Game staines number: Game in Staines, Middlesex TW18 4WA – 01784 491955

Rated 4.5/5 based
on 11 reviews

Map – Click Map to See & Get Directions

About Game

Questions :

• What time does Game in Staines open ?
• What time does Game in Staines close ?
• Is Game in Staines open today ?
• Game in Staines opening date
• Game in Staines opening times
• Game in Staines opening hours
• Game in Staines address
• Game in Staines phone number

Localworkingtimes. com will serve as your best solution – with us, you can quickly and easily access updated branch details for every shop located in the UK. From telephone numbers and addresses to shop / businesses opening times and map locations, we’re ready to bring you exactly what you need to know to efficiently reach out to your shop / business.

Reviews

Submit a Review

General Information Frequently Asked Questions, Fishing and Hunting Licenses, Alaska Department of Fish and Game

In Alaska, a license is required in order to participate in hunting/trapping/fishing, personal use fishing, commercial fishing, and sport fish or hunt guiding. Several different licenses are available for residents, non-residents, members of the military, residents who are disabled veterans, and resident seniors who are 60 years or older.

How long is my license valid?

Licenses are valid from the date of purchase through December 31st of each calendar year. The exceptions are trapping licenses and short-term non-resident fishing licenses. Trapping licenses are valid from the start date through September 30th of the following year. Short-term non-resident fishing licenses are valid for only 1, 3, 7, or 14 days.

What are the different license formats?

There are three types of license formats: printed/electronic licenses, eSigned licenses, and carbon copy licenses.

1. Printed/Electronic Licenses: This format is available at ADF&G offices, most license vendors, and our online store. At time of purchase you will receive a copy of your license in PDF format. There are three ways to carry a printed/electronic license.
   1. You may print a copy of your license, physically sign it, and carry it on your person.
   2. You may download an electronic version to your phone and sign the license by utilizing tools available through your mobile device.
   3. You may carry a digital version by taking a picture of your signed license with your mobile device.
2. eSigned Licenses: This format is only available through your ADF&G account on the online store. Purchasing a license for yourself through your ADF&G account will automatically provide you with an eSigned license. This license can be stored and viewed on your electronic device. You may also print this license version and carry the physical copy on your person.
3. Carbon Copy Licenses: This format is being reduced and is only available at select vendors and some ADF&G offices. This license is handwritten and the licensee receives a carbon copy. If this license is lost, a duplicate must be issued at a cost of $5.00.

Age Requirements

Residents under the age of 18 do not need a hunting, sport fishing, or trapping license, unless they are proxying or guiding. Non-residents under the age of 16 do not need a sport fishing license, but they do need to purchase a hunting and/or trapping license.

When sport fishing for a species with an annual limit, resident and non-resident anglers of all ages are required to record their harvest on a Sport Fishing Harvest Record Card. The harvest record card is available online, at some license vendors, or at Fish and Game offices. Species with an annual limit are listed in the “general regulations” section in area sport fish regulations summary books.

Alaska Resident Seniors or Disabled Veterans

Resident seniors (60 years of age or older) who meet the Fish and Game residency definition may obtain a senior permanent identification card (PID).

Do I need a king salmon stamp?

King salmon stamps are required for anglers who fish for king salmon (except king salmon in stocked lakes), except for residents under the age of 18 and non-residents under the age of 16, as well as persons who have a resident blind fishing license, resident low-income license, resident senior permanent identification card (PID), or resident disabled veteran’s license. These individuals require a Harvest Record card to fish for king salmon (except king salmon in stocked lakes).

Do I need a Alaska duck stamp?

A state duck stamp is required for anyone who hunts waterfowl, except for residents under the age of 18 and persons who have a resident low-income license, resident senior permanent identification card (PID), or resident disabled veteran’s license.

Do I need a big game locking tag?

Alaska residents who plan to hunt brown/grizzly bear or muskox may be required to obtain a big game locking tag. See definition of a resident licensee.

Individuals who qualify for the non-resident military license may be required to obtain a big game locking tag to hunt for brown/grizzly bear, goat (free), muskox, or sheep (free). See definition of a non-resident military licensee and more information on qualifying for military licenses.

Non-residents and non-resident aliens may be required to obtain a big game locking tag to hunt brown/grizzly bear, black bear, bison, caribou, deer, elk, goat, moose, muskox, sheep, wolf, or wolverine. See definition of a non-resident or non-resident alien licensee.

Please see the current hunting regulations for details.

Can I use a higher priced big game locking tag as a replacement?

A big game locking tag may be used for a species of equal or lesser value.

Refund of Licenses, Stamps, and Big Game Locking Tags

Refunds are processed at the Juneau Headquarters Licensing office only. Please send your written request for refund along with your original license/tag and any supporting documentation for the refund to the following address:

State of Alaska
Department of Fish and Game
Attn: Licensing/Refund
PO Box 115525
Juneau AK 99811-5525

Refunds are regulated by Alaska Administrative Code 5 AAC 93.530 which states:

1. A person who wishes to obtain a refund of a license fee must apply by submitting a written request directly to the department, including the person’s original license and supporting documentation that shows the person meets the requirements in (b) of this section.
2. A refund of a license fee will be granted by the department under this section only if the licensee or the licensee’s representative demonstrates to the satisfaction of the department that the licensee was unable to make any use of the license as a result of:
   1. the death or serious disabling illness or injury of the licensee that occurred after the licensee’s purchase of the license and before the opening of any season for which the license may have been used; in the case of a serious disabling illness or injury, the illness or injury must have lasted until all seasons for which the license may be used are closed;
   2. the permanent cancellation of the opening of all seasons to which the license applied, rendering the license unusable at any time during the year for which it was issued; or
   3. a catastrophic event that the department determines justifies a refund of the license fee, including a localized volcano eruption or a terror alert that prohibits the licensee’s air travel to this state.
3. A refund will not be made under this section to a licensee who is
   1. unsuccessful in the licensee’s efforts to take fish or game or obtain employment as a crew-member; or
   2. unable to conduct the licensed activity due to scheduling difficulties, transportation problems, misconduct of a guide, or other circumstances that prevent the licensee from undertaking the activity the licensee had planned, but which do not prevent the licensee from undertaking licensed activities at either an earlier or later time.

If you have any questions about the refund process, please email us at [email protected] or call the Licensing office at 907-465-2376.

Federal Requirement for Aliens Bringing Guns into the United States

The U.S. Department of Justice/Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) requires non-immigrant aliens temporarily importing firearms and ammunition into the United States to submit ATF Form 6NIA (5330. 3D), in order to obtain an ATF firearm import permit. This permit application must be submitted well in advance of your trip.

The form and instruction on how to submit it can be obtained by calling ATF at 304-616-4550 or visiting the ATF website, where you can download the ATF Form 6NIA (5330.3D). It takes approximately 8-10 weeks for ATF to process the ATF Form 6NIA (5330.3D).

In order to submit this form (unless meeting other qualifications listed on the form), you must buy a hunting license. A hunting license can be purchased at our Fish and Game online store. A copy of your license with the ATF Form 6NIA (5330.3D) must be sent to ATF.

The approved ATF importation permit and your hunting license in order to clear US Customs when you arrive in the United States. All the regulations about carrying an unconcealed or concealed handgun in Alaska can be found at the Alaska Department of Public Safety.

If you have more questions, please can contact the ATF Alaska field office at (907) 271-5701.

30 years of video-game play and cognitive abilities

Front Psychol. 2013; 4: 629.

Andrew J. Latham

¹School of Psychology, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

²Centre for Brain Research, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

Lucy L. M. Patston

¹School of Psychology, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

²Centre for Brain Research, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

Lynette J. Tippett

¹School of Psychology, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

²Centre for Brain Research, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

¹School of Psychology, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

²Centre for Brain Research, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

Edited by: Petko Kusev, Kingston University London, UK

Reviewed by: Paul Van Schaik, Teesside University, UK; Silvio Aldrovandi, University of Warwick, UK

This article was submitted to Cognition, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology.

Received 2013 May 24; Accepted 2013 Aug 25.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

Abstract

Forty years have passed since video-games were first made widely available to the public and subsequently playing games has become a favorite past-time for many. Players continuously engage with dynamic visual displays with success contingent on the time-pressured deployment, and flexible allocation, of attention as well as precise bimanual movements. Evidence to date suggests that both brief and extensive exposure to video-game play can result in a broad range of enhancements to various cognitive faculties that generalize beyond the original context. Despite promise, video-game research is host to a number of methodological issues that require addressing before progress can be made in this area. Here an effort is made to consolidate the past 30 years of literature examining the effects of video-game play on cognitive faculties and, more recently, neural systems. Future work is required to identify the mechanism that allows the act of video-game play to generate such a broad range of generalized enhancements.

Keywords: video games, expertise, cognitive training, transfer of training, perceptual learning

Video-game play has become the past-time of choice for current generations, with entertainment software allowing individuals to engage both socially and competitively with individuals across the globe. Players engage with seamless virtual environments with success contingent on the execution of precise bimanual motor movements in response to complex visual cues. Evidence suggests that extensive video-game play may lead to the enhancement of visual attention and executive control, generalizing beyond the context of the video game, although this is still debated.

Video games became publically available for the first time in 1972 with the release of the first arcade machine, and household gaming console, the Magnavox Odyssey. While this new technology was quickly seized upon by the public, it was not without objection. Many saw video-game play as a mindless exercise imparting no real benefit to the player. Ball (1978) defended video-game play and suggested it offered a potential mechanism to improve a variety of cognitive skills including eye-hand coordination, decision making, following directions, and number and word recognition. Many publications that address these claims have followed. In this paper we present a comprehensive review of studies over the last 30 years that contribute both to current views concerning the effects of video-game play on specific cognitive domains and to their neural underpinnings.

