by MSI » Mon Jun 18, 2012 9:30 am
June 13, 2012: From Science Daily:
Videogamers No Better at Talking While Driving
A study by the
Visual Cognition Laboratory at Duke University wanted to see whether gamers who have spent hours in front of a screen simultaneously watching the map, scanning doorways for bad guys and listening to the chatter of their fellow gamers could answer questions and drive at the same time. The finding: not so much.
Full paper:
Abstract
- With modern technological advances, we often find ourselves dividing our attention between multiple tasks. While this may seem a productive way to live, our attentional capacity is limited, and this yields costs in one or more of the many tasks that we try to do. Some people believe that they are immune to the costs of multitasking and commonly engage in potentially dangerous behavior,
such as driving while talking on the phone. But are some groups of individuals indeed immune to dual-task costs? This study examines whether avid action videogame players, who have been shown to have heightened attentional capacities, are particularly adept multitaskers. Participants completed three visually demanding experimental paradigms (a driving videogame, a multiple-object-tracking task, and a visual search), with and without answering unrelated questions via a speakerphone (i.e., with and without a dual-task component). All of the participants, videogame players and nonvideogame players alike, performed worse while engaging
in the additional dual task for all three paradigms. This suggests that extensive videogame experience may not offer immunity from dual-task costs.
Discussion (the first paragraph only...see article for more..)
- In the present study, we examined whether VGPs would be less susceptible to dual-task costs than NVGPs. Our participants completed three attentionally demanding paradigms, each with and without a distracting dual-task component. All of the participants, VGPs and NVGPs alike, performed worse during the dual-task condition, and there were no differences in how the VGPs and NVGPs were affected.
These findings suggest that while some cognitive skills obtained from extensive gaming may be transferrable (see Bavelier et al., 2011; Green & Bavelier, 2012), under cases of high attentional demand across modalities, VGPs can be just as hurt as NVGPs.
These results both complement and challenge previous findings, making it necessary to address several possible concerns. First, the trivia questions were designed to keep participants engaged in the dual task rather than to mimic a phone conversation. That said, the costs were similar to those reported elsewhere (Drews, Pasupathi, & Strayer, 2008). Second, although the analyses including all participants revealed dual-task costs for all three paradigms, the analyses limited to just VGPs and NVGPs revealed only a marginal difference for the driving paradigm. The change for this one paradigm was likely due to reduced power in the more limited sample. Importantly, however, the interaction between gaming status and task was not significant, indicating that all participants took more time to complete the tracks in the dual-task condition...
(2012). Cognitive Pitfall!: Video game players are not immune from dual-task costs Donohue, S., James, B., Eslick, A. N., & Mitroff, S. R.
June 13, 2012: From Science Daily: [url=http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120613102424.htm]Videogamers No Better at Talking While Driving[/url]
A study by the [url=http://www.duke.edu/web/perception/]Visual Cognition Laboratory at Duke University[/url] wanted to see whether gamers who have spent hours in front of a screen simultaneously watching the map, scanning doorways for bad guys and listening to the chatter of their fellow gamers could answer questions and drive at the same time. The finding: not so much.
Full paper: [list][url=http://www.duke.edu/~mitroff/papers/12_DonohueJamesEslickMitroff_APP.pdf](2012). Cognitive Pitfall!: Video game players are not immune from dual-task costs[/url] Donohue, S., James, B., Eslick, A. N., & Mitroff, S. R. [/list]
[b]Abstract[/b]
[list]With modern technological advances, we often find ourselves dividing our attention between multiple tasks. While this may seem a productive way to live, our attentional capacity is limited, and this yields costs in one or more of the many tasks that we try to do. Some people believe that they are immune to the costs of multitasking and commonly engage in potentially dangerous behavior,
such as driving while talking on the phone. But are some groups of individuals indeed immune to dual-task costs? This study examines whether avid action videogame players, who have been shown to have heightened attentional capacities, are particularly adept multitaskers. Participants completed three visually demanding experimental paradigms (a driving videogame, a multiple-object-tracking task, and a visual search), with and without answering unrelated questions via a speakerphone (i.e., with and without a dual-task component). All of the participants, videogame players and nonvideogame players alike, performed worse while engaging
in the additional dual task for all three paradigms. This suggests that extensive videogame experience may not offer immunity from dual-task costs.[/list]
[b]Discussion [/b](the first paragraph only...see article for more..)
[list]In the present study, we examined whether VGPs would be less susceptible to dual-task costs than NVGPs. Our participants completed three attentionally demanding paradigms, each with and without a distracting dual-task component. All of the participants, VGPs and NVGPs alike, performed worse during the dual-task condition, and there were no differences in how the VGPs and NVGPs were affected.
These findings suggest that while some cognitive skills obtained from extensive gaming may be transferrable (see Bavelier et al., 2011; Green & Bavelier, 2012), under cases of high attentional demand across modalities, VGPs can be just as hurt as NVGPs.
These results both complement and challenge previous findings, making it necessary to address several possible concerns. First, the trivia questions were designed to keep participants engaged in the dual task rather than to mimic a phone conversation. That said, the costs were similar to those reported elsewhere (Drews, Pasupathi, & Strayer, 2008). Second, although the analyses including all participants revealed dual-task costs for all three paradigms, the analyses limited to just VGPs and NVGPs revealed only a marginal difference for the driving paradigm. The change for this one paradigm was likely due to reduced power in the more limited sample. Importantly, however, the interaction between gaming status and task was not significant, indicating that all participants took more time to complete the tracks in the dual-task condition...[/list]
[url=http://www.duke.edu/~mitroff/papers/12_DonohueJamesEslickMitroff_APP.pdf](2012). Cognitive Pitfall!: Video game players are not immune from dual-task costs[/url] Donohue, S., James, B., Eslick, A. N., & Mitroff, S. R.