INTRODUCTION Although video games have often been criticized for having possible harmful consequences and for promoting violence, it has also been found that there are positive side effects to playing video games. Orosy-Fildes and Allan (1989) studied college students’ reaction times for responding to multiple stimuli of different colored lights. It was found that when participants were given 15 minutes of video game playing time they had overall significantly faster reaction times than those who did not play the video game. A later study found that kindergarteners who have past video game playing experience score much faster mean reaction times for discriminating colors and shapes of similar pictures than children who are non-players (Yuji, 1996).A different study by Kuhlman and Beitel (1991) measured the anticipation of seven through nine year old children who were categorized as non-experienced, moderately experienced, or highly experienced video game players. The researchers found that children with extensive experience playing video games can more accurately and consistently anticipate the arrival of a stimulus. To calculate anticipation, this study and many others that do not examine the effect of video game playing use a runway of lights that illuminate in sequence (Kuhlman & Beitel, 1991; Haywood, 1977; Long & Vogel, 1998; Overdorf, Schweighardt, Page & McGrath, 2004). The scores are measured by how accurate the participants respond to the final light illuminating, showing that the subjects begin to anticipate the arrival of light.In the studies done on the effect of video game playing on reaction time, only the total, or mean, reaction time has been measured (Orosy-Fildes & Allan, 1989; Yuji, 1996). However, it stands to reason that in repeated trials with equal time intervals between trials, the reaction time of participants will begin to improve as they learn to anticipate the stimulus. Schmidt explains that anticipation is predicting the “time arrival of stimulus events” (as cited in Long & Vogel, 1998, p.379). He does not say that anticipation must be measured a particular way, only that it occurs by predicting arrival times. Therefore, if participants who perform repeated reaction time trials with consistent stimulus arrivals over time gradually improve their reaction time scores, it must be because they begin to anticipate the event. The improvement of anticipation and reaction times due to video game playing may possibly be a result of practice effects. It has been found that practice improves performance and proficiency of motor skills, and that randomized practice is better at improving long-term learning than single task repetition (Overdorf, Schwighardt, Page & McGrath, 2004). Therefore, video game playing may be described as random practice because it does not involve specifically practicing the single task of anticipation or reaction time but instead involves performing many simultaneous tasks at once. The fact that video game playing can be considered practice is reflected in the fact that participants who had a history of video game playing experience had faster anticipation scores (Kuhlman & Beitel, 1991) and reaction times (Yuji, 1996), and also that reaction times increase immediately after playing a video game (Orsosy-Fildes & Allan, 1989). Either playing a video game or having a history of playing video games have both been shown to improve motor skills, but which one has the most profound effect is not yet known. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between video game playing and anticipation. In doing so, it examined the effects that video game playing, video game playing experience, and a combination of both have on anticipation. It was hypothesized that participants who had more video game playing experience and who also played a video game before being tested would have the highest anticipation scores. Anticipation was measured by changes in reaction time over continuous trials.
INTRODUCTION Although video games have often been criticized for having possible harmful consequences and for promoting violence, it has also been found that there are positive side effects to playing video games. Orosy-Fildes and Allan (1989) studied college students’ reaction times for responding to multiple stimuli of different colored lights. It was found that when participants were given 15 minutes of video game playing time they had overall significantly faster reaction times than those who did not play the video game. A later study found that kindergarteners who have past video game playing experience score much faster mean reaction times for discriminating colors and shapes of similar pictures than children who are non-players (Yuji, 1996).A different study by Kuhlman and Beitel (1991) measured the anticipation of seven through nine year old children who were categorized as non-experienced, moderately experienced, or highly experienced video game players. The researchers found that children with extensive experience playing video games can more accurately and consistently anticipate the arrival of a stimulus. To calculate anticipation, this study and many others that do not examine the effect of video game playing use a runway of lights that illuminate in sequence (Kuhlman & Beitel, 1991; Haywood, 1977; Long & Vogel, 1998; Overdorf, Schweighardt, Page & McGrath, 2004). The scores are measured by how accurate the participants respond to the final light illuminating, showing that the subjects begin to anticipate the arrival of light.In the studies done on the effect of video game playing on reaction time, only the total, or mean, reaction time has been measured (Orosy-Fildes & Allan, 1989; Yuji, 1996). However, it stands to reason that in repeated trials with equal time intervals between trials, the reaction time of participants will begin to improve as they learn to anticipate the stimulus. Schmidt explains that anticipation is predicting the “time arrival of