This review is organized primarily by cognitive functions that are argued to be influenced by video-game play. It also examines the small literature addressing the neural underpinnings of superior behavioral performance in video-game players, and considers the challenges to, and limitations of, the video-game literature. Results of all the studies reviewed are summarized in Supplementary Table 1.

Hand-eye coordination and reaction time

Griffith and colleagues published the first finding demonstrating individuals with video-game experience outperforming those with no video-game experience. They reported superior performance by VGPs on a rotary pursuit task, suggesting they possessed enhanced hand-eye coordination (Griffith et al., 1983). Despite this striking result, there was no relationship between participants’ rotary pursuit performance and the intensity of their video-game play (hours per week) or length of exposure to video-game play.

Early studies also indicated that video-game play could enhance visuomotor reaction times to a wide range of stimuli. Orosy-Fildes and Allan (1989) tested participants on a simple color discrimination task and found that participants who played a video-game on the Atari 2600 system responded significantly faster than those who did not play video games. This difference may also, however, result from a greater capacity to perform visual discriminations, or from the effects of greater cognitive stimulation. Similarly faster reaction times were observed in simple color and shape discrimination tasks by children classified as video-game players (VGPs) according to their enthusiasm toward video-games, compared to non-video game players (NVGPs) who were not enthusiastic toward video games (Yuji, 1996). Of course children who possess faster reaction times may be more enthusiastic toward video-games because of the advantage their innate quickness may afford them during video-game play. Nevertheless, faster reaction times in response to visual stimuli by expert VGPs, and by NVGPs after video-game training, is a recurrent finding throughout most of the video-game literature (e. g., Castel et al., 2005; Bialystok, 2006).

Spatial visualization

One of the first ideas to receive close examination was that video-game play might increase proficiency at spatial processing, particularly spatial visualization. Gagnon (1985) assessed the impact of video-game training on performance on the Guildford-Zimmerman spatial visualization and spatial orientation test, along with visual pursuit, manual speed and manual accuracy subtests from the Employee Aptitude Test. Only female participants showed significantly improved post-play performance, and even then only for spatial visualization, but interestingly the amount of prior video-game experience that participants possessed correlated significantly with visual pursuit, spatial visualization, and hand-eye coordination performance. Controlling for prior video-game experience, Dorval and Peìpin (1986) assessed the impact of video-game training on the spatial relations portion of the Differential Aptitude test relative to controls who refrained from video-game play. Both males and females who underwent video-game training showed significantly enhanced performance on the spatial relations subtest. However, due to the lack of an adequate control condition in this experiment, and in many studies to follow, we cannot rule out the possibility that general cognitive stimulation may have improved performance.

Similar improvements in spatial visualization after video-game training have also been observed in children (Subrahmanyam and Greenfield, 1994). This study is particularly note-worthy as it was the first to observe the effects of video-game genre on the outcomes of video-game training. Only children who played the spatially demanding video-game, Marble Madness, showed significantly improved spatial visualization performance, while children who played the language-oriented video-game, Conjecture, showed none. The use of another video-game as a control went some way toward adjusting for the effects of general cognitive stimulation, although it remains possible that there is a greater expectancy that spatial performance will improve after playing spatially demanding games (Marble Madness) than after playing non-spatial games (Conjecture), which may account for at least part of the result (Boot et al. , 2011).

Many early studies examined the link between video-game training and mental rotation performance, a specific form of spatial visualization. McClurg and Chaillè (1987) found improvements on mental rotation performance in children after video-game play; however, this study lacked an adequate control condition. Okagaki and Frensch (1994) found that video-game naïve participants who played the spatially-oriented video-game Tetris, showed improved performance on paper-and-pencil measures of mental rotation and spatial visualization relative to participants who did not play Tetris. Significantly, this is one of the only studies to show that expertise acquired during video-game play may generalize beyond performance in computerized environments to non-computerized performance, which provides a stronger test of the transfer of the proficiency (Boot et al., 2011). Unfortunately, Okagaki and Frensch did not include an adequate control condition.

Not all findings involving spatial video-game play (Tetris) and mental rotation performance have been consistent. Sims and Mayer (2002) compared the mental rotation performance of skilled and non-skilled Tetris players, and also compared mental rotation performance of non-skilled Tetris players before and after training. Skilled Tetris players outperformed non-skilled Tetris players only when stimuli were identical or similar to those within Tetris. Furthermore, no performance gains were observed on mental rotation in Tetris-trained participants compared to those who received no training. In contrast to Okagaki and Frensch (1994), this study suggests superior mental rotation performance may not generalize beyond the types of stimuli video-game players are trained upon. In summary, simple video-games such as Tetris and Blockout, may convey a limited enhancement as success in these games is primarily reliant on mental rotation skill with a limited range of stimuli.

There has been particular interest in the link between spatially-oriented video-games and the reduction of gender disparities in mental rotation performance, although close examination of the findings reveals mixed outcomes. Although De Lisi and Cammarano (1996) concluded that the expected gender difference in favor of men was attenuated in participants who played Blockout, they also noted the direction of this disparity was actually reversed in their control group who played only the non-spatial game Solitaire. Indeed the magnitude of improvement and absolute scores of the females groups playing the two types of computer games was comparable. This is far from convincing evidence that playing spatially-oriented video-games (in this case Blockout) differentially improves the performance of females on mental rotation. More convincing changes were observed, however, in a study with children (De Lisi and Wolford, 2002). Pre-training gender differences on a mental rotation task disappeared following video-game training (on either Tetris or the non-spatial game Carmen Sandiago), largely due to the extent of the improved performance of the girls who played Tetris. Overall children who played Tetris improved significantly in comparison to controls who played Carmen Sandiago. While these results may be driven simply by the expectation to improve in mental rotation performance after playing Tetris, this does not account for the differential improvements of the girls who play Tetris.

Visuospatial attention

The largest body of video-game literature examines the impact of video-game play on the capacity and spatial distribution of visuospatial attention. Success in many action video-games requires participants to attend to disparate multiple in-game objects all within complex visual environments. Given these demand characteristics, it is perhaps not surprising that most studies report enhancements in these abilities in skilled VGPs.

Greenfield et al. (1994) began this wave of research, when they assessed the impact of video-game expertise and training on a task that requires dividing visual attention. Participants indicated whether a flash of light occurred on the left or right of fixation, or at both locations concurrently. Presentation probabilities were fixed so that in one condition the target was presented 10% of the time to one location, 80% of the time to the other location and 10% of the time to both locations concurrently, while in the other condition the target appeared 45% of the time in each position and 10% of the time to both locations concurrently. Both NVGPs and expert VGPs showed a reaction time benefit to high probability locations, however, expert VGPs, unlike the NVGPs, did not show an attentional cost at the low probability position. This suggests that expert VGPs are superior at dividing visual attention. This result could also be explained by a larger attentional window or a larger distribution of spatial attention. A follow-up training study showed that NVGPs who played Robotron: 2084 for 5 h, showed results in the same direction as expert VGPs. Unfortunately, there was no control training condition.

Current interest in the effects of action video-game play on visual attention has largely been stimulated by the seminal work of Green and Bavelier (2003), who compared expert VGPs and NVGPs on a battery of visuospatial and attentional tasks. A flanker compatibility task and enumeration task were used to measure attentional capacity. In the flanker compatibility task participants had to indicate which of two targets appeared in one of six possible locations while ignoring an outside distracter; in the enumeration task, participants had to indicate as quickly as possible the number of briefly flashed items that appeared. A useful field of view (UFOV) task was used to measure the spatial distribution of the field of attention. Participants had to locate on which radiating spoke a target was presented at up to 30° eccentricity. Finally an attentional blink task was used to test temporal aspects of visual attention. Participants were asked to identify a first target and to detect a second target that appears within a few hundreds of milliseconds later. Expert VGPs outperformed NVGPs on all tasks, suggesting they may possess a larger attentional capacity, larger field of attention and reduced attentional blink. Subsequently, Green and Bavelier (2006a,b) replicated and elaborated on these findings. Using a flanker task and manipulating perceptual loads, they found expert VGPs had greater attentional resources and distribution of visual attention, (Green and Bavelier, 2006a). In the same study they also replicated their UFOV findings of enhanced spatial distribution of attention across a wide field of view in VGPs, even when performing an additional central discrimination task. This indicates that superior UFOV performance was not due to the redistribution of attentional resources from central to peripheral vision. A training study showed these enhancements could be brought about in NVGPs after a small period of action video-game play (Unreal Tournament 2004) but not after playing a non-action video-game (Tetris).

Using an enumeration task Green and Bavelier (2006b) showed expert VGPs can enumerate about two more items than NVGPs and additionally possess superior performance on a multiple object tracking task. A training study suggested a causal role for action video-game play, as NVGPs trained on an action video-game (but not those trained on a non-action video game), showed similar enhancements. The authors argue these findings may be mediated by changes in visual short-term memory skills. Consistent with this, Boot et al. (2008) found VGPs showed superior multiple object-tracking performance and, while they did not find a significant different on an enumeration task, they did find expert VGPs performed significant better on a visual short-term memory task. This task involved detecting changes in a display comprising varying color lines at one of four orientations, which reappeared following a delay of 900 ms. Sungur and Boduroglu (2012) also reported that expert VGPs could more accurately track multiple objects and additionally showed a smaller performance deficit when required to hold the unique identities of multiple target elements whilst simultaneously tracking them. They also suggested this reflects larger visual short-term memory capacities of VGPs.

