Although the marketing claims that playing these games can improve domain-general cognition-and by way of transfer general cognitive ability-abound, evidence has failed to materialize. Brain training games are similarly unimpressive. Even though the initial results were promising (Jaeggi et al., 2008), it has since been repeatedly shown that working memory training has near-zero effects on intelligence (again, particularly when compared to active control groups: Melby-Lervåg et al., 2016). A good example of this is the attempt to improve fluid intelligence by training its strong correlate, working memory (Conway et al., 2003 Chuderski, 2013). This is mirrored by the second notable approach to improving domain-general cognitive ability, i.e., by training those abilities directly (Taatgen, 2016). Although training the domain-specific skills related to those tasks undeniably improves the task performance itself, there appears to be no transfer to domain-general cognitive abilities. Even though the cross-sectional evidence is strong, both chess and musical training (Gliga & Flesner, 2014 Sala & Gobet, 2017a Sala & Gobet, 2017b) fail to show benefits to cognitive ability in training studies, especially when an active control group is used as the reference.

For instance, chess players (Burgoyne et al., 2016 Sala et al., 2017) and musicians (Schellenberg, 2011 Swaminathan et al., 2017) have repeatedly been shown to demonstrate greater performance on tests of intelligence than non-playing individuals.ĭespite these observations, demonstrating a causal link between performing those tasks and enhanced cognitive ability has proven very difficult. This focus is both warranted and unsurprising given how important cognitive ability is for life success (e.g., Strenze, 2007 Watkins et al., 2007 Lynn & Yadav, 2015), and some of the inspiration for training approaches can be traced to the observation that performing certain tasks seems to be related to improved cognition. The past two decades have seen a quick increase in research on the topic of cognitive training, or the targeted efforts of scientists to improve cognitive ability by way of behavioral interventions. These findings highlight and support the growing trend of more finely detailed and methodologically rigorous approaches to studying the relationship between video games and cognitive functioning. Lastly, by extracting in-game behavior features from recordings of each participant’s gameplay, we were able to show a direct correlation between in-game behavior change and cognitive performance change after training. By splitting the StarCraft II training group into two conditions of “fixed” and “variable” training, we were also able to demonstrate that manipulating the video game environment produces measurable differences in the amount of cognitive improvement. This pattern of results is in line with previous research on the more frequently investigated “action” video games. Thirty hours of StarCraft II training resulted in improvements to perceptual and attentional abilities, but not executive functioning. Our study aimed to train non-video game playing individuals in the real-time strategy video game StarCraft II in order to observe any subsequent changes to perceptual, attentional, and executive functioning. Despite this, video game training studies are slowly beginning to accumulate and provide evidence of replicable improvements. This also extends to the more recent attempts at using video games to improve cognitive abilities, bringing into question if they have any true effects on cognitive functioning at all. Recent meta-analyses and meta-analytic reviews of most common approaches to cognitive training broadly converge on describing a lack of transfer effects past the trained task.

Incontrol sc2 coaching rate