Abstract
A recent meta-analysis (Stanmore et al. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 78:34–43, 2017) claimed that exergames exert medium-size positive effects on people's overall cognitive function. The present article critically tests this claim. We argue that the meta-analysis reported inflated effect sizes mainly for three reasons: (a) some effect sizes were miscalculated; (b) there was an excessive amount of true heterogeneity; and (c) no publication-bias-corrected estimates were provided. We have thus recalculated the effect sizes and reanalyzed the data using a more robust approach and more sophisticated techniques. Compared to Stanmore's et al., our models show that: (a) the overall effect sizes are substantially smaller; (b) the amount of true heterogeneity, when any, is much lower; and (c) the publication-bias analyses suggest that the actual effect of exergames on overall cognitive function is slim to null. Therefore, the cognitive benefits of exergames are far from being established.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 352-353 |
| Number of pages | 2 |
| Journal | Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews |
| Volume | 123 |
| DOIs |
|
| Publication status | Published - 04-2021 |
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology
- Cognitive Neuroscience
- Behavioral Neuroscience