Many of the performance advantages shown by Green and colleagues in adult expert VGPs have been replicated in child and adolescent VGPs. Dye et al. (2009) found both child and adult VGPs displayed a flanker compatibility effect using the attentional network task. Similarly, Dye and Bavelier (2010) found both child and adult expert VGPs showed enhanced performance on the UFOV (with an additional central discrimination task), attentional blink, and on a multiple object tracking task. Unfortunately, training studies with children were not possible as the majority of action video-games are restricted for mature or adult audiences. It is possible, of course that children and adolescents who possess pre-existing superior visuospatial and attentional abilities are drawn to action video-games because these abilities result in greater success playing video games, and consequently playing games is more rewarding.

Visual anticipation and visual search strategies

Kuhlman and Beitel (1991) found that child VGPs had a greater ability to anticipate stimulus onset. Anticipation is approximated by measuring the accuracy of participant responses to the timing and final location of stimuli in cases of apparent motion (e.g., Haywood, 1977). Child VGPs responded significantly more accurately to the final light stimulus in a sequence, suggesting they had better anticipated its arrival. Enhanced priming of stimulus presentation in expert VGPs, both in terms of location and content, may facilitate anticipation of the stimulus’ arrival, resulting in faster responses once stimuli are presented. It remains possible, of course, that enhanced anticipation is not the result of video-game play but a pre-existing characteristic of those children who become VGPs.

Whether anticipatory abilities are related to visual search strategies is a matter of debate. Within the VGP literature, evidence related to enhanced visual search is mixed. Castel et al. (2005) investigated the effect of extensive video game play on visual search capability and inhibition of return. While expert male VGPs showed significantly faster reaction times on both the “easy” and “hard” visual searches and the inhibition-of-return task, contrary to expectations, no differential suppression of previous search locations was found. A similar pattern of simple reaction time benefits has also been reported by Bialystok (2006) who found that while expert VGPs made significantly faster responses than NVGPs on the Simon task, they did not show any difference in the effect of stimulus-response in/congruency. These simple reaction time benefits suggest that at least some of the task benefits shown by expert VGPs may simply be due to a heightened ability to make appropriate and rapid motor responses to visual stimuli.

Contrary to Castel et al. (2005), Hubert-Wallander et al. (2011) provided evidence that expert VGPs were capable of quicker visual searches during their “hard” visual search condition. Clark et al. (2011) suggested that expert VGPs may possess altered top-down search strategies, with the use of broader search patterns. In a modified change detection paradigm, expert VGPs not only correctly located changes more quickly than NVGPs, but appeared to do so as a result of a more efficient search strategy. This was shown by a tendency to mentally travel larger visual distances between change localization attempts, distribute and make change localization attempts more often in all four screen quadrants, and cover a larger visual area with change localization attempts in the first five attempts. Training studies are needed in order to determine whether faster visual searches and broader top-down search strategies result from video-game play or are a pre-existing characteristic of expert VGPs.

Temporal dynamics of sensory attention

West et al. (2008) compared the performance of matched male expert VGPs and NVGPs on a temporal order judgment task that measures participants’ sensitivity to an exogenous cue to a spatial location. Participants were presented two target items separated by a variable stimulus onset asynchrony and asked to report which target appeared first, with the location of one of the stimuli cued. The dependent measure is the point of subjective simultaneity, which indicates the stimulus onset asynchrony needed for a participant to perceive both targets as occurring simultaneously. Surprisingly, the point of subjective simultaneity in expert VGPs occurred at a significantly larger stimulus onset asynchrony than for NVGPs, suggesting VGPs attention may have been captured more by the exogenous cue (see section Exogenous and Endogenous Attention). Donohue et al. (2010) found that when no exogenous cue was present, expert VGPs were significantly more accurate than NVGPs at discriminating presentation asynchronies in visual and auditory stimuli. Incredibly, expert VGPs showed a point of subjective simultaneity that did not differ from simultaneous stimulus onset. Consistent with this, on judgments of multisensory temporal order when the stimulus asynchrony was 0 ms, NVGPs showed a response bias toward an earlier visual stimulus onset while expert VGPs were at chance, indicating no bias toward either modality. Donohue and colleagues also found a significant correlation between video-game experience and point of subjective simultaneity, suggesting better multisensory precision may result from increased video-game experience, although it is possible that individuals with better multisensory precision play more video-games due to the advantage this skill conveys.

Li et al. (2010) showed a reduced effect of backward masking in expert VGPs. In a follow-up training study only those NVGPs who played an action video-game (and not a non-action video-game, The Sims), showed a significant reduction in backward masking in the same direction as expert VGPs. However, this result could be driven by the expectation of NVGPs trained on the action video-games to improve on backwards masking, especially as the temporal demands of The Sims are low, because players able to control the speed of in-game time and perform actions while the game is paused.

Exogenous and endogenous attention

The impact of exogenous cues on the performance of expert VGPs was further examined by West et al. (2008) using a signal detection paradigm. Participants viewed a UVOV display with three ringed eccentricities and populated with “swimmers” in constant motion; the swimmers were depicted by a circle with two “arms” represented by perpendicular lines. Participants responded whenever a swimmer began to struggle (move erratically). Expert VGPs showed significantly faster reaction times to erratic swimmers in all but the highest stimulus load and eccentricity, suggesting an increased sensitivity to changes in salient motion. Hubert-Wallander et al. (2011) also tested the impact of exogenous cuing but on a modified Posner cuing paradigm. Participants indicated whether a “T” presented to one of four target locations was upright or upside down. Each trial was preceded by an uninformative exogenous cue to one of the target locations. While expert VGPs identified the correct orientation significantly more quickly, there was no significant difference between expert VGPs and NVGPs in reaction time costs generated by the exogenous cue. Contrary to West et al. (2008), the authors suggested that video-game play may preferentially target endogenous as opposed to exogenous attention. It may simply be the case, however, that if expert VGPs know a cue is always a distracter, they are not preferentially captured by the exogenous cuing.

Chisholm et al. (2010) provided support for the view that expert VGPs possess enhanced endogenous attention. On an attentional capture task, participants identified the orientation of a line in a target element, either in the presence or absence of distractor information. Expert VGPs not only correctly responded significantly more quickly, regardless of whether distractors were present or not, but were also less adversely affected by distractor presence than NVGPs. The authors suggested expert VGPs may possess greater control of endogenous attention enabling them to suppress or disregard irrelevant information more easily than NVGPs. However, this result could also simply arise from reduced sensitivity to distractors without impacting on endogenous attention.

Task switching

Video-game play has also been found to impact on cognitive task set selection and the higher-order capacity to switch between tasks. For example, Nelson and Strachan (2009) found participants’ performance on a target location and matching figures task differed according to whether they had played the action video-game Unreal Tournament or puzzle video-game Portal. Participants who played the action video-game showed faster response times but lower accuracy, while participants who played the puzzle video-game showed slower response times but greater accuracy. This provided evidence that cognitive strategies primed by the demands of different video-game genres could possibly generalize beyond the context of the video-game itself.

Colzato et al. (2010) investigated the effect of action video-game expertise on task switching. Expert VGPs showed a significantly lower task switching cost than NVGPs when switching between identifying local and global cues. Karle et al. (2010) investigated what may underlie lower task switching costs in expert VGPs. They speculated that task switching is a combination process and lower costs may result from a greater capacity to activate relevant task networks, inhibit previously active and competing task networks, or a combination of both. Expert VGPs showed reduced task switching costs relative to NVGPs in non-overlapping tasks (i.e., character discrimination and numeric discrimination) but showed no significant reduction in task switching costs when tasks overlapped (i.e., odd/even, prime/multiple, less than/more than). The authors argued that overlapping tasks create proactive interference that requires inhibiting conflicting response sets, which suggests that lower task switching costs shown by expert VGPs may reflect an enhanced ability to activate task relevant networks.

Fundamental properties of the visual system, visual perception and use of sensory evidence

Some of the most exciting, diverse and novel findings in the VGP literature have concerned the potential enhancement of fundamental aspects of the visual system. Green and Bavelier (2007) compared the performance of male expert VGPs and matched NVGPs on a visual crowding paradigm. Participants were presented with three Ts randomly oriented either the right way up or upside down at three different eccentricities, and had to identify the center T’s orientation. The effect of visual crowding was modulated by moving the Ts closer together or further apart. Expert VGPs not only show a reduced effect of crowding but were able discriminate the orientation of significantly smaller Ts than NVGPs, indicating they may possess greater visual acuity. A follow-up training study produced mixed results with NVGPs trained on an action video-game showing improved visual crowding performance but not visual acuity. NVGPs trained on the non-action video-game (Tetris) showed no improvement. The inability to produce enhanced visual acuity in NVGPs may mean it is not amenable to short-term training, or instead that it represents a pre-existing characteristic of expert VGPs.

Contrast sensitivity, another fundamental property of vision, has also been found to be superior in expert VGPs. Contrast sensitivity refers to an individual’s ability to detect small increments in shades of gray on a uniform background, and like visual acuity, it is a major limiting factor in determining quality of sight (Campbell, 1983). Li et al. (2009) found expert male VGPs were more accurate than NVGPs on a standard contrast sensitivity paradigm. In a follow-up training study, NVGPs who played action video-games significantly improved their contrast sensitivity while NVGPs who trained on the non-action video-game (The Sims 2) showed no improvement.

