gaming preference for more casual kinds of games and the tendency to view games as a means of entertainment rather than intellectual stimulation may detract from the potential relationships between gaming and memory. Many studies which have shown differences in memory or other types of cognition have shown that for gaming to have a meaningful impact on cognition, players must play a sufficient amount of time and in a mindset which aims to improve (Toril Reales, & Ballesteros, 2014;Hess and Neider, 2015). Many of these improvements are shown after extensive experience with faster-paced, action games, which are somewhat removed from the types of games that older adults tend to prefer (Boot et al, 2008).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Additionally, both the general gaming preference for more casual kinds of games and the tendency to view games as a means of entertainment rather than intellectual stimulation may detract from the potential relationships between gaming and memory. Many studies which have shown differences in memory or other types of cognition have shown that for gaming to have a meaningful impact on cognition, players must play a sufficient amount of time and in a mindset which aims to improve (Toril Reales, & Ballesteros, 2014;Hess and Neider, 2015). Many of these improvements are shown after extensive experience with faster-paced, action games, which are somewhat removed from the types of games that older adults tend to prefer (Boot et al, 2008).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%