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.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.11.015 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!