In addition to increased quality of vision, video-game expertise is also associated with larger central and peripheral visual fields, determined using Goldmann kinetic perimetry (Buckley et al., 2010). During this technique, participants respond once they detect a circular light target (328 candelas for peripheral field and 20 candelas central field) that traverses from 100° eccentricity to central fixation along a straight line. Eccentricities where target detection occurred were recorded and the task repeated until a full visual field boundary in 30° steps was constructed for each participant. Amazingly, expert VGPs showed central and peripheral visual fields that were around 1000 deg²larger (around 50% larger central visual field and 15% larger peripheral visual field, respectively) than NVGPs.

At a higher level of the visual system, Sungur and Boduroglu (2012) investigated the effects of video-game expertise on the resolution of visual representations. On the color wheel task, expert VGPs were able to identify the color of a target on a color wheel with 180 options more precisely that NVGPs. Sugur and Boduroglu also calculated the magnitude of the errors on both the color wheel and a UFOV task. Expert VGPs made a greater proportion of small magnitude errors (i.e., a few degrees on the color wheel or neighboring items on the UFOV) than NVGPs, while NVGPs made a higher proportion of high magnitude errors (i. e., guesses) than expert VGPs. The authors argued that this showed that visual information was stored at a higher resolution by expert VGPs. It is possible of course, that the higher proportion of “guesses” made by NVGPs may reflect failures to detect targets rather than lower resolution representations.

Finally, Green et al. (2010) provided compelling evidence that VGPs make more efficient use of sensory evidence in making judgments. They applied a drift diffusion model to participant’s responses on a visual motion direction discrimination task, in which they judged the net movement of a dot array under different levels of dot movement coherency. VGPs accumulated and integrated visual sensory information at a faster rate than NVGPs, enabling more rapid inferences to be made, particularly at lower coherence. The same results were observed in an auditory tone location discrimination task suggesting they reflect a multi-modal enhancement in sensitivity in VGPs. The results of a follow-up training study supported the link with action video-game play in the visual domain, with nearly identical results to those of experienced VGPs; NVGPs trained on an action video-game showed significantly better performance than NVGPs trained on a non-action video-game (The Sims 2), who showed no improvement.

Video-game play as a cognitive intervention

Video-game play was first tested as an intervention to stem cognitive decline in older adults in the mid-1980s. Early results showed promise, with improved performance of older adults on a range of cognitive measures (e.g., WAIS-R, Sternberg paradigm), following video-game play (e.g., Drew and Waters, 1986; Clark et al., 1987; Dustman et al., 1992; Goldstein et al., 1997). These studies failed, however, to include an adequate control condition (if one was included at all), limiting interpretation.

More recently, Basak et al. (2008) tested the impact of playing the action video-game Rise of Nations on older adults. Unlike typical action games tested in the video-game literature, Rise of Nations is a real-time strategy game. Players control a nation’s economy, military, technological development, and diplomatic relations with neighboring societies. Success can be achieved either through military dominance, cultural dominance, or constructing a wonder of the world. Older adults in the video-game play group showed significant improvements in working memory, abstract reasoning, distractor inhibition, mental rotation performance, and a significant reduction in task-switching costs relative to older adults who did not play. Unfortunately, like earlier intervention-based studies, the inadequate control condition means the significant improvements may have resulted from greater cognitive stimulation.

Neuroimaging and video-game play

Evidence from studies involving video-game training suggest that video-game play, even for a short period of time, may result in enhancement to a large number of cognitive abilities that last for at least 4 months (e.g., Li et al., 2010). The neural correlates underpinning these superior abilities are not well-understood as only a handful of neuroimaging studies have addressed this question.

Haier et al. (1992) conducted the pioneering neuroimaging study of video-game play. Eight participants underwent positron emission tomography (PET) scanning while playing the non-action video-game Tetris both before, and after, daily practice for 4–8 weeks. In addition, 16 control participants were scanned while passively viewing visual stimuli. Participants who underwent the video-game training showed a significant decrease in whole brain glucose metabolism. Interestingly, the level of improvement shown by participants in Tetris was inversely correlated with levels of glucose metabolism. Haier and colleagues suggest that the decrease in glucose metabolism may reflect a more efficient utilization of the neural circuitry brought about through learning and task mastery. While this may explain a portion of the decrease to whole brain metabolism, it does not explain why whole brain glucose metabolism was lowered as the enhancements facilitated by Tetris are likely restricted to areas subtending mental rotation performance only (see earlier discussion in section Spatial Visualization).

Granek et al. (2010) used event-related fMRI to investigate the effect of video-game expertise on cortical activity during the preparation of visually-guided movements. During scanning participants completed four visuomotor tasks. These involved navigating their hand or a cursor control via a joystick toward, or away from, a fixated target. Visuomotor planning typically comprises a network of prefrontal, premotor, sensorimotor, and parietal regions (Gorbet et al., 2004; Gorbet and Sergio, 2007). Expert VGPs and NVGPs appeared to show dissociation in activation weightings in this network with VGPs showing greater prefrontal activation and NVGPs showing greater parietal activation. The authors suggest that these differences may reflect differences in the familiarity of expert VGPs and NVGPs with novel visuomotor tasks. Expert VGPs may not have to attend as closely to the outcomes of their motor acts as they are able to generalize visuomotor response patterns developed through video-game play. Conversely, NVGPs may have to attend more closely to the outcomes of their actions as they have not yet developed the appropriate response patterns. A future training study is required to show these hemodynamic response patterns to motor preparation are the result of video-game play and not a pre-existing characteristic of expert VGPs.

Mishra et al. (2011) compared expert VGPs and matched NVGPs on a selective attention task during recording of 62-channel EEG. During the experiment participants were required to respond to all instances of a numeral presentation in one cued letter stream, while ignoring those occurring in distractor streams. Of particular interest was the steady state visual evoked potential (SSVEP), which is a frequency-tagged neural response to periodic stimuli. When attention is directed at the periodic stimuli a larger SSVEP amplitude is generated. While no significant group differences were found in the SSVEP amplitude for attended stimuli, expert VGPs did show significantly reduced SSVEP amplitudes for unattended stimuli. Consistent with the behavioral findings of Chisholm et al. (2010), this suggests that enhanced attentional performance in expert VGPs may be underpinned by a greater capacity to suppress, or disregard, irrelevant stimuli. Interestingly, expert VGPs also showed larger P300 amplitudes relative to NVGPs in response to numerical targets under high load conditions. This suggests that expert VGPs may show greater sensitivity than NVGPs to task-relevant stimuli under increased load, which in turn may underpin their more accurate behavioral performance.

Bavelier et al. (2012) compared activation of expert VGPs and NVGPs in the fronto-parietal attentional network and the motion sensitive area (MT/MTS) during a visual search task with distractors. Participants had to indicate whether a diamond or square was present in a ring of shapes surrounding the central fixation cross, performed under either a low or high stimulus load. This was accompanied by distractors—a static or moving patch of dots presented centrally or peripherally to either side of fixation. NVGPs, unlike expert VGPs, showed a significant increase in activation of the fronto-parietal attentional network in response to increased visual search load. Bavelier and colleagues suggested the heavily reduced utilization of this network in expert VGPs, may reflect lower use of attentional resources with higher task burdens in contrast to NVGPs. Additionally, moving distracters (patches of irrelevant moving dots) elicited less activation in MT/MST in expert VGPs than NVGPs but not in response to attended motion stimuli. Consistent with previous research (Chisholm et al., 2010; Mishra et al., 2011) this finding suggests that VGPs are more efficient at suppressing, or disregarding, irrelevant stimuli.

To date the small neuroimaging literature on expert VGPs has focused on the functional correlates of enhanced cognitive performance. Substantial evidence in the broader neuroimaging literature indicates that practice and expertise can induce not only functional but structural changes to neural organization. For example, repetition of simple finger exercises has been shown to lead to increased cortical representation of the fingers (Pascual-Leone et al., 1995). Expertise has also been shown to be accompanied by structural changes in brain regions and pathways associated with that expertise (e.g., taxi drivers, Maguire et al., 2000; bilingual individuals, Mechelli et al., 2004). Expert musicians have provided a model for the investigation of neuroplasticity and there is now considerable evidence that the brains of adult musicians differ from those of non-musicians both functionally and anatomically (Jäncke, 2009; Oechslin et al., 2010; Wan and Schlaug, 2010). Future neuro-imaging research in VGPs should also investigate structural changes that may accompany video-game expertise or training, as well as addressing the question of whether extensive training can shape the neural representation of cognitive processes beyond specific trained skills.

Challenges to the video-game play literature

Not all findings in the video-game literature have been consistent or successful. For example, while Boot et al. (2008) found expert VGPs showed superior visual short term memory, multiple object-tracking, mental-rotation performance and reduced task switching costs, they found no improvement on block tapping, enumeration, functional field of view, operations span, Ravens Matrices, spatial 2-back, Tower of London, and no reduction in attentional blink. Follow-up training by NVGPs on an action video-game also failed to elicit any enhancement. Direct replication attempts of Green and Bavelier’s (2003) seminal findings have also been mixed. Irons et al. (2011) failed to replicate the flanker compatibility effect while Murphy and Spencer (2009) failed to replicate any of the original findings at all.

Boot et al. (2011) have argued that there are a variety of methodological limitations within the video-game literature, many of which have been highlighted throughout the current review. Specifically, they list the use of either unspecified, or overt recruiting methods, which they argue potentially prime the VGP stereotype and expectancy effects in VGP participants; the inability to infer directional effects from cross-section research designs; the similarity between the experimental task (generalization task) and video-game experience and the possibility of placebo effects in training studies. Indeed these types of problems are ubiquitous in most investigations of expertise with specialist populations. Researchers investigating video-game play and expertise can take the lead by employing clinical trial best practices (Boot et al., 2011) to clarify results in what appears to be an exciting avenue of research.

