ArticlePeerJ2016
The effects of gamelike features and test location on cognitive test performance and participant enjoyment.
Article in PeerJ, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
21 citing papers in PubMed, 66 citations in OpenAlex.
- Real-time cognitive performance metrics derived from a digital therapeutic for inattention predict ADHD-related clinical outcomes: Replication across three independent trials of AKL-T01.Translational psychiatry · 2024Trial
- Change in brain asymmetry reflects level of acute alcohol intoxication and impacts on inhibitory control.Scientific reports · 2023Trial
- Implementing Technology in Neuropsychological Assessments: A Scoping Review.Journal of medical systems · 2026Article
- The value of error-correcting responses for cognitive assessment in games.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Measuring the Reliability of a Gamified Stroop Task: Quantitative Experiment.JMIR serious games · 2024Article
- A Smartphone-Gamified Virtual Reality Exposure Therapy Augmented With Biofeedback for Ailurophobia: Development and Evaluation Study.JMIR serious games · 2024Article
- Design Preferences for a Serious Game-Based Cognitive Assessment of Older Adults in Prison: Thematic Analysis.JMIR serious games · 2023Article
- A proof-of-concept study exploring the effects of impulsivity on a gamified version of the stop-signal task in children.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- From Lab-Testing to Web-Testing in Cognitive Research: Who You Test is More Important than how You Test.Journal of cognition · 2023Article
- Developments in scalable strategies for detecting early markers of cognitive decline.Translational psychiatry · 2022Review
- Impact of Visual Game-Like Features on Cognitive Performance in a Virtual Reality Working Memory Task: Within-Subjects Experiment.JMIR serious games · 2022Article
- Virtual reality stimulation and organizational neuroscience for the assessment of empathy.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Game based assessments of cognitive ability in recruitment: Validity, fairness and test-taking experience.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- The Making and Evaluation of Digital Games Used for the Assessment of Attention: Systematic Review.JMIR serious games · 2021Review
- Developing Digital Tools for Remote Clinical Research: How to Evaluate the Validity and Practicality of Active Assessments in Field Settings.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
- A Gamification Framework for Cognitive Assessment and Cognitive Training: Qualitative Study.JMIR serious games · 2021Article
- Preserved Inhibitory Control Deficits of Overweight Participants in a Gamified Stop-Signal Task: Experimental Study of Validity.JMIR serious games · 2021Article
- Effective Gamification of the Stop-Signal Task: Two Controlled Laboratory Experiments.JMIR serious games · 2020Article
- Evidence Regarding Automatic Processing Computerized Tasks Designed For Health Interventions in Real-World Settings Among Adults: Systematic Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
- A Mobile App Delivering a Gamified Battery of Cognitive Tests Designed for Repeated Play (OU Brainwave): App Design and Cohort Study.JMIR serious games · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Computerised cognitive assessments are a vital tool in the behavioural sciences, but participants often view them as effortful and unengaging. One potential solution is to add gamelike elements to these tasks in order to make them more intrinsically enjoyable, and some researchers have posited that a more engaging task might produce higher quality data. This assumption, however, remains largely untested. We investigated the effects of gamelike features and test location on the data and enjoyment ratings from a simple cognitive task. We tested three gamified variants of the Go-No-Go task, delivered both in the laboratory and online. In the first version of the task participants were rewarded with points for performing optimally. The second version of the task was framed as a cowboy shootout. The third version was a standard Go-No-Go task, used as a control condition. We compared reaction time, accuracy and subjective measures of enjoyment and engagement between task variants and study location. We found points to be a highly suitable game mechanic for gamified cognitive testing because they did not disrupt the validity of the data collected but increased participant enjoyment. However, we found no evidence that gamelike features could increase engagement to the point where participant performance improved. We also found that while participants enjoyed the cowboy themed task, the difficulty of categorising the gamelike stimuli adversely affected participant performance, increasing No-Go error rates by 28% compared to the non-game control. Responses collected online vs. in the laboratory had slightly longer reaction times but were otherwise very similar, supporting other findings that online crowdsourcing is an acceptable method of data collection for this type of research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.