Cognitive cooperation: Video game experience interacts with reading processes and accounts for interactive attentional cueing effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Video games have been shown to benefit reading and attentional processing, but the precise mechanisms responsible are not yet clear. The goal of this study was to investigate which aspects of reading and attentional processes are related to video game experience. A novel orthographic-phonological lexical decision task was used to test lexical (using exception words) and sublexical (using pseudohomophones) reading processes, while an attentional cueing task with various cue types was used to test exogenous and endogenous attentional orienting processes. The results of the orthographic-phonological lexical decision task indicated that video game experience interacted with target type (exception word vs pseudohomophone), which we suggest may be due to increased involvement of sublexical reading processes. In the attentional cueing task, when video game experience is not considered, we observed an interaction between cue type and cue validity, but when video game experience is accounted for, this interaction is no longer significant. This suggests that video game experience is related to an individual’s attentional processing of different cue types. Finally, we also observed a significant association between performance in the orthographic-phonological lexical decision task and performance in the attentional task, highlighting the overlapping nature of reading and attentional processes. Oculomotor control is proposed as one mechanism which could underly the observed relationships between reading, attention, and video game experience. These findings could aid the development of new reading programs for dyslexia.
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 | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".