Four additional limitations appear particularly salient in the video-game literature to date. First, the majority of researchers have employed computerized experimental paradigms that typically require rapid target detection with manipulations to distractor difficulty and target eccentricity. Arguably, these tap the same skills in a very similar environment to the “training environment” (i.e., video-game play) and as a result may not provide evidence of proficiency beyond training. Exceptions showing the generalization of expertise or training to non-computerized tasks do exist (e.g., Okagaki and Frensch, 1994), but are rare. If at all possible, researchers should include non-computerized transfer tasks.

Second, there are large disparities in the relative frequency of males and females within VGP and non-VGP populations (with the former predominantly male and later predominantly female). Quaiser-Pohl et al. (2006) examined the effect of video-game genre preference on mental-rotation performance and gender differences. Latent class analysis on 861 adolescence revealed that males were significantly over-represented in the action video-game category (81.7%), while females were over-represented in the puzzle video-game (82.9%) and non-VGP (81.9%) categories. It cannot be ruled out that the greater representation of expert male VGPs is due to self-selection. Spence et al. (2009) directly investigated the impact of gender by comparing the attentional performance of male and female NVGPs, who were matched by their baseline score, after video-game training. Reassuringly, both males and females showed the same systematic enhancement to attentional performance. Interestingly, follow-up testing at four months showed that these performance gains remained even when video game play had ceased. Similar long-term enhancements have also been found by Feng et al. (2007) on UFOV and mental rotation performance 5 months after video-game play had ceased.

Third, there are difficulties in adequately defining and measuring video-game expertise. Cross-sectional studies often classify video-game players as “experts” if they have played video-games for a small period of time per week over the past 6 months. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that individuals with these video-gaming characteristics possess expertise, or could even obtain expertise with such a small time commitment. Greenfield et al. (1994) were the first researchers to use a predefined group of “expert” VGPs to assess the effects of prolonged video-game play. Expert VGPs were participants who were able to reach a score of over 200,000 on the action video game Robot Battle, while video game novices were participants who were unable to reach a score of 20,000. Unfortunately there is no standardized objective measure of performance expertise for video-game play, unlike some expert populations (e.g., “Grades” in musical performance and theory). The lack of such a metric makes it difficult to assess performance not only within a video-game genre but also between genres. Certain popular game titles, however, currently have, or are beginning to utilize, skill metrics to match players of comparable skill in multiplayer games. For example, the most recent release of Counter Strike: Global Offensive and popular multiplayer online battle area League of Legends use performance ratings. Starcraft II uses a total of seven leagues ranging from the beginners “Bronze” league to the “Grand Master League” which consists of the top 200 players on a server. With the rise of professional video-game play, level of professional attainment (i.e., as a national or international competitor) could also serve as a proxy for expertise. While not perfect, future studies may be able to tap into skill metrics, online rankings, and level of professional attainment in order to better assess the expertise of their expert VGP samples.

Lastly, more emphasis is needed on the links between the specific game genres of expert VGPs, video-game training and the cognitive enhancements measured. Throughout this review it is evident the findings of earlier studies (during the 1980’s and early 1990’s) are typically weaker and less precise than those of more recent studies. While this often reflects study designs, findings were also shaped by the video-games of that era, which were generally extremely simple in nature, requiring only repetitive and distinct patterns of responses to succeed. Overall it appears that training on this sort of game can lead to improved performance, but improvements are generally are restricted to the context in which training occurs and reflect increased task efficacy, rather than more general enhancement of underlying cognitive processes (Ball et al., 2002). As information technology progressed (both software and hardware) so too have the cognitive demands of the plethora of action video games played today. Although the term “action video game” is typically used in the literature to refer simply to “first person shooters,” where success is heavily reliant on the ability to make speeded responses to the visual stimuli present on the screen at any given moment, “action video games” of today in fact encompass a vast array of different game genres (e.g., first-person shooter, real-time strategy, role-playing game, multiplayer-online battle arena, etc.) each with the potential to give rise to a unique set of perceptual and cognitive enhancements. In contrast to “first person shooter” games, success in real-time strategy games, for example, is more reliant on the ability to continually assess, update, and plan the most efficient series of responses to visual stimuli and as a result may preferentially enhance more executive processes. Furthermore, objects located in modern video games are no longer just passive; through the integration of artificial intelligence and multiplayer capabilities they are able to learn and adjust to the player as the game progresses. Success against “others” requires the recruitment of additional higher order cognitive processes such as theory of mind (Premack and Woodruff, 1978) in order to infer and attribute knowledge, perception and false belief states to dynamically-controlled in-game items. While there is undoubtedly overlap between the skill sets required by different game genres, the specific enhancements they drive are likely to closely reflect the cognitive domains they actively recruit (e.g., Basak et al., 2008; Nelson and Strachan, 2009; Li et al., 2010). Future studies would benefit from careful analysis of cognitive demands of the specific game genres of expert VGPs, and the cognitive domains assessed when testing for generalization effects.

Conclusion and future directions

Evidence is continuing to accumulate that suggests both brief and extensive experience with video-games can result in a broad range of cognitive enhancements which may generalize beyond the context of video-game play (see sections Hand-Eye Coordination and Reaction Time, Spatial Visualization, Visuospatial Attention, Visual Anticipation and Visual Search Strategies, Temporal Dynamics of Sensory Attention, Exogenous and Endogenous Attention, Task Switching, Fundamental Properties of the Visual System, Visual Perception and Use of Sensory Evidence, Video-Game Play as a Cognitive Intervention). There are, however, concerns about current research practices that need to be addressed (Boot et al., 2011) to clarify the validity of the current results. In addition to the concerns raised by Boot et al. researchers should also monitor gender disparities in their VGP and NVGP samples, seriously assess expertise of their expert VGP sample, and pay closer attention to the genres they possess expertise in and which are used in training studies.

Despite an impressive corpus of findings, research into the practical application of video-game play is restricted to minimizing the effects of cognitive decline in older adults (see section Video-Game Play as a Cognitive Intervention). In addition, all these studies have lacked adequate control conditions making results particularly problematic to interpret. This is particularly surprising as the potential for video-game play to impact on such a broad range of cognitive domains appears to offer many avenues for practical application. Future rigorous research that is capable of determining whether the application of video-game play can stem cognitive decline in older adults is a high priority. Alternatively, researchers could aim to use video-game play as an intervention to ease cognitive deficits in patient populations or further improve cognitive performance in specialist populations.

Early neuroimaging studies (see section Neuroimaging and Video-Game Play) have successfully begun examining the functional neural correlates of enhanced cognitive performance in expert VGPs. So far only motor planning, selective attention, and visual search have been assessed. Future neuroimaging research is needed to assess the functional neural correlates of enhanced cognitive performance. There is also a need to investigate the structural changes that accompany video-game expertise. A longitudinal randomized control training trial that also incorporate neuro-imaging study would be a valuable approach. The recommendations to promote best behavioral research practices are equally applicable to neuroimaging.

The results in section Fundamental Properties of the Visual System, Visual Perception, and Use of Sensory Evidence are particularly exciting as they suggest fundamental elements of the visual system may be heightened by video-game expertise and play. Changes at this level of the visual system potentially underpin a diverse range of downstream performance enhancements presented in this review, such as spatial visualization (section Spatial Visualization), visuospatial attention (section Visuospatial Attention), visual search (section Visual Anticipation and Visual Search Strategies) and temporal order judgments (section Temporal Dynamics of Sensory Attention). Unfortunately, we still have little understanding as to what about video-game play—other than practice—allows it to shape core elements of the visual system. Answering this question may also elucidate why video-game play has the potential to generate such a broad range of generalized enhancements. Understanding the mechanisms that underlie how video-game expertise gives rise to so many enhancements may lead to the efficient and targeted application of video-game play (and other forms of expertise-related interventions) to both education and clinical settings, and more generally permit individuals to make more informed decisions about the potential uses of their spare time.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

