Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27441120›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2016

The effects of gamelike features and test location on cognitive test performance and participant enjoyment.

Jim Lumsden, Andy Skinner, Andy T Woods, Natalia S Lawrence, Marcus Munafò

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 66 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jim LumsdenMRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit (IEU), University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom; School of Experimental Psychology, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Andy SkinnerMRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit (IEU), University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom; School of Experimental Psychology, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Andy T WoodsSchool of Experimental Psychology, University of Bristol , Bristol , United Kingdom.
Natalia S LawrenceSchool of Psychology, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter , Exeter , United Kingdom.
Marcus MunafòMRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit (IEU), University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom; School of Experimental Psychology, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
University of Bristol · GBUniversity of Exeter · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_12013/6Medical Research Council MC_UU_12013/7
6 · The paper itself

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

AssessmentCognitionCognitive testEngagementGameGamificationGo-no-goInternet-based testingMechanical TurkPoints

Identifiers

PMID27441120
PMCPMC4941792
OpenAlexW2470301224

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.