Improved spatial attention with video-game experience.

<p>(a) Visual counting. A number (<i>N</i> = 1–10 dots) of black circular dots was presented for 200 ms against a gray background. The target stimulus was then followed by a checkerboard pattern for another 100 ms. Observers were asked to enumerate the number of dots as quickly and accurately as they could. No feedback was given. Note that the dot size was scaled with visual acuity, and therefore the dots displayed on the screen were very visible. (b) Counting threshold. Non-amblyopic eye (NAE) versus amblyopic eye (AE). (c) Percent improvement of counting threshold in the amblyopic eye after video-game intervention. SIM: <i>n</i> = 4 (dotted circles). MOH: <i>n</i> = 10. (d–e) Subgroup analysis—Undercounting. (d) Number of dots reported as a function of number of dots displayed. (e) Counting threshold calculation. An arrow indicates an increase in counting threshold. (f) Response latency as a function of number of dots.</p

Clinical profile of amblyopia.

<p>Abbreviations: (1) Ethnicity/Race. A, African; C, Chinese; H, Hispanic; P, Persian; W, White. (2) Cover test. ExoT, exotropia; EsoT, esotropia; HyperT, hypertropia; NMD, no movement detected. (3) SeA, stereoacuity. (4) Type of amblyopia. S, strabismic; A, anisometropic; C, deprivation (cataract). Note that participants' characteristics (such as age, gender, ethnicity, etc.) might not be balanced in each subgroup. (5) Treatment group. OT, occlusion therapy; VG, Video Game therapy; MOH, Medal of Honor Pacific Assault; SIM, SimCity Societies.</p

Improved positional acuity with video-game experience.

<p>(a) Position discrimination. The visual task was to pick the misaligned pair of Gabor patch groupings out of three choices (top, middle, or bottom) <a href="http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001135#pbio.1001135-Li6" target="_blank">[23]</a>. Each grouping consisted of 8 Gabor patches. Positional noise to the Gabor patches was introduced by varying their vertical positions according to a Gaussian distribution function. (b) Percent improvement in positional acuity as a function of baseline positional acuity (zero noise). Each data point represents the mean improvement across different noise levels. (c) Effect of video-game experience on sampling efficiency. (d) Effect of video-game experience on internal noise. (e) Threshold versus noise (TvN) function. Three different neural mechanism signature profiles are illustrated. SB2: TvN function shifts downward (increase in efficiency). SA5: The knee point of TvN function shifts downward and to the left (decrease in internal noise). SS3: combination of both.</p

Improved visual acuity (VA) with video-game experience.

<p>(A) Action video game. Color coding is used throughout the figures to represent the type of amblyopia. Red, strabismic; green, anisometropic; Blue, mixed (strabismic & anisometropic); dark purple, mixed (strabismic & deprivation). Error bars: one s.e.m. (here and in all subsequent figures). (B) Non-action video game. In this experiment, participants were required to play a non-action video game (“chess” symbol: SIM) in the first 40 h and an action video game (“gun” symbol: MOH) in the second 40 h. Note that given the small sample size, the fitting curve is provided here for reference. (C) Control experiment. Another group of participants was required to first undertake occlusion therapy (OT, “patch” symbol) for 20 h, and then continue to the video-game phase (“joypad” symbol: MOH or SIM). Note that SB3 was not available to finish the complete course of video-game training. (D) Summary of acuity data. (Top left) A schematic logMAR letter chart. Each 0.1 logMAR represents 1 letter-line. Parentheses: Snellen acuity. (Top right) The visual acuity data from panels a–c are pooled together to calculate the mean data. (Bottom left) Percent improvement is replotted as a function of baseline visual acuity. Solid symbols: crowded acuity. Open symbols: uncrowded acuity. (Bottom right) Effect of video-game experience on visual crowding. Shaded area: decreased visual crowding.</p

Consort flow diagrams.

<p>This research project was commenced in late 2004 and completed in early 2009. The first author (RWL) was responsible for conducting clinical procedures in screening patients and assigning participants to interventions. Participants were pseudo-randomly allocated into three intervention groups. The first 10 enrolled patients participated in the action videogame group (MOH), the subsequently enrolled three patients participated in the non-action videogame group (SIM), and then another seven patients were recruited in the crossover intervention group (phase 1: occlusion therapy; phase 2: video game therapy, “joypad” symbol  =  MOH or SIM). Note that the subject allocation was not based on the clinical characteristics of participants.</p

Improved stereoacuity in anisometropic amblyopia with video-game experience.

<p>(a) Stereoacuity as a function of video-game hours. The normal stereoacuity range is 20–40 arcsec. Dotted line: the lower measuring limit of the stereo test plates. Note: JS failed the test in the baseline session; her initial data point is thus arbitrarily set to 400 arcsec (the upper measuring limit of the test plates). (b) Stereoacuity data were replotted in terms of percent improvement.</p

Response latency.

<p>(a) Mean response latency as a function of the number of dots. The data of the four younger groups (20–60-yr-old) were combined as shown by a blue curve. For the range of 1 to 6 dots, the latency of the older group is prolonged by 20% when compared with that of the younger group. Note that the symbol legends are listed in panel C. (b) Change in response latency. The latency data is recalculated as percentage change relative to the 20–40-yr-old group mean – positive values indicate longer latencies than the youngest age group, and vice versa. Left panel: numerosity 1 & 2 (subitizing). Right panel: numerosity 4 & 5 (counting). (c) Determination of subitizing span. A bi-linear function was used to fit the mean response latency data, with the intersection point representing the subitizing range. The subitizing speed (the slope before the intersection point) and counting speed (the slope after the intersection point) are both slowed down by 10% in older observers.</p

Visual stimuli.

<p>The stimulus sequence started with a fixation mark (a), and then a counting target for 200 ms (b), which was then followed by a black-and-white checkerboard mask for another 100 ms (c). Note that the fixation target was presented in a gray background, instead of a white background. (d) An example illustrating the design and physical dimensions of the dot stimulus. The task is to enumerate the number of dots (<i>N</i> = 1–10) in the display, and say the number into a microphone for the measurement of response latency.</p

Counting threshold.

<p>(a) Mean hit rate as a function of the number of dots. A Weibull function was used to fit the data. The curves were gradually displaced to the left with advancing age. Dotted lines show the counting thresholds for two age groups: 21–30- and 61–85-year-old. (b) Mean counting thresholds and standard errors for different age groups. To better display the variation in counting threshold in older adults, the age group 61–85-yr was split into two groups here for visualization: 61–70- yr-old and 71–85-yr-old. (c) Threshold data for individual observers (n = 104) as a function of age. A second-order polynomial function was used to fit the data. Two older observers failed to perform the task for 200 ms, therefore the stimulus duration was increased to 500 ms (dark pink circle: JP) and 700 ms (green circle: CB).</p

Counting accuracy.

<p>(a) Mean number of dots reported as a function of the number of dots displayed. In general, a very slight undercounting occurred when there were nine or more dots on the screen. (b) Undercountng/overcounting. The response accuracy data is replotted as signed derivation from the actual numerosity (number of dots reported - number of dots presented). Overcounting (+): more than the number of dots displayed. Undercounting (-): less than the number of dots displayed. Younger observers tend to overcount in the range of 4–6 dots and undercount thereafter, and older observers (red symbols) shows even more over-counting (relatively more positive in magnitude) when the numerosity is greater than 4.</p