stimulus events” (as cited in Long & Vogel, 1998, p.379). He does not say that anticipation must be measured a particular way, only that it occurs by predicting arrival times. Therefore, if participants who perform repeated reaction time trials with consistent stimulus arrivals over time gradually improve their reaction time scores, it must be because they begin to anticipate the event. The improvement of anticipation and reaction times due to video game playing may possibly be a result of practice effects. It has been found that practice improves performance and proficiency of motor skills, and that randomized practice is better at improving long-term learning than single task repetition (Overdorf, Schwighardt, Page & McGrath, 2004). Therefore, video game playing may be described as random practice because it does not involve specifically practicing the single task of anticipation or reaction time but instead involves performing many simultaneous tasks at once. The fact that video game playing can be considered practice is reflected in the fact that participants who had a history of video game playing experience had faster anticipation scores (Kuhlman & Beitel, 1991) and reaction times (Yuji, 1996), and also that reaction times increase immediately after playing a video game (Orsosy-Fildes & Allan, 1989). Either playing a video game or having a history of playing video games have both been shown to improve motor skills, but which one has the most profound effect is not yet known. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between video game playing and anticipation. In doing so, it examined the effects that video game playing, video game playing experience, and a combination of both have on anticipation. It was hypothesized that participants who had more video game playing experience and who also played a video game before being tested would have the highest anticipation scores. Anticipation was measured by changes in reaction time over continuous trials.
INTRODUCTION Although video games have often been criticized for having possible harmful consequences and for promoting violence, it has also been found that there are positive side effects to playing video games. Orosy-Fildes and Allan (1989) studied college students’ reaction times for responding to multiple stimuli of different colored lights. It was found that when participants were given 15 minutes of video game playing time they had overall significantly faster reaction times than those who did not play the video game. A later study found that kindergarteners who have past video game playing experience score much faster mean reaction times for discriminating colors and shapes of similar pictures than children who are non-players (Yuji, 1996).A different study by Kuhlman and Beitel (1991) measured the anticipation of seven through nine year old children who were categorized as non-experienced, moderately experienced, or highly experienced video game players. The researchers found that children with extensive experience playing video games can more accurately and consistently anticipate the arrival of a stimulus. To calculate anticipation, this study and many others that do not examine the effect of video game playing use a runway of lights that illuminate in sequence (Kuhlman & Beitel, 1991; Haywood, 1977; Long & Vogel, 1998; Overdorf, Schweighardt, Page & McGrath, 2004). The scores are measured by how accurate the participants respond to the final light illuminating, showing that the subjects begin to anticipate the arrival of light.In the studies done on the effect of video game playing on reaction time, only the total, or mean, reaction time has been measured (Orosy-Fildes & Allan, 1989; Yuji, 1996). However, it stands to reason that in repeated trials with equal time intervals between trials, the reaction time of participants will begin to improve as they learn to anticipate the stimulus. Schmidt explains that anticipation is predicting the “time arrival of stimulus events” (as cited in Long & Vogel, 1998, p.379). He does not say that anticipation must be measured a particular way, only that it occurs by predicting arrival times. Therefore, if participants who perform repeated reaction time trials with consistent stimulus arrivals over time gradually improve their reaction time scores, it must be because they begin to anticipate the event. The improvement of anticipation and reaction times due to video game playing may possibly be a result of practice effects. It has been found that practice improves performance and proficiency of motor skills, and that randomized practice is better at improving long-term learning than single task repetition (Overdorf, Schwighardt, Page & McGrath, 2004). Therefore, video game playing may be described as random practice because it does not involve specifically practicing the single task of anticipation or reaction time but instead involves performing many simultaneous tasks at once. The fact that video game playing can be considered practice is reflected in the fact that participants who had a history of video game playing experience had faster anticipation scores (Kuhlman & Beitel, 1991) and reaction times (Yuji, 1996), and also that reaction times increase immediately after playing a video game (Orsosy-Fildes & Allan, 1989). Either playing a video game or having a history of playing video games have both been shown to improve motor skills, but which one has the most profound effect is not yet known. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between video game playing and anticipation. In doing so, it examined the effects that video game playing, video game playing experience, and a combination of both have on anticipation. It was hypothesized that participants who had more video game playing experience and who also played a video game before being tested would have the highest anticipation scores. Anticipation was measured by changes in reaction time over continuous trials.
