UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies, School of Experimental Psychology, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
JMIR Serious Games. 2016 Jul 15;4(2):e11. doi: 10.2196/games.5888.
Cognitive tasks are typically viewed as effortful, frustrating, and repetitive, which often leads to participant disengagement. This, in turn, may negatively impact data quality and/or reduce intervention effects. However, gamification may provide a possible solution. If game design features can be incorporated into cognitive tasks without undermining their scientific value, then data quality, intervention effects, and participant engagement may be improved.
This systematic review aims to explore and evaluate the ways in which gamification has already been used for cognitive training and assessment purposes. We hope to answer 3 questions: (1) Why have researchers opted to use gamification? (2) What domains has gamification been applied in? (3) How successful has gamification been in cognitive research thus far?
We systematically searched several Web-based databases, searching the titles, abstracts, and keywords of database entries using the search strategy (gamif* OR game OR games) AND (cognit* OR engag* OR behavi* OR health* OR attention OR motiv*). Searches included papers published in English between January 2007 and October 2015.
Our review identified 33 relevant studies, covering 31 gamified cognitive tasks used across a range of disorders and cognitive domains. We identified 7 reasons for researchers opting to gamify their cognitive training and testing. We found that working memory and general executive functions were common targets for both gamified assessment and training. Gamified tests were typically validated successfully, although mixed-domain measurement was a problem. Gamified training appears to be highly engaging and does boost participant motivation, but mixed effects of gamification on task performance were reported.
Heterogeneous study designs and typically small sample sizes highlight the need for further research in both gamified training and testing. Nevertheless, careful application of gamification can provide a way to develop engaging and yet scientifically valid cognitive assessments, and it is likely worthwhile to continue to develop gamified cognitive tasks in the future.
认知任务通常被视为费力、令人沮丧和重复的,这往往导致参与者脱离。反过来,这可能会对数据质量和/或降低干预效果产生负面影响。然而,游戏化可能提供了一种可能的解决方案。如果可以在不破坏其科学价值的情况下将游戏设计功能融入认知任务中,那么数据质量、干预效果和参与者参与度可能会得到提高。
本系统评价旨在探索和评估游戏化在认知训练和评估中的应用方式。我们希望回答三个问题:(1)为什么研究人员选择使用游戏化?(2)游戏化应用于哪些领域?(3)迄今为止,游戏化在认知研究中取得了多大的成功?
我们系统地搜索了几个基于网络的数据库,使用搜索策略(gamif* 或 game 或 games)和(cognit* 或 engag* 或 behavi* 或 health* 或 attention 或 motiv*)搜索数据库条目的标题、摘要和关键词。搜索包括 2007 年 1 月至 2015 年 10 月期间以英文发表的论文。
我们的综述确定了 33 项相关研究,涵盖了在一系列障碍和认知领域中使用的 31 种游戏化认知任务。我们确定了研究人员选择游戏化他们的认知训练和测试的 7 个原因。我们发现工作记忆和一般执行功能是游戏化评估和培训的常见目标。游戏化测试通常成功验证,尽管混合域测量是一个问题。游戏化培训似乎非常吸引人,并且确实提高了参与者的动机,但报告称游戏化对任务表现的影响是混合的。
异构的研究设计和通常较小的样本量突出表明,在游戏化培训和测试方面都需要进一步的研究。尽管如此,游戏化的谨慎应用可以提供一种开发吸引人且具有科学价值的认知评估的方法,并且在未来继续开发游戏化认知任务可能是值得的。