The Benefits of Video Games on Brain Cognitive Function: A Systematic Review of Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Studies
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is a review about the brain activations following video-games training based on fMRI studies. The Authors tried to collect evidence about the cortical modulation induced by different types of video-games (strategy video-games, action video-games etc.).
I think that the topic might be interesting and timely, but Authors should do a greater effort to better convey their message.
Abstract
“Therefore, this study conducted a systematic review of brain function activation changes caused by video games”.
I suggest the Author to use another word instead of caused because the causality is a sensitive concept for experimental research, in particular considering fMRI studies. We can not talk about causality, better to use the term association.
“Retrieve the three electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science and PsycInfo), the deadline is on February 8, 2021, screening study independently by two researchers, and quality evaluation of fMRI study, and summarizes the related data, the final 13 studies included in the system, including nine cross-sectional studies and four research, the study found that have potential benefits of video games on cognitive function, the effects of different types of video games on cognitive function are not the same, In particular, attention ability and visuospatial ability are shown, and the functional brain activation changes in frontal and parietal lobes and other related brain regions induced by games are demonstrated.”
This part of the abstract is almost impossible to read and understand. I can guess what Authors wanted to say, but they should be more careful in how they express concepts.
Introduction
“Cognitive function, the ability of the human brain to process, store and process information, is a key factor in determining the quality of daily life” This sentence is not linked to the previous part on what video-games are. Moreover, it is even not linked to what they say later on, about the cognitive decline in elderly. This leaves the reader disoriented. I would remove this sentence.
“At present, video games, as a popular form of leisure activities, have attracted people's attention in recent years, aiming to maintain or improve individual cognitive ability under different situations through video games as an effective intervention means.” Also this sentence is unreadable
“and we hope that such acquired skills can be displayed in daily life.” I would avoid personal statements at this point
“could lead to the participants of the brain's frontal lobe, parietal lobe, temporal lobe, hippocampus, striatum, and so on the significant changes in the structure and function of the brain area, it is also a video game ascending individual sense perception, attention, memory capacity, enhance the neural basis of individual brain function”
Even here I don’t understand what Authors mean to say
Methods
“also, we excluded the task of game cueing and the task of reward mechanism” what does it mean?
What is the table 2? What does it mean “1” and “n” in the table? Authors should clearly explain
Moreover, “Table 2 lists in the necessary information of the 13 studies, nine horizontal studies [1, 17-24] (VGP: 153; NVGP:168), four interventional studies [25-28](EG:124; CG:75), the participants of the study for more men, a lack of research on female VGP, most studies report the types of games, Two of the interventional studies were reported intervention time, Task‐state fMRI study reported the specific cognitive tasks.”
Sorry but I really don’t understand what the Authors meant to say.
Maybe the PRISMA diagram should be presented in the method section and not in the results
Results
Reading the abstract and the Introduction, I thought this was a systematic review (line 11 and 61): instead, I only see in the Discussion a narrative description of some studies.
I think the purpose would be good, but Authors should try to be more careful in the way they write down their ideas.
Author Response
Reviewer 1
Abstract
“Therefore, this study conducted a systematic review of brain function activation changes caused by video games”.
I suggest the Author use another word instead of caused because causality is a sensitive concept for experimental research, in particular considering fMRI studies. We can not talk about causality, better to use the term association.
Respond: Thank you for your advice, we have modified it.
“Retrieve the three electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and PsycInfo), the deadline is on February 8, 2021, screening study independently by two researchers, and quality evaluation of fMRI study, and summarizes the related data, the final 13 studies included in the system, including nine cross-sectional studies and four research, the study found that have potential benefits of video games on cognitive function, the effects of different types of video games on cognitive function are not the same, In particular, attention ability and visuospatial ability are shown, and the functional brain activation changes in frontal and parietal lobes and other related brain regions induced by games are demonstrated.”
This part of the abstract is almost impossible to read and understand. I can guess what Authors wanted to say, but they should be more careful in how they express concepts.
Respond: Thank you for your advice, we have modified it to make reader more clearer.
Introduction
“Cognitive function, the ability of the human brain to process, store and process information, is a key factor in determining the quality of daily life” This sentence is not linked to the previous part on what video-games are. Moreover, it is even not linked to what they say later on, about the cognitive decline in elderly. This leaves the reader disoriented. I would remove this sentence.
Respond: Thank you for your advice, we have modified it.
“At present, video games, as a popular form of leisure activities, have attracted people's attention in recent years, aiming to maintain or improve individual cognitive ability under different situations through video games as an effective intervention means.” Also this sentence is unreadable
“and we hope that such acquired skills can be displayed in daily life.” I would avoid personal statements at this point
“could lead to the participants of the brain's frontal lobe, parietal lobe, temporal lobe, hippocampus, striatum, and so on the significant changes in the structure and function of the brain area, it is also a video game ascending individual sense perception, attention, memory capacity, enhance the neural basis of individual brain function”
Respond: Thank you for your advice, we have modified these sentences.
Methods
“also, we excluded the task of game cueing and the task of reward mechanism” what does it mean?
Respond: Thank you for your advice, we have modified this sentence.
What is table 2? What does it mean “1” and “n” in the table? Authors should clearly explain
Respond: Thank you for your question. This is actually a typo. It should be table 1
Moreover, “Table 2 lists in the necessary information of the 13 studies, nine horizontal studies [1, 17-24] (VGP: 153; NVGP:168), four interventional studies [25-28](EG:124; CG:75), the participants of the study for more men, a lack of research on female VGP, most studies report the types of games, Two of the interventional studies were reported intervention time, Task‐state fMRI study reported the specific cognitive tasks.”
Sorry but I really don’t understand what the Authors meant to say.
Respond: Thank you for your advice, we have modified these sentences.
Maybe the PRISMA diagram should be presented in the method section and not in the results
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Your manuscript consists of a systematic review of functional imaging modalities in video-game players, either in a horizontal comparison with non-video-game players or the use of video games as an intervention following a longitudinal design.
Please acknowledge the third researcher used during consensus analysis for decisions regarding inclusion/exclusion. This should be done on page 8, line 111.
While your systematic review provides interesting qualitative data regarding brain regions activated as a result of different video game genres, it is difficult to assess the overall implications. I recommend performing meta-analysis after quantitative data extraction from the included articles, such as peak ROI activation intensity across studies. Then you would be able to provide odds ratios from meta-analysis to indicate whether the use of video games produces an effect. Such a meta-analysis would drastically improve the potential impact of your systematic review.
If meta-analysis is not possible due to differences in study designs or missing data, please describe this in detail at the beginning of the results section and address it as a limitation of your study. However, a table depicting the brain ROIs activated in each study or with each video game genre would be very helpful for the reader to quickly assess the results of your study, and I highly recommend such an addition.
In Table 1, consider describing the country from which the participants were recruited. This may be an important covariable in your analysis, as video game culture can be drastically different across countries. If studies provide the information, the participants's weekly gaming time, or the duration of video gaming as an intervention, should be mentioned.
Please have additional English language editing to clarify, and correct various spelling areas. As a limited and incomplete example of necessary clarifications, please consider the following lines:
Line 55: should "ascending" be "improving"?
Line 70: There appears to be a missing quotation mark before "video-based".
Line 77: at the end of this line, should "bject" be "object"?
Line 94: Do you intend to mean "screening" instead of "careening" here?
Author Response
We have uploaded an attachment, please check it.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors did a great job in addressing my concerns. I don't have any other comment or suggestion.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