METHOD
METHOD
METHOD PARTICIPANTS
Data was collected from a total of 37 undergraduate students attending Missouri Western State University in northwestern Missouri. They were recruited from introductory psychology courses on a voluntary basis, and compensated with extra credit points for participating. Upon entering the experiment, participants were randomly divided into groups depending on the number of hours they reported playing video games on a normal basis. Those who described themselves as playing video games on a regular basis were assigned to the group of video game players (VGP), and those who reported not playing video games or not playing them regularly were placed in the group for non-players (NP). Within the VGP group participants played video games on an average of 7.67 hours per week, whereas NP only played a mean of 0.26 hours per week. PARTICIPANTS
Data was collected from a total of 37 undergraduate students attending Missouri Western State University in northwestern Missouri. They were recruited from introductory psychology courses on a voluntary basis, and compensated with extra credit points for participating. Upon entering the experiment, participants were randomly divided into groups depending on the number of hours they reported playing video games on a normal basis. Those who described themselves as playing video games on a regular basis were assigned to the group of video game players (VGP), and those who reported not playing video games or not playing them regularly were placed in the group for non-players (NP). Within the VGP group participants played video games on an average of 7.67 hours per week, whereas NP only played a mean of 0.26 hours per week. MATERIALS
A Lafayette Instrument Multi Choice Reaction Timer, model 63014, and response keyboard were used to measure the reaction and anticipation times of participants. The response keyboard also consisted of a stimulus unit on which the cue and stimulus lights were displayed. The cue was an amber warning light that was illuminated above and two seconds before the red stimulus light was activated on every trial. The control panel and response keyboard were placed on opposite sides of a circular table. For the experimental conditions, a Sony Playstation One was used. On it, subjects played the action video game “Frogger” using a standard controller. The game was viewed on a small 14” color television, and played under fluorescent lighting. MATERIALS
A Lafayette Instrument Multi Choice Reaction Timer, model 63014, and response keyboard were used to measure the reaction and anticipation times of participants. The response keyboard also consisted of a stimulus unit on which the cue and stimulus lights were displayed. The cue was an amber warning light that was illuminated above and two seconds before the red stimulus light was activated on every trial. The control panel and response keyboard were placed on opposite sides of a circular table. For the experimental conditions, a Sony Playstation One was used. On it, subjects played the action video game “Frogger” using a standard controller. The game was viewed on a small 14” color television, and played under fluorescent lighting. MATERIALS
A Lafayette Instrument Multi Choice Reaction Timer, model 63014, and response keyboard were used to measure the reaction and anticipation times of participants. The response keyboard also consisted of a stimulus unit on which the cue and stimulus lights were displayed. The cue was an amber warning light that was illuminated above and two seconds before the red stimulus light was activated on every trial. The control panel and response keyboard were placed on opposite sides of a circular table. For the experimental conditions, a Sony Playstation One was used. On it, subjects played the action video game “Frogger” using a standard controller. The game was viewed on a small 14” color television, and played under fluorescent lighting. PROCEDURE
Within each group (VGP or NP) participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions, playing or not playing the video game “Frogger” before doing the anticipation task. This created four separate conditions: two VGP groups, one that played the game and one that did not; and two NP groups, one that played the game and one that did not; each with nine participants except the NP group that did not play “Frogger”, which had a total of ten subjects. The participants were assigned to groups so that the total average of number of hours played by everyone within each of the four groups was equal to that of the original two groups; so that both VGP sections still played on average 7.67 hours per week and both NP groups averaged 0.26 hours.Subjects that played the video game were given 15 minutes of playing time after being informed of how to play the game; including information about the rules, time limit, and objective. Instructions were read from a standard script in order to keep possible variability constant. Participants assigned not to play the game were asked to read a daily local newspaper for the 15 minutes. After the 15 minute session was over, the anticipation task began. All subjects were told how the reaction timer worked and how to respond to the red light stimulus. They were also informed that the amber cue light always flashed before the stimulus light would appear, but were not told about the timing of the lights. All participants completed a total of 30 reaction time trials, which were then separated into three sets of ten consecutive scores in order to determine the difference between each person’s first and last ten scores. By averaging all of the first as well as all of the last ten scores for each of the four separate groups, two separate sets of times were created for each group. Next, the changes in reaction times were analyzed in order to measure how much anticipation each group experienced. PROCEDURE
