| Literature DB >> 22615690 |
Ruchika S Prakash1, Angeline A De Leon, Lyla Mourany, Hyunkyu Lee, Michelle W Voss, Walter R Boot, Chandramallika Basak, Monica Fabiani, Gabriele Gratton, Arthur F Kramer.
Abstract
Acquisition of complex skills is a universal feature of human behavior that has been conceptualized as a process that starts with intense resource dependency, requires effortful cognitive control, and ends in relative automaticity on the multi-faceted task. The present study examined the effects of different theoretically based training strategies on cortical recruitment during acquisition of complex video game skills. Seventy-five participants were recruited and assigned to one of three training groups: (1) Fixed Emphasis Training (FET), in which participants practiced the game, (2) Hybrid Variable-Priority Training (HVT), in which participants practiced using a combination of part-task training and variable priority training, or (3) a Control group that received limited game play. After 30 h of training, game data indicated a significant advantage for the two training groups relative to the control group. The HVT group demonstrated enhanced benefits of training, as indexed by an improvement in overall game score and a reduction in cortical recruitment post-training. Specifically, while both groups demonstrated a significant reduction of activation in attentional control areas, namely the right middle frontal gyrus, right superior frontal gyrus, and the ventral medial prefrontal cortex, participants in the control group continued to engage these areas post-training, suggesting a sustained reliance on attentional regions during challenging task demands. The HVT group showed a further reduction in neural resources post-training compared to the FET group in these cognitive control regions, along with reduced activation in the motor and sensory cortices and the posteromedial cortex. Findings suggest that training, specifically one that emphasizes cognitive flexibility can reduce the attentional demands of a complex cognitive task, along with reduced reliance on the motor network.Entities:
Keywords: attentional control; functional MRI; skill acquisition; training strategies
Year: 2012 PMID: 22615690 PMCID: PMC3351675 DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00115
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Hum Neurosci ISSN: 1662-5161 Impact factor: 3.169
Descriptive characteristics of participants in the three training groups (FET, HVT, and control) based on all 75 participants and on the sample of 66 participants used for the analyses reported in this paper.
| Fixed Emphasis Training (FET) | Hybrid Variable-priority Training (HVT) | Control group | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 25 | 25 | 25 | |
| Age | 21.91 (2.78) | 20.88 (2.07) | 21.44 (2.52) |
| Proportion male | 0.36 | 0.40 | 0.44 |
| Self-rated health | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year of education | 15.52 (2.20) | 14.68 (1.85) | 15.28 (2.25) |
| Baseline score | -844.45 | -1034.78 | -988.39 |
| (2086.82) | (1907.15) | (1916.30) | |
| 23 | 22 | 21 | |
| Age | 22 (2.90) | 20.86 (2.19) | 21.48 (2.71) |
| Proportion male | 0.34 | 0.41 | 0.47 |
| Self-rated health | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year of education | 15.61 (2.27) | 14.68 (1.97) | 15.24 (2.37) |
| Baseline score | -857.51 | -1102.02 | -860.40 |
| (1925.31) | (1909.59) | (1926.95) |
Details of the part tasks implemented in the first five sessions.
| Part-training details |
|---|
| 1. Destroy Fortress by shooting |
| 2. Slow down a ship |
| 3. Aiming |
| 4. Aiming and firing |
| 5. Navigating a ship in trajectory 1 |
| 6. Navigating a ship in trajectory 2 |
| 7. Navigating a ship in trajectory 3 |
| 8. Navigating a ship in big hexagon |
| 9. Navigating a ship in small hexagon |
| 10. Navigating a ship in hexagon and aiming |
| 11. Navigating a ship in hexagon, aiming, and firing |
| 12. Navigating a ship in hexagon, aiming, and firing on the shooting fortress |
| 13. Ship control only |
| 14. Full game without bonus and mine |
| 15. Mine control only |
| 16. Bonus control only |
| 17. Mine and bonus control |
| 18. Mine and ship control |
| 19. Bonus and ship control |
| 20. Full game without bonus control |
| 21. Full game without mine control |
Statistical peaks of cortical regions recruited during the Active > Passive condition atTime 2 > Time 1 contrasting the control group with the training groups (Control > Training).
| Anatomical region | Label | Max | MNI coordinates | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Right middle frontal gyrus | Rt. MFG | 3.39 | 44 | 0 | 56 |
| Right superior frontal gyrus | Rt. SFG | 3.57 | 34 | 62 | 70 |
| Ventral medial prefrontal cortex | vmPFC | 2.68 | 22 | -2 | 68 |
Statistical peaks of cortical regions recruited during the Active > Passive condition atTime 2 > Time 1 contrasting the FET group with the HVT group (FET > HVT).
| Anatomical region | Label | Max | MNI coordinates | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Right primary motor cortex | rt. M1 | 2.72 | 42 | -8 | 56 |
| Left primary motor cortex | It. M1 | 2.7 | -44 | -12 | 56 |
| Right postcentral gyrus | Rt. postcentral gyrus | 3.56 | 60 | -14 | 40 |
| Left postcentral gyrus | Lt. postcentral gyrus | 3.14 | -58 | -18 | 40 |
| Supplementary motor area | SMA | 2.86 | -2 | -4 | 54 |
| Posteromedial cortex | PMC | 2.73 | 2 | -56 | 38 |