ArticlePeerJ2026
Differences in characteristics of two aspects of procedural learning in action video game players.
Article in PeerJ, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Action video game experience has been widely associated with differences in cognitive functions. However, it remains unclear whether such experience is differentially associated with distinct components of procedural learning, including statistical learning (sensitivity to probabilistic regularities) and higher-order sequence learning (extraction of serial order structures). This study aimed to examine descriptive patterns of these components using the Alternating Serial Reaction Time (ASRT) task. Methods: A total of 142 undergraduate students were recruited and categorized into action video game (AVG; Results: AVG group exhibited significantly faster reaction times across all epochs, reflecting a descriptive pattern of faster general response speed. NVG group demonstrated a significant improvement in sensitivity to statistical regularities over time, whereas AVG group showed consistently lower levels of statistical learning. Conversely, AVG group showed reduced inverse learning effects in high-order sequence learning, suggesting better extraction of sequential structures. Conclusion: AVG experience was associated with faster motor responses and better sequence extraction ability, whereas NVG participants showed greater sensitivity to probabilistic regularities. These descriptive patterns are consistent with a multifactorial view of procedural learning and highlight potential interactions between statistical and sequence learning components.
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.