Within each group (VGP or NP) participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions, playing or not playing the video game “Frogger” before doing the anticipation task. This created four separate conditions: two VGP groups, one that played the game and one that did not; and two NP groups, one that played the game and one that did not; each with nine participants except the NP group that did not play “Frogger”, which had a total of ten subjects. The participants were assigned to groups so that the total average of number of hours played by everyone within each of the four groups was equal to that of the original two groups; so that both VGP sections still played on average 7.67 hours per week and both NP groups averaged 0.26 hours.Subjects that played the video game were given 15 minutes of playing time after being informed of how to play the game; including information about the rules, time limit, and objective. Instructions were read from a standard script in order to keep possible variability constant. Participants assigned not to play the game were asked to read a daily local newspaper for the 15 minutes. After the 15 minute session was over, the anticipation task began. All subjects were told how the reaction timer worked and how to respond to the red light stimulus. They were also informed that the amber cue light always flashed before the stimulus light would appear, but were not told about the timing of the lights. All participants completed a total of 30 reaction time trials, which were then separated into three sets of ten consecutive scores in order to determine the difference between each person’s first and last ten scores. By averaging all of the first as well as all of the last ten scores for each of the four separate groups, two separate sets of times were created for each group. Next, the changes in reaction times were analyzed in order to measure how much anticipation each group experienced. PROCEDURE
Within each group (VGP or NP) participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions, playing or not playing the video game “Frogger” before doing the anticipation task. This created four separate conditions: two VGP groups, one that played the game and one that did not; and two NP groups, one that played the game and one that did not; each with nine participants except the NP group that did not play “Frogger”, which had a total of ten subjects. The participants were assigned to groups so that the total average of number of hours played by everyone within each of the four groups was equal to that of the original two groups; so that both VGP sections still played on average 7.67 hours per week and both NP groups averaged 0.26 hours.Subjects that played the video game were given 15 minutes of playing time after being informed of how to play the game; including information about the rules, time limit, and objective. Instructions were read from a standard script in order to keep possible variability constant. Participants assigned not to play the game were asked to read a daily local newspaper for the 15 minutes. After the 15 minute session was over, the anticipation task began. All subjects were told how the reaction timer worked and how to respond to the red light stimulus. They were also informed that the amber cue light always flashed before the stimulus light would appear, but were not told about the timing of the lights. All participants completed a total of 30 reaction time trials, which were then separated into three sets of ten consecutive scores in order to determine the difference between each person’s first and last ten scores. By averaging all of the first as well as all of the last ten scores for each of the four separate groups, two separate sets of times were created for each group. Next, the changes in reaction times were analyzed in order to measure how much anticipation each group experienced.
RESULTS A 2 (played “Frogger”) x 2 (video game experience) between-subjects factorial ANOVA was calculated comparing the changes in reaction times due to anticipation for subjects who either played or did not play video games on a regular basis and those who played the game “Frogger” or read a newspaper during the experiment. No significant main effect was found for playing the game (F(1,33) = .279, p > .05). There was also no significant main effect from the level of participant’s video game playing experience (F(1,33) = 1.765, p > .05).There was, however, an a significant interaction effect found (F(1,33) = 7.357, p < .05). Participants who played the video game but who did not play them on a regular basis had the largest increase in their reaction times from the first to the last ten trials (m = .083, sd = .0821). Those who did not play the game but did play normally did the second best (m = .046, sd = .0346). Next were non-players who did not play “Frogger” (m = .018, sd = .0735), while video game players who did play “Frogger” had the lowest increase in reaction times (m = .002, sd =.0363). This shows that anticipation resulting from increasing reaction time was affected by both whether participants played a video game before being tested and if they played regularly or not, but not one or the other.
RESULTS A 2 (played “Frogger”) x 2 (video game experience) between-subjects factorial ANOVA was calculated comparing the changes in reaction times due to anticipation for subjects who either played or did not play video games on a regular basis and those who played the game “Frogger” or read a newspaper during the experiment. No significant main effect was found for playing the game (F(1,33) = .279, p > .05). There was also no significant main effect from the level of participant’s video game playing experience (F(1,33) = 1.765, p > .05).There was, however, an a significant interaction effect found (F(1,33) = 7.357, p < .05). Participants who played the video game but who did not play them on a regular basis had the largest increase in their reaction times from the first to the last ten trials (m = .083, sd = .0821). Those who did not play the game but did play normally did the second best (m = .046, sd = .0346). Next were non-players who did not play “Frogger” (m = .018, sd = .0735), while video game players who did play “Frogger” had the lowest increase in reaction times (m = .002, sd =.0363). This shows that anticipation resulting from increasing reaction time was affected by both whether participants played a video game before being tested and if they played regularly or not, but not one or the other.
