Comparison of Physical Activity, Dual-Task Performance, and Cognitive Skills Between Problematic Video Game Players and Control Subjects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to compare the dual-task and cognitive skills of problematic video gamers and non-problematic video gamers based on the fact that cognitive skills (e.g., inhibition, decision-making, attentional control, time perception) and dual-task performance may be positively affected in individuals who play games. METHODS: The study was conducted on 62 individuals. The study group (n=33) consisted of individuals who played games, and the control group (n=28) consisted of non-gamers. Their scores on exercise benefits and barriers perception, cognitive performance, cognitive skills, and dual-task performances were measured. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) scale was used to evaluate cognitive function, and the Trail Making Test (TMT) was used to determine attention, speed, and better motor performance. The Stroop test was used to evaluate executive functioning. RESULTS: It was determined that the problematic game players group was faster at the Stroop 1 and Stroop 2 test times (respectively p=0.020, p=0.005). In the comparison of dual task-cognitive 10-meter walking) test times of both groups, it was seen that individuals in the problematic game players group were faster than the control subjects (p=0.044). CONCLUSION: It can be said that playing digital games improves the cognitive dual-task cost (DTC) and the executive functioning of individuals.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".