Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32773374›Full record

ArticleJMIR serious games2020

The Effects of Gamification on Computerized Cognitive Training: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Julie F Vermeir, Melanie J White, Daniel Johnson, Geert Crombez, Dimitri M L Van Ryckeghem

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR serious games, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

60 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

Julie F VermeirSchool of Psychology and Counselling, Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2931-6629
Melanie J WhiteSchool of Psychology and Counselling, Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4865-8878
Daniel JohnsonScience and Engineering Faculty, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1088-3460
Geert CrombezDepartment of Experimental Clinical and Health Psychology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4744-8561
Dimitri M L Van RyckeghemDepartment of Experimental Clinical and Health Psychology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4981-8896

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere has been a growing interest in the application of gamification (ie, the use of game elements) to computerized cognitive training. The introduction of targeted gamification features to such tasks may increase motivation and engagement as well as improve intervention effects. However, it is possible that game elements can also have adverse effects on cognitive training (eg, be a distraction), which can outweigh their potential motivational benefits. So far, little is known about the effectiveness of such applications.

objectiveThis study aims to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the effect of gamification on process outcomes (eg, motivation) and on changes in the training domain (eg, cognition), as well as to explore the role of potential moderators.

methodsWe searched PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, ProQuest Psychology, Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, Science Direct, Excerpta Medica dataBASE, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Xplore, Association for Computing Machinery, and a range of gray-area literature databases. The searches included papers published between 2008 and 2018. Meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model.

resultsThe systematic review identified 49 studies, of which 9 randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. The results of the review indicated that research in this context is still developing and lacks well-controlled empirical studies. Gamification in cognitive training is applied to a large range of age groups and audiences and is mostly delivered at a research site through computers. Rewards and feedback continue to dominate the gamification landscape, whereas social-oriented features (eg, competition) are underused. The meta-analyses showed that gamified training tasks were more motivating/engaging (Hedges g=0.72) and more demanding/difficult (Hedges g=-0.52) than non- or less-gamified tasks, whereas no effects on the training domain were found. Furthermore, no variables moderated the impact of gamified training tasks. However, meta-analytic findings were limited due to a small number of studies.

conclusionsOverall, this review provides an overview of the existing research in the domain and provides evidence for the effectiveness of gamification in improving motivation/engagement in the context of cognitive training. We discuss the shortcomings in the current literature and provide recommendations for future research.

Indexed as

cognitiongamificationhealthmeta-analysissystematic review

Identifiers

PMID32773374
PMCPMC7445616

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.