RESULTS A 2 (played “Frogger”) x 2 (video game experience) between-subjects factorial ANOVA was calculated comparing the changes in reaction times due to anticipation for subjects who either played or did not play video games on a regular basis and those who played the game “Frogger” or read a newspaper during the experiment. No significant main effect was found for playing the game (F(1,33) = .279, p > .05). There was also no significant main effect from the level of participant’s video game playing experience (F(1,33) = 1.765, p > .05).There was, however, an a significant interaction effect found (F(1,33) = 7.357, p < .05). Participants who played the video game but who did not play them on a regular basis had the largest increase in their reaction times from the first to the last ten trials (m = .083, sd = .0821). Those who did not play the game but did play normally did the second best (m = .046, sd = .0346). Next were non-players who did not play “Frogger” (m = .018, sd = .0735), while video game players who did play “Frogger” had the lowest increase in reaction times (m = .002, sd =.0363). This shows that anticipation resulting from increasing reaction time was affected by both whether participants played a video game before being tested and if they played regularly or not, but not one or the other.
DISCUSSION The purpose of this study was to examine whether video game playing experience or actual video game play had a larger impact on anticipation. It was found that increases in reaction times did not come from either a history of video game play or current game play, but from a combination of the two, meaning that the two variables did not influence anticipation unless they were combined. These results were somewhat unexpected. Even though all groups experienced some level of improvement in reaction times, independently the variables did not have significance like what previous findings suggested they did. It had also been anticipated that those participants who played the action video game “Frogger” in combination with playing video games on a regular basis would have experienced more increased anticipation than other groups, which was proven false. Therefore, the original research hypothesis was rejected. A possible explanation for this is that video game players had higher reaction times to begin with, which allowed them less room for improvement than what non-players had. By far, the most interesting and meaningful finding of this study is that if someone does not play video games regularly they can greatly increase their ability to anticipate stimuli by playing a video game immediately before exposure to it. The most obvious limitation of this study is the small number of participants in each group. If the sample number were to be increased an even larger level of significance may be produced. Additionally, the current results may not be generalizable to the larger population as a whole since the video game playing habits of college students may not be completely compatible with that of the general populace. In future studies on the effect of video game playing on anticipation it would be interesting to examine how anticipation may be impacted by a variety of video games or amount of video game usage, in order to plot and compare the results. Additionally, how powerfully someone performs an action such as pushing down on the reaction time button or how much pressure they applies to such a device as a result of video game playing could be inspected, since it seemed that people who played video games more often pushed the buttons more vigorously than others.
DISCUSSION The purpose of this study was to examine whether video game playing experience or actual video game play had a larger impact on anticipation. It was found that increases in reaction times did not come from either a history of video game play or current game play, but from a combination of the two, meaning that the two variables did not influence anticipation unless they were combined. These results were somewhat unexpected. Even though all groups experienced some level of improvement in reaction times, independently the variables did not have significance like what previous findings suggested they did. It had also been anticipated that those participants who played the action video game “Frogger” in combination with playing video games on a regular basis would have experienced more increased anticipation than other groups, which was proven false. Therefore, the original research hypothesis was rejected. A possible explanation for this is that video game players had higher reaction times to begin with, which allowed them less room for improvement than what non-players had. By far, the most interesting and meaningful finding of this study is that if someone does not play video games regularly they can greatly increase their ability to anticipate stimuli by playing a video game immediately before exposure to it. The most obvious limitation of this study is the small number of participants in each group. If the sample number were to be increased an even larger level of significance may be produced. Additionally, the current results may not be generalizable to the larger population as a whole since the video game playing habits of college students may not be completely compatible with that of the general populace. In future studies on the effect of video game playing on anticipation it would be interesting to examine how anticipation may be impacted by a variety of video games or amount of video game usage, in order to plot and compare the results. Additionally, how powerfully someone performs an action such as pushing down on the reaction time button or how much pressure they applies to such a device as a result of video game playing could be inspected, since it seemed that people who played video games more often pushed the buttons more vigorously than others.
