First, they don't measure general "cognitive performance," they measure something very specific, this one: https://www.cambridgecognition.com/cantab/cognitive-tests/me.... That task is very close to video gaming. I know of another study that shows that FPS gamers have a somewhat better peripheral vision. It makes sense that playing games improves reaction time and control on some tasks.
Second, the difference between gamers and non-gamers on this task is very small: 299ms vs 307ms. That's really far below any interesting effect. Effects in fMRI are not interesting: it is unknown what a larger signal in a certain area means. You cannot draw conclusions from it.
Third, the statistical logic is the classic NHST with all its problems. They even commit the error of drawing conclusions from lack of significance.
Fourth, they don't give specifics, but potential confounds were modelled with some linear modelling. It's highly unlikely that the effects of those external factors are linear, and there aren't many of them. There are however some really large difference between the groups (parental income, sex, and watching video/streaming).
Concluding, there's no reason to suppose the effect must be attributed to video gaming, and certainly not that it is positive for general cognitive performance.
Yes, of course. Musical ability is well known to be closely associated with mathematical ability. Musical achievement is not known to be closely associated with mathematical achievement; people tend to do one or the other.
But this already tells us that playing an instrument will predict better cognitive performance for reasons unrelated to the work you do to learn the instrument.
I would not assume that playing a sport predicted better cognitive performance, but I obviously would assume that playing a sport intensively predicts better athleticism -- independent of the effect of practicing sports -- than avoiding sports does.
Video games are a non-social controlled environment with obvious and predictable goals, similar to gambling. Gambling encourages a person to keep pushing themselves for a positive outcome but that alone does indicate any form of personal advancement.
Sports and music require development of skills, often with coaching by a human, and requiring long periods of independent practice without any kind of immediate feedback. In sports it takes years of investment to get good (less than excellent). If a given video game took years of investment to complete the current level almost nobody would play that game.
Lots of video games are social. Some are not. The amount the environment is controlled can also varry.
> Gambling encourages a person to keep pushing themselves for a positive outcome but that alone does indicate any form of personal advancement.
So like literally everything. Seriously, can you name an external stimuli that this doesn't fit? Is work gambling? School? Yoga class?
> In sports it takes years of investment to get good (less than excellent). If a given video game took years of investment to complete the current level almost nobody would play that game.
I can be shit at soccer, and still have fun with friends. I can be shit at video games and still have fun. I can spend years practising and still be nowhere close to olympic level. Similarly, i can spend years on video games and be nowhere near the top of competitive e-sports.
What's the difference exactly?
The difference is third party contribution. If you are playing games purely for personal enjoyment that’s great. If you consider it a sport you are probably someone else’s product with little or nothing but lost time to show for it. This has long since been explained in Nicomachean Ethics and Utilitarianism. What matters is not the carrot someone can dangle in your face but your ability to tell the difference.
Like i said, what is the difference?
How do you explain League of Legends or even E-sports in general? Games are as competitive as they are endeavors of creativity.
In the real world you actually have to overcome real pain (both mental and physical) to achieve success. Video games are incapable of teaching that on absolutely any level.
but with cheap phone games, maybe not. hmmm...
Also, “associated” is different from “causality”, right?
For better or worse, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have become a coder if I'd had access to lots of games in elementary school.
If I didn't have video games I probably wouldn't have become a programmer!
The point is that we need to be careful not to take this data as implying that games cause better performance, only that it's correlated with it; guelo pointed out the study does control for BMI/IQ/etc, but I think that this is still insufficient to claim any kind of causation there*. We know nothing at all of the counterfactual world where those same kids didn't play games.
* Even if IQ tests were a message from the heavens saying THESE KIDS WERE DESTINED FOR THE EXACT SAME LEVEL OF COGNITIVE PERFORMANCE AT BIRTH we would still know nothing about causality, because there may have been something else in their lives that caused both the game-playing and the better performance.