• Ball H. G. (1978). Telegames teach more than you think. Audiov. Instr. 24–26 [Google Scholar]
• Ball K., Berch D. B., Helmers K. F., Jobe J. B., Leveck M. D., Marsiske M., et al. (2002). Effects of cognitive training interventions with older adults: a randomized controlled trial. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 288, 2271–2281 10.1001/jama.288.18.2271 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Basak C., Boot W. R., Voss M. W., Kramer A. F. (2008). Can training in a real-time strategy video game attenuate cognitive decline in older adults? Psychol. Aging 23, 765–777 10.1037/a0013494 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Bavelier D., Achtman R. L., Mani M., Föcker J. (2012). Neural bases of selective attention in action video game players. Vision Res. 61, 132–143 10.1016/j.visres.2011.08.007 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Bialystok E. (2006). Effect of bilingualism and compute video game experience on the Simon Task. Can. J. Exp. Psychol. 60, 68–79 10.1037/cjep2006008 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Boot W. R., Blakely D. P., Simons D. J. (2011). Do action video games improve perception and cognition? Front. Psychol. 2:226 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00226 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Boot W. R., Kramer A. F., Simons D. J., Fabiani M., Gratton G. (2008). The effects of video game playing on attention, memory and executive control. Acta Psychol. 129, 387–398 10.1016/j.actpsy.2008.09.005 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Buckley D., Codina C., Bhardwaj P., Pascalis O. (2010). Action video game players and deaf observers have larger Goldmann visual fields. Vision Res. 50, 548–556 10.1016/j.visres.2009.11.018 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Campbell F. W. (1983). Why do we measure contrast sensitivity? Behav. Brain Res. 10, 87–97 10.1016/0166-4328(83)90154-7 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Castel A. D., Pratt J., Drummond E. (2005). The effects of action video game experience on the time course of inhibition of return and the efficiency of visual search. Acta Psychol. 119, 217–230 10.1016/j.actpsy.2005.02.004 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Chisholm J. D., Hickey C., Theeuwes J., Kingstone A. (2010). Reduced attentional capture in action video game players. Attent. Percept. Psychophys. 72, 667–671 10.3758/APP.72.3.667 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Clark J. E., Lanphear A. K., Riddick C. C. (1987). The effects of video game playing on the response selection processing of elderly adults. J. Gerontol. 42, 82–85 10.1093/geronj/42.1.82 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Clark K., Fleck M. S., Mitroff S. R. (2011). Enhanced change detection performance reveals improved strategy use in avid action video game players. Acta Psychol. 136, 67–72 10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.10.003 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Colzato L. S., van Leeuwen P. J. A., van den Wildenberg W., Hommel B. (2010). DOOM’d to switch: Superior cognitive flexibility in players of first person shooter games. © Front. Psychol. 1:8 10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00008 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• De Lisi R., Cammarano D. M. (1996). Computer experience and gender differences in undergraduate mental rotation performance. Comp. Hum. Behav. 12, 351–361 10.1016/0747-5632(96)00013-1 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• De Lisi R., Wolford J. L. (2002). Improving children’s mental rotation accuracy with computer game playing. J. Genet. Psychol. 163, 272–282 10.1080/00221320209598683 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Donohue S. E., Woldorff M. G., Mitroff S. R. (2010). Video game players show more precise multisensory temporal processing abilities. Attent. Percept. Psychophys. 72, 1120–1129 10.3758/APP.72.4.1120 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Dorval M., Peìpin M. (1986). Effect of playing a video game on a measure of spatial visualization. Perceptual and Mot. Skills 62, 159–162 10.2466/pms.1986.62.1.159 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Drew B., Waters J. (1986). Video games: utilization of a novel strategy to improve perceptual motor skills and cognitive functioning in the non-institutionalized elderly. Cogn. Rehabil. 4, 26–31 [Google Scholar]
• Dustman R. E., Emmerson R. Y., Steinhaus L. A., Shearer D. E., Dustman T. J. (1992). The effects of videogame playing on neuropsychological performance of elderly individuals. J Gerontol. 47, 168–171 10.1093/geronj/47.3.P168 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Dye M. W., Bavelier D. (2010). Differential development of visual attention skills in school-age children. Vision Res. 50, 452–459 10.1016/j.visres.2009.10.010 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Dye M. W., Green C. S., Bavelier D. (2009). The development of attention skills in action video game players. Neuropsychologia 47, 1780–1789 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.02.002 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Feng J., Spence I., Pratt J. (2007). Playing an action video game reduces gender difference in spatial cognition. Psychol. Sci. 18, 850–855 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01990.x [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Gagnon D. (1985). Videogames and spatial skills: an exploratory study. Educ. Commun. Technol. 33, 263–275 [Google Scholar]
• Goldstein J. H., Cajko L., Oosterbroek M., Michielsen M., van Houten O., Salverda F. (1997). Video games and the elderly. Soc. Behav. Pers. 25, 345–352 10.2224/sbp.1997.25.4.345 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Gorbet D. J., Sergio L. E. (2007). Sex-related differences in cortical activity during visually-guided movements. Eur. J. Neurosci. 25, 1228–1239 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2007.05358.x [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Gorbet D. J., Staines W. R., Sergio L. E. (2004). An fMRI study of cortical activity during progressively arbitrary visuomotor transformations. Neuroimage 23, 1100–1111 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.07.043 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Granek J., Gorbet D. J., Sergio L. E. (2010). Extensive video game experience alters the cortical networks for complex visually-guided reaching. Cortex 46, 1165–1177 10.1016/j.cortex.2009.10.009 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Green C. S., Bavelier D. (2003). Action video game modifies visual selective attention. Nature 423, 534–537 10.1038/nature01647 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Green C. S., Bavelier D. (2006a). Effect of action video games on the spatial distribution of visuospatial attention. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 32, 1465–1468 10.1037/0096-1523.32.6.1465 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Green C. S., Bavelier D. (2006b). Enumeration versus multiple object tracking: The case of action video game players. Cognition 101, 217–245 10.1016/j.cognition.2005.10.004 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Green C. S., Bavelier D. (2007). Action video game experience alters the spatial resolution of attention. Psychol. Sci. 18, 88–94 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01853.x [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Green C. S., Pouget A., Bavelier D. (2010). Improved probabilistic inference, as a general learning mechanism with action video games. Curr. Biol. 20, 1573–1579 10.1016/j.cub.2010.07.040 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Greenfield P. M., de Winstanley P., Kilpatrick H., Kaye D. (1994). Action video games and informal education: Effects on strategies for dividing visual attention. J. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 15, 105–123 10.1016/0193-3973(94)90008-6 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Griffith J. L., Voloschin P., Gibb G. D., Bailey J. R. (1983). Differences in eye-hand motor coordination of video-game users and non-users. Percept. Mot. Skills 57, 155–158 10.2466/pms.1983.57.1.155 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Haier R. J., Siegel B. V., Jr., MacLachlan A., Soderling E., Lottenberg S., Buchsbaum M. S. (1992). Regional glucose metabolic changes after learning a complex visuospatial/motor task: a positron emission tomographic study. Brain Res. 570, 134–143 10.1016/0006-8993(92)90573-R [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Haywood K. M. (1977). Eye movements during coincidence-anticipation performance. J. Mot. Behav. 9, 313–318 10.1080/00222895.1977.10735123 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Hubert-Wallander B., Green C. S., Sugarman M., Bavelier D. (2011). Changes in search rate but not in dynamics of exogenous attention in action video game players. Attent. Percept. Psychophys. 73, 2399–2412 10.3758/s13414-011-0194-7 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Irons J. L., Remington R. W., McLean J. P. (2011). Not so fast: Rethinking the effects of action video games on attentional capacity. Aust. J. Psychol. 63, 224–231 10.1111/j.1742-9536.2011.00001.x [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Jäncke L. (2009). Music drives brain plasticity. F1000 Biol. Rep. 1:78 10.3410/B1-78 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Karle J. W., Watter S., Shedden J. M. (2010). Task switching in video game players: Benefits of selective attention but not resistance to proactive interference. Acta Psychol. 134, 70–78 10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.12.007 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Kuhlman J. S., Beitel P. A. (1991). Videogame experience: A possible explanation for differences in anticipation of coincidence. Percept. Mot. Skills 72, 483–488 10.2466/pms.1991.72.2.483 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Li R., Polat U., Makous W., Bavelier D. (2009). Enhancing the contrast sensitivity function through action video game playing. Nat. Neurosci. 12, 549–551 10.1038/nn.2296 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Li R., Polat U., Scalzo F., Bavelier D. (2010). Reducing backward masking through action game training. J. Vis. 10, 1–13 10.1167/10.14.33 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Maguire E. A., Gadian D. G., Johnsrude I. S., Good C. D., Ashburner J., Frackowiak R. S., et al. (2000). Navigation-related structural change in the hippocampi of taxi drivers. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 97, 4398–4403 10.1073/pnas.070039597 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• McClurg P. A., Chaillè C. (1987). Computer games – Environments for developing spatial cognition. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 3, 95–111 [Google Scholar]
• Mechelli A., Crinion J. T., Noppenery U., O’Doherty I., Ashburner J. (2004). Neurolinguistics, structural plasticity in the bilingual brain. Nature 431, 757 10.1038/431757a [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Mishra J., Zinni M., Bavelier D., Hillyard S. A. (2011). Neural basis of superior performance of action videogame players in an attention-demanding task. J. Neurosci. 31, 992–998 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4834-10.2011 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Murphy K., Spencer A. (2009). Playing video-games does not make for better visual attention skills. J. Support Null Hypothesis 6, 1–20 [Google Scholar]
• Nelson R. A., Strachan I. (2009). Action and puzzle video games prime different speed/accuracy tradeoffs. Perception 38, 1678–1687 10.1068/p6324 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Oechslin M. S., Imfeld A., Loenneker T., Meyer M., Jäncke L. (2010). The plasticity of the superior longitudinal fasciculus as a function of musical expertise: a diffusion tensor imaging study. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 3:76 10.3389/neuro.09.076.2009 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Okagaki L., Frensch P. A. (1994). Effects of video game playing on measures of spatial performance: Gender effects in late adolescence. J. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 15, 33–58 10.1016/0193-3973(94)90005-1 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Orosy-Fildes C., Allan R. W. (1989). Psychology of computer use: XII. Video game play: Human reaction time to visual stimuli. Percept. Mot. Skills 69, 243–247 10.2466/pms.1989.69.1.243 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Pascual-Leone A., Nguyet D., Cohen L., Brasil-Neto J. P., Cammarota A., Hallett M. (1995). Modulation of muscle responses evoked by transcranial magnetic stimulation during the acquisition of new fine motor skills. J. Neurophysiol. 74, 1037–1045 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Premack D., Woodruff G. (1978). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind. Behav. Brain Sci. 1, 515–526 10.1017/S0140525X00076512 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Quaiser-Pohl C., Geiser C., Lehmann W. (2006). The relationship between computer-game preference, gender, and mental-rotation ability. Pers. Indiv. Diff. 40, 609–619 10.1016/j.paid.2005.07.015 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Sims V. K., Mayer R. E. (2002). Domain specificity of spatial expertise: the case of video game players. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 16, 97–115 10.1002/acp.759 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Spence I., Yu J. J., Feng J., Marshman J. (2009). Females match males when learning a spatial skill. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 35, 1097–1103 10.1037/a0015641 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Subrahmanyam K., Greenfield P. M. (1994). Effect of video game practice on spatial skills in girls and boys. J. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 15, 13–32 10.1016/0193-3973(94)90004-3 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Sungur H., Boduroglu A. (2012). Action video game players form more detailed representation of objects. Acta Psychol. 139, 327–334 10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.12.002 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Wan C. Y., Schlaug G. (2010). Music Making as a Tool for Promoting Brain Plasticity across the Life Span. Neuroscientist 16, 566–577 10.1177/1073858410377805 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• West G. L., Stevens S. A., Pun C., Pratt J. (2008). Visuospatial experience modulates attentional capture: Evidence from action video game players. J. Vis. 8:13 10.1167/8.16.13 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Yuji H. (1996). Computer games and information-processing skills. Percept. Mot. Skills 83, 643–647 10.2466/pms.1996.83.2.643 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Law & Order SVU “End Game” Recap & Review – Season 20 Finale