DISCUSSION The purpose of this study was to examine whether video game playing experience or actual video game play had a larger impact on anticipation. It was found that increases in reaction times did not come from either a history of video game play or current game play, but from a combination of the two, meaning that the two variables did not influence anticipation unless they were combined. These results were somewhat unexpected. Even though all groups experienced some level of improvement in reaction times, independently the variables did not have significance like what previous findings suggested they did. It had also been anticipated that those participants who played the action video game “Frogger” in combination with playing video games on a regular basis would have experienced more increased anticipation than other groups, which was proven false. Therefore, the original research hypothesis was rejected. A possible explanation for this is that video game players had higher reaction times to begin with, which allowed them less room for improvement than what non-players had. By far, the most interesting and meaningful finding of this study is that if someone does not play video games regularly they can greatly increase their ability to anticipate stimuli by playing a video game immediately before exposure to it. The most obvious limitation of this study is the small number of participants in each group. If the sample number were to be increased an even larger level of significance may be produced. Additionally, the current results may not be generalizable to the larger population as a whole since the video game playing habits of college students may not be completely compatible with that of the general populace. In future studies on the effect of video game playing on anticipation it would be interesting to examine how anticipation may be impacted by a variety of video games or amount of video game usage, in order to plot and compare the results. Additionally, how powerfully someone performs an action such as pushing down on the reaction time button or how much pressure they applies to such a device as a result of video game playing could be inspected, since it seemed that people who played video games more often pushed the buttons more vigorously than others.
REFERENCES Haywood, K. M. (1977). Eye movements during coincidence-anticipation performance.Journal of Motor Behavior, 9, 313-318.Kuhlman, J. S., & Beitel, P. A. (1991). Videogame experience: A possible explanationfor differences in anticipation of coincidence. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 72,483-488.Long, G. M., & Vogel, C. A. (1998). Predicting the ‘where’ and resolving the ‘what’ of amoving target: A dichotomy of abilities. Perception, 27, 379-391.Orosy-Fildes, C., & Allan, R. W. (1989). Psychology of computer use: XII. Videogameplay: Human reaction time to visual stimuli. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 69,243-247.Overdorf, V., Schweighardt, R., Page, S. J., & McGrath, R. E. (2004). Mental andphysical practice schedules in acquisition and retention of novel timing skills.Perceptual and Motor Skills, 99, 51-62.Yuji, H. (1996). Computer games and information-processing skills. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 83, 643-647.
REFERENCES Haywood, K. M. (1977). Eye movements during coincidence-anticipation performance.Journal of Motor Behavior, 9, 313-318.Kuhlman, J. S., & Beitel, P. A. (1991). Videogame experience: A possible explanationfor differences in anticipation of coincidence. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 72,483-488.Long, G. M., & Vogel, C. A. (1998). Predicting the ‘where’ and resolving the ‘what’ of amoving target: A dichotomy of abilities. Perception, 27, 379-391.Orosy-Fildes, C., & Allan, R. W. (1989). Psychology of computer use: XII. Videogameplay: Human reaction time to visual stimuli. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 69,243-247.Overdorf, V., Schweighardt, R., Page, S. J., & McGrath, R. E. (2004). Mental andphysical practice schedules in acquisition and retention of novel timing skills.Perceptual and Motor Skills, 99, 51-62.Yuji, H. (1996). Computer games and information-processing skills. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 83, 643-647.
REFERENCES Haywood, K. M. (1977). Eye movements during coincidence-anticipation performance.Journal of Motor Behavior, 9, 313-318.Kuhlman, J. S., & Beitel, P. A. (1991). Videogame experience: A possible explanationfor differences in anticipation of coincidence. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 72,483-488.Long, G. M., & Vogel, C. A. (1998). Predicting the ‘where’ and resolving the ‘what’ of amoving target: A dichotomy of abilities. Perception, 27, 379-391.Orosy-Fildes, C., & Allan, R. W. (1989). Psychology of computer use: XII. Videogameplay: Human reaction time to visual stimuli. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 69,243-247.Overdorf, V., Schweighardt, R., Page, S. J., & McGrath, R. E. (2004). Mental andphysical practice schedules in acquisition and retention of novel timing skills.Perceptual and Motor Skills, 99, 51-62.Yuji, H. (1996). Computer games and information-processing skills. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 83, 643-647. |
