Don’t Shoot the Messenger: Still No Evidence That Video-Game Experience Is Related to Cognitive Abilities—A Reply to Green et al. (2017)

The contrast sensitivity function (CSF) is routinely assessed in clinical evaluation of vision and is the primary limiting factor in how well one sees. CSF improvements are typically brought about by correction of the optics of the eye with eyeglasses, contact lenses or surgery. We found that the very act of action video game playing also enhanced contrast sensitivity, providing a complementary route to eyesight improvement.

The relations between video-game experience and cognitive abilities were examined in the current study. In two experiments, subjects performed a number of working memory, fluid intelligence, and attention-control measures and filled out a questionnaire about their video-game experience. In Experiment 1, an extreme-groups analysis indicated that experienced video-game players outperformed nonplayers on several cognitive-ability measures. However, in Experiments 1 and 2, when analyses examined the full range of subjects at both the task level and the latent-construct level, nearly all of the relations between video-game experience and cognitive abilities were near zero. These results cast doubt on recent claims that playing video games leads to enhanced cognitive abilities. Statistical and methodological issues with prior studies of video-game experience are discussed along with recommendations for future studies.

Two major strategies have typically been used to assess recent drinking: (1) Daily Estimation (DE) measures such as the Timeline Followback (TLFB) and (2) Quantity-Frequency (QF) summary measures. Although QF measures provide a quick and easy measure of consumption, they have been criticized as not being able to capture sporadic and unpatterned drinking (e.g., days that reflect important social and/or health risks). The TLFB, a psychometrically sound drinking assessment method, is able to capture all drinking, including sporadic heavy days and unpatterned drinking. In some situations, however, recall of daily drinking may not be possible or practical (e.g., limited time; no resources). This article compares results obtained by using a QF measure and a DE measure to assess problem drinkers' pretreatment drinking. The current study, part of a large community mail intervention with 825 alcohol abusers, compared results from two drinking measures covering the same time interval that were administered on two different occasions approximately 2.5 weeks apart. Both measures, the Quick Drinking Screen (QDS; a QF summary measure that collected data by telephone) and the TLFB (a self-administered daily estimation measure), collected drinking data for the year prior to the interview. Although the QDS and the TLFB are very different drinking measures, remarkably similar aggregate drinking data were obtained for five drinking variables. When it is not necessary or possible to gather detailed drinking data, the QDS produces reliable brief summary measures of drinking, at least for not severely alcohol dependent individuals. Also, respondents do not appear to use a repetitive response pattern when completing the TLFB.