The Association Between Video Game Play and Cognitive Function: Does Gaming Platform Matter?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite consumer growth, few studies have evaluated the cognitive effects of gaming using mobile devices. This study examined the association between video game play platform and cognitive performance. Furthermore, the differential effect of video game genre (action versus nonaction) was explored. Sixty undergraduate students completed a video game experience questionnaire, and we divided them into three groups: mobile video game players (MVGPs), console/computer video game players (CVGPs), and nonvideo game players (NVGPs). Participants completed a cognitive battery to assess executive function, and learning and memory. Controlling for sex and ethnicity, analyses showed that frequent video game play is associated with enhanced executive function, but not learning and memory. MVGPs were significantly more accurate on working memory performances than NVGPs. Both MVGPs and CVGPs were similarly associated with enhanced cognitive function, suggesting that platform does not significantly determine the benefits of frequent video game play. Video game platform was found to differentially associate with preference for action video game genre and motivation for gaming. Exploratory analyses show that sex significantly effects frequent video game play, platform and genre preference, and cognitive function. This study represents a novel exploration of the relationship between mobile video game play and cognition and adds support to the cognitive benefits of frequent video game play.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".