Not only does Peter Stone bring all of Benson’s detectives (and attorney Nikki Staines) into his plan to frame Rob Miller, he also manages to get a murder conviction despite having ZERO EVIDENCE. I’m perplexed as to how this even got to trial.  Rob Miller is initially released as a Federal judge ruled that Rob’s  statement “No Nikki, no case” didn’t rise to the legal standard, yet later, Stone manages to get an arrest warrant for Rob on nothing but circumstantial evidence. I have a hard time believing that Rob’s defense attorney wouldn’t dispute the evidence before the trial.  Clearly he knew how a large sum of money was deposited in a young woman’s bank account. Why wait for the trial to call Nikki Staines to testify that she was the one that did it, not Rob Miller? Wouldn’t this matter be brought before a judge in advance of the trial, throwing the rest of the evidence in doubt? Something about the way this got to trial didn’t feel right. I’m also surprised that the defense didn’t make a move to throw out the verdict as I don’t think Stone met the burden of proof.

I’ve come to the conclusion that Olivia Benson should come with a warning label that states she is hazardous to the career of an ADA, and she may incite you to compromise your ethics. (This would have helped Rafael Barba.) I cringed at the end when Peter Stone seems to profess his feelings for Benson when he says the she became more important to him than the case he is trying. This is the same Peter Stone, who, just a few months ago in the SVU episode “Part 33”, told Benson to keep her “bleeding heart” out of the courtroom. Even in the early stages of this episode he was reluctant to proceed as they had no proof. He seemed firm on that issue. But the minute he hears that Olivia and Noah are under threat, he decides to risk his entire career for her? Sorry, this was so contrived it almost made me laugh. I’m sorry to see Peter Stone go; my disappointment with the character is that we were force-fed a back story early on, before we could really get to see his legal expertise. And when we did see his legal expertise, it was – like in this episode – not consistent. I would have enjoyed it if he had been the one person to keep Benson in check. Instead, he seemed to have backbone in one episode and not in another, or, like in this episode, his backbone disappeared mid-episode. I can only hope that in season 21 we will get an ADA that is their own person and that can resist the pull of Olivia Benson.

While Benson didn’t participate in the frame-up, she does what she always does best: gets indignant that Stone won’t prosecute someone based on her opinion, with no evidence. She goes so far as to insult Stone by wondering whose side he’s on. Later, she’s shocked that he can move ahead with a trial,  saying that the case is basically a “bunch of arrows on a corkboard, signifying a whole lot of nothing.” First she wants him to go full throttle on Rob Miller, then she gets cold feet when Stone delivers. Benson’s flip-flop here is head-scratching and whiplash inducing.

At the end, Stone tells her that she’s the one person who could make it on her own. Then why did he feel the need to frame Rob Miller for her? We keep hearing that Olivia Benson is such a strong woman, yet it seems like everyone always needs to protect her and save her from all the bad in the world. It’s a variation on the old “damsel in distress” trope and I think Law & Order SVU has used this far too many times with Benson. Her bias and inability to cope with Rob Miller has incited her whole team to frame him for a murder that they can’t prove he committed. Frankly, Rob Miller looks like the victim here. He may have very well committed the murder, but as the SVU didn’t really get any hard proof to that effect;  all we know is the SVU/Stone had to do something illegal to get a conviction. It looks like the “arrow on the wheel of justice” was fixed in one direction, and now that the SVU has participated in a frame-up, what’s stopping them from doing it again to protect their own interests?

The brightest spot in this episode was Titus Welliver, who was excellent in playing Rob Miller, a deliciously nasty human being with a lot of power and influence, none of it used for any good. I can only hope that something happens where he can appeal and get out of prison, if anything so he can commit a crime that lands him back in jail without the frame-up. Callie Thorne also helped to round things out with her emotional, believable performance. I did like how they tied this story back to the Italian exchange students in the SVU episode “Exchange”. Otherwise, this story annoyed me and agitated me more than anything else. I could probably write for a few more hours on how much it bothered me, but I think I’ll cut my losses. “End Game” didn’t leave me with a great feeling about the Special Victims Unit going into season 21.

Update May 23, 2019: A viewer noticed a continuity error, occurring between the previous SVU episode, “Assumptions” and the SVU finale, “End Game”. “Assumptions” ends with the date May 7, when Rob Miller approaches Benson and Noah in the restaurant. Benson seems shocked to find he’s out. But “End Game” begins on May 5 – two days earlier – and it seems Benson had already found out Rob Miller is out and we are told police are already watching her and Noah – two days earlier than the end of “Assumptions”!

Here is the recap:

A private party goes on with many young girls in attendance. One man questions a girl’s age.

Benson, arriving at the SVU, speaks with Fin, saying she barely closed her eyes since Rob Miller got out of prison. She adds he is targeting her and wants her to know he has all the power. Fin explains they have an unmarked car on her block and in front of Noah’s school, there’s no way he can he can get at her. Benson snaps back that he walked right into that restaurant and introduced himself to Noah, adding she should have shot the son of a bitch. Fin tries to calm her, suggesting not so loud, Stone is in her office, Fin called him in.

As they walk into her office, Stone comments he wishes he had better news. Benson asks him to tell her it’s not worse than Rob Miller making bail. Stone replies that the Feds dropped the charges. Fin says “Damn!” and Benson looks stunned. She comments that he blackmailed a judge and threatened witnesses, adding he threatened Nikki Staines, they have him on tape saying “No Nikki, no case.” Stone counters that a Federal judge ruled that statement didn’t rise to the legal standard. Fin asks what now, Benson also asking what about Nikki’s rape. Stone replies there’s nothing there; Nikki is scared and is claiming it was consensual. Benson pauses, looking at Fin, and whispers she will talk to her.

At the apartment of Nikki Staines, at 1239 West 47th Street on Sunday, May 5, Nikki tells her daughter it is going to be okay, suggesting she go to her room and lie down. As her daughter races off, she cries and asks “What kind of person?” Nikki tells Benson that Miller killed her daughter’s dog. When Benson asks if she is sure, Nikki emphatically says yes, she’s sure. She points to the dog Penny’s ashes, saying the vet said it was rat poison. Getting upset, she explains the landlord didn’t put down any rat poison and she didn’t either. Benson asks how, and Nikki says her daughter said that a woman offered Penny a treat on their walk last night and she thought it was okay and this morning the dog was…Benson says she is so sorry. Nikki goes on to say the woman said to say hello to her mom. Nikki asks why, saying Rob Miller knows she was not going to testify. Benson replies that is whys he is here, they need her to testify. She adds that the Feds dropped the charges. Nikki is shocked, saying “no no no no!” When Benson asks Nikki to hear her out, Nikki shouts NO! Benson asks her to talk to her about the Wally Stevens case, the underage girls, saying Miller thought he’d be implicated and that is why he stole her phone. Nikki emphatically says there is nothing on that phone that connects him to that case. Benson asks why, what was he afraid of, can Wally put him at those sex parties. Nikki pauses and when Benson presses her to tell her more, Nikki shouts she can’t, citing attorney/client privilege, asking with sarcasm if Benson ever heard of it, adding she is not about to risk getting disbarred. She says she is appreciative for what Benson has done for her but orders Benson to go now, and Nikki storms off. Benson leaves.

Back at SVU, Benson tells the detectives there has to be a way to tie Rob Miller to Wally Stevens and the sex parties. Benson comments he blackmailed a judge (Judge Brian Leonard) and stole Nikki’s phone, saying it has to be connected, asking what are they missing. Rollins explains they have gone over the case forwards and backwards, it is falling apart. Carisi says the girls at the party are all backing off the story. Benson thinks Miller got to them or their parents. She suggests they check their bank accounts. Fin comments Miller doesn’t leave a fingerprint on the knife, and Benson reminds him they have half a dozen witnesses. Fin counters they HAD witnesses, they all lawyered up. Benson, getting increasingly agitated, shouts, “Exactly! That’s my point!” Fin comments since Leonard retired to the Maldives. Wally Steven is untouchable – double jeopardy. Benson retorts she knows, she was there. Fin sighs. Carisi gets a message and tells Benson he hears her on all of this but they have something from the harbor unit they have to deal with right now. A young female washed up on a pier on the Hudson river. Benson says, “Let’s go.”

