Systematic review and meta-analyses of useful field of view cognitive training

2018 ◽  
Vol 84 ◽  
pp. 72-91 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jerri D. Edwards ◽  
Bernadette A. Fausto ◽  
Amber M. Tetlow ◽  
Richard T. Corona ◽  
Elise G. Valdés
Neurology ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 93 (14 Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. S12.3-S13
Author(s):  
Bailey Anderson ◽  
Kaitlin Burgess ◽  
Bruno Giordani ◽  
James Eckner

ObjectiveTo explore cognitive factors contributing to concussive impacts in athletes.BackgroundCognitive training programs are becoming an increasingly popular strategy for improving athletic performance. Such programs may have potential to decrease athletes’ concussion risk by improving athletes’ ability to avoid and appropriately react to imminent impacts in the athletic environment. Understanding what cognitive factors contribute to concussive impacts may provide insight into the most appropriate cognitive training regimens for concussion risk reduction.Design/MethodsYouTube videos depicting 100 concussive impacts in athletes were identified via Google video search. Two reviewers independently classified the primary cognitive factor contributing to each impact as one of the following: useful field of view (UFOV, unanticipated/unrecognized impacts coming from outside the athlete’s field of view), field dependence (FD, unanticipated/unrecognized impacts resulting from the athlete’s attention being so focused on an athletic task that the pending impact was not recognized), processing speed (PS, anticipated/recognized impacts occurring too quickly for the athlete to complete an evasive or protective maneuver), or motion perception (MP, anticipated/recognized impacts occurring with sufficient time to respond but associated with a poorly planned or implemented motor response). Descriptive statistics were calculated.Results98 videos were reviewed to yield 100 concussive impacts. 98% of the concussed athletes were males. Concussions occurred during American football (53%), ice hockey (29%), soccer (3%), basketball (3%), as well as 9 other sports (12%). The most commonly contributing cognitive factor was MP (32%), followed by FD (30%), UFOV (23%), and PS (15%).ConclusionsMultiple cognitive factors contribute to concussive impacts in athletes, with MP and FD being the most common in our sample. Cognitive training programs intending to reduce concussion risk in athletes should not focus only on one cognitive factor. Future work should also explore differences between sports and positions.


10.2196/18644 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. e18644 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie F Vermeir ◽  
Melanie J White ◽  
Daniel Johnson ◽  
Geert Crombez ◽  
Dimitri M L Van Ryckeghem

Background There has been a growing interest in the application of gamification (ie, the use of game elements) to computerized cognitive training. The introduction of targeted gamification features to such tasks may increase motivation and engagement as well as improve intervention effects. However, it is possible that game elements can also have adverse effects on cognitive training (eg, be a distraction), which can outweigh their potential motivational benefits. So far, little is known about the effectiveness of such applications. Objective This study aims to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the effect of gamification on process outcomes (eg, motivation) and on changes in the training domain (eg, cognition), as well as to explore the role of potential moderators. Methods We searched PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, ProQuest Psychology, Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, Science Direct, Excerpta Medica dataBASE, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Xplore, Association for Computing Machinery, and a range of gray-area literature databases. The searches included papers published between 2008 and 2018. Meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model. Results The systematic review identified 49 studies, of which 9 randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. The results of the review indicated that research in this context is still developing and lacks well-controlled empirical studies. Gamification in cognitive training is applied to a large range of age groups and audiences and is mostly delivered at a research site through computers. Rewards and feedback continue to dominate the gamification landscape, whereas social-oriented features (eg, competition) are underused. The meta-analyses showed that gamified training tasks were more motivating/engaging (Hedges g=0.72) and more demanding/difficult (Hedges g=–0.52) than non- or less-gamified tasks, whereas no effects on the training domain were found. Furthermore, no variables moderated the impact of gamified training tasks. However, meta-analytic findings were limited due to a small number of studies. Conclusions Overall, this review provides an overview of the existing research in the domain and provides evidence for the effectiveness of gamification in improving motivation/engagement in the context of cognitive training. We discuss the shortcomings in the current literature and provide recommendations for future research.


2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (suppl_1) ◽  
pp. 680-680
Author(s):  
B Fausto ◽  
A Tetlow ◽  
R Corona ◽  
E Valdés ◽  
J Edwards

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie F Vermeir ◽  
Melanie J White ◽  
Daniel Johnson ◽  
Geert Crombez ◽  
Dimitri M L Van Ryckeghem

BACKGROUND There has been a growing interest in the application of gamification (ie, the use of game elements) to computerized cognitive training. The introduction of targeted gamification features to such tasks may increase motivation and engagement as well as improve intervention effects. However, it is possible that game elements can also have adverse effects on cognitive training (eg, be a distraction), which can outweigh their potential motivational benefits. So far, little is known about the effectiveness of such applications. OBJECTIVE This study aims to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the effect of gamification on process outcomes (eg, motivation) and on changes in the training domain (eg, cognition), as well as to explore the role of potential moderators. METHODS We searched PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, ProQuest Psychology, Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, Science Direct, Excerpta Medica dataBASE, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Xplore, Association for Computing Machinery, and a range of gray-area literature databases. The searches included papers published between 2008 and 2018. Meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model. RESULTS The systematic review identified 49 studies, of which 9 randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. The results of the review indicated that research in this context is still developing and lacks well-controlled empirical studies. Gamification in cognitive training is applied to a large range of age groups and audiences and is mostly delivered at a research site through computers. Rewards and feedback continue to dominate the gamification landscape, whereas social-oriented features (eg, competition) are underused. The meta-analyses showed that gamified training tasks were more motivating/engaging (Hedges g=0.72) and more demanding/difficult (Hedges g=–0.52) than non- or less-gamified tasks, whereas no effects on the training domain were found. Furthermore, no variables moderated the impact of gamified training tasks. However, meta-analytic findings were limited due to a small number of studies. CONCLUSIONS Overall, this review provides an overview of the existing research in the domain and provides evidence for the effectiveness of gamification in improving motivation/engagement in the context of cognitive training. We discuss the shortcomings in the current literature and provide recommendations for future research.


2013 ◽  
Vol 70 (3) ◽  
pp. 417-422 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jerri D. Edwards ◽  
Elise G. Valdés ◽  
Carol Peronto ◽  
Melissa Castora-Binkley ◽  
Jessie Alwerdt ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 159-166 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bastianina Contena ◽  
Stefano Taddei

Abstract. Borderline Intellectual Functioning (BIF) refers to a global IQ ranging from 71 to 84, and it represents a condition of clinical attention for its association with other disorders and its influence on the outcomes of treatments and, in general, quality of life and adaptation. Furthermore, its definition has changed over time causing a relevant clinical impact. For this reason, a systematic review of the literature on this topic can promote an understanding of what has been studied, and can differentiate what is currently attributable to BIF from that which cannot be associated with this kind of intellectual functioning. Using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) criteria, we have conducted a review of the literature about BIF. The results suggest that this condition is still associated with mental retardation, and only a few studies have focused specifically on this condition.


2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
P Sadre Dadras ◽  
LK Brackmann ◽  
I Langner ◽  
U Haug ◽  
W Ahrens ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document