At Pier 66 on the Hudson River on Sunday, May 5, Benson and Carisi meet with Sgt. Matthews. He explains that the victim was 15-16, naked, with no ID, he guesses she was in the water a couple of hours or a day at the most. Carisi asks if she fell off a boat, and Matthews states every bone in her body is broken and her organs liquefied. Benson pulls back the blanket covering the body, and Matthews comments this girl fell out of the sky.

Benson, back at SVU and on the phone, explains she just wanted to let them know that a uniformed officer will be with the sitter when she picks Noah up from school today. She ends the call and Rollins approaches and asks how is Noah going. Benson replies he is thrilled; he gets to ride to and from school in a squad car but the school administration, not so much. Rollins comments that Miller is a bad guy but asks if she really think he would go after a lieutenant’s kids? Benson, sounding agitated, says she doesn’t know what he’s capable of. Rollins explains the preliminary report from the ME on their Jane Doe says there was no water in her lungs and she was dead before she hit the river. Benson asks for the cause of death, and Rollins states it was an OD, China White, highly concentrated Fentanyl, adding this girl was not an addict. There was no trace in her hair or needle marks. Benson thinks she got a hot shot, and Rollins explains the ME is ruling undetermined for now, but they also found the presence of semen from two different men, no DNA hits. No matches with missing persons yet. Benson brings up the girl is healthy with expensive dental work, she had parents and they have to be looking for her. Rollins comments it has only been 24 hours and they will keep checking. Carisi enters and says the ME finished the autopsy. Benson tells them to go.

The parents explains Lindsay was spending the weekend with friend Brooke  in Sag Harbor. When she didn’t answer her phone they called the house and the parents said their daughter said they were with the Parkers. Benson says they will need their contact information. They explain what has happened and called Rob to hire a private detective if it came to that. Benson and Rollins proceed to break the bad news to the parents, who are in shock. Benson explains they are still investigating and when Rollins asks for the information they will need, Rob says he can get them that. Benson offers condolences and Rollins says they will help them make arrangements. Benson gives them her card and says they will be in touch. They move to leave and Ron says he can show them out.

Rob: I realize this is awkward.

Benson: I don’t even know where to begin with you. Do your clients know that you’re a criminal?

Rob: They’re aware that I was falsely charged. Their daughter is dead, shouldn’t that be our priority?

Benson: That’s my top priority, believe me, But what is your role in all of this?

Rob: Excuse me?

Benson: Well, their 16 year old daughter was murdered one week after you were released from federal custody.

Rob: Do you hear yourself? This is just a tragic coincidence.

Benson: I don’t believe in coincidences.

Rob: What you’re saying right now is clear evidence of police bias. Your bias.

Benson: Okay. (She turns and moves to leave)

Rob: Are you angry because I figured out your little CSU ruse at the bar two months ago?

Benson, scoffs: Yeah I’m angry. I’m very angry but not because of that.

Rob: Uh, maybe because I declined to pursue our relationship.

Benson, walking back up to him: Don’t flatter yourself. If there weren’t two grieving parents in the next room, (whispering) I’d break your jaw.

Rob: You’d regret that, Lieutenant.

Benson: Stay away from me. Stay away from my son. Because if you don’t, I promise you (whispering) I WILL do something that we’d both regret.

Rob (smirking): Okay.
Benson leaves and Rob scoffs.

Back at SVU, Carisi and Rollins speak with Brooke about Lindsay’s death. They hear about the party in the city. They press her for details about the party and she is scared and cries. She explains the men that were there and they treated them like adults, with champagne and coke and one guy gave her a Birkin bag. Benson is observing and Fin enters, saying Lindsay’s cell phone went dead at 2:36 AM Sunday and they pinpointed the signal to a five block radius is Tribeca. He explains he is already on running every building in the zone. He is checking car services that ran from Sag Harbor to Manhattan. Benson wants them to show Brooke a picture of Wally and everyone else they have picked up at an underage sex party in the last 6 months. She thinks there is a connection and Rob Miller is at the center of it.

Rollins shows Brooke the photos and she picks out Wally who invited her to the party. She also spots Rob Miller and pauses, saying he looks familiar but thinks it might be from TV. She also picks out Alex who was at a party in the Hamptons last summer with an Italian exchange student.

At Green Haven Correctional Facility at 592 BY 216 in Stormville, NY on Tuesday, May 7, Fin and Carisi question Alex who knows Brooke. He says Lindsay looks familiar but says he didn’t have sex with either of them. They show him a photo of Rob Miller and he is hesitant to say anything, but they continue to press him to try to connect Rob to this, but all he will say is that maybe he saw him at the party but he is not testifying against Rob, saying he will take his chances inside.

Sometime later, Nikki Staines meets with Stone in a parking garage. She says she is only there because he swore he wouldn’t ask her to testify. He says he is not, and she asks what does he want? He explains it’s the same thing she wants – Rob Miller behind bars. She asks how the hell are they going to do that, and he explains they are going to break a couple rules.

Later, we see Nikki making a bank deposit with a lot of cash while Stone watches. Stone also watches as Fin arrests a guy for drugs. At SVU, Rollins and Carisi create a ruse to get their hands on Brooke’s cell phone. Stone watches as the man Fin arrested for drugs gains entry to a building past the doorman, carrying with him an envelope.

In Supreme Court Part 33 on Wednesday, May 15, Brooke testifies about partying with the old guys. Stone paints it as she was being taken advantage by rich, horny old men, to which the defense objects. Stone asks her if one of the men was Rob Miller but she is not sure. He asks her that it is just a coincidence they were are the BLT Steakhouse, and she says she was never there. Stone comments that is odd, saying her phone was. He shows GPS records and she sees her phone number. It was at that location on Tuesday May 13 between 1:17 PM at 2:34 PM, the same place as Rob Miller’s phone. He asks if Rob gave her money at that time and she denies even being there. Rob leaps up and says this is nonsense. The judge tells him to sit. She denies getting money from him. Stone shows her her bank statement and she says that is impossible. Stone has her tell the jury that on May 13 at 3:40PM there was a deposit of $9,500 but she’s never had that much cash and didn’t make that deposit. Stone says it looks like she was paid off by Rob, and when the defense objects the judge sustains it. Under cross by Rob’s attorney William Biegel, Brooke says she never met Rob and he never gave her any money.

Later, the doorman testifies Rob was never a member and he has no idea who he is. The man that he let in said he was waiting for a member – Rob Miller. Rob says he’s never even seen this guy, and the judge tells him that is two strikes. He doorman admits the video shows the man came in with a envelope and didn’t leave with one, 17 minutes after Rob arrived. Under cross, Mr. Burton admits he never saw Rob with the man with the envelope or take the envelope.

Fin is on the stand who identifies LaMar Jackson who is a con he arrested in 2014 for narcotics. Fin busted him for selling China White. Under cross, Fin admits he doesn’t know where LaMar is and when asked if he would be surprised if Stone asks him to take the stand, Fin says nothing surprises him anymore. The defense says that would surprise him as that would mean Stone is suborning perjury. Stone objects and the Biegel withdraws. Stone rests the people’s case. Biegel calls Nikki Staines. Stone looks concerned.

Biegel questions Nikki about May 13 in the afternoon and shows that Nikki was the one who made the deposit into Brooke’s account. Nikki admits that she was trying to frame Rob Miller. Stone is silent but clearly worried. Under cross, Stone gets Nikki to explain that she did it because Rob threatened her with compromising photos and she would lose custody of her daughter. She says Rob is evil and will do whatever it takes to get what he wants. He asks if she is still scared of him and she doesn’t know. Stone plays back a recording of Rob Miller and Chief Dodds where Rob said “No Nikki, no case”. He asks again if she is still scared and Nikki says he killed Lindsay Parker, didn’t he? Biegel objects and the judge tells the jury to disregard that statement. Stone says she was so scared she manufactured circumstantial evidence to trick the jury to convict him. Nikki admits yes, and says she has a daughter and he would be a threat to her for the rest of her life if she didn’t do anything. She shoots Rob a look. The jury looks disgusted.

In Supreme Court Part 33 on Thursday, May 16, the verdict is read: on the sole count of murder in the second degree, Robert Alan Miller is found guilty. Rob is stunned, and Lindsay’s parents are happy. Rob gets upset, and, yelling at Stone, calling him a son of a bitch, saying he set him up. The judge yells for order and Benson looks surprised. Rob glares back at her as they take him away in cuffs. Stone looks happy but Benson does not as she leaves the courtroom.

Outside the courthouse Stone approaches Benson. She says she doesn’t even know what to say, asking if it’s congratulations. She comments he won the case without a single piece of evidence. Stone says he proved Miller was a bad guy and the jury put him away for that alone. He adds that for once the arrow on the wheel of justice stopped at the right place. Benson counters it was with a little help. Stone comments everyone needs a little help. She says, “Even me.” Stone says she’s the one person who could make it on her own. She tells him to take it easy, they both know that’s not true. He says he does but that’s not what most people want to hear. She thanks him and he asks why, because he put his integrity and his career and everything he believes in jeopardy for a good friend? Benson replies, “Yes. Yes. And.I.Didn’t.Ask for this.” He knows she didn’t ask for this but he did it anyway. He was always going to do it. He hopes she finds someone like that again. When she asks what that means, he tells her to look at what he just did in there. He doesn’t regret any of it for a minute but he simply lost perspective. He states this is on him, admitting it is a weakness and a crack in his character. He adds the fact is, she became more important to him than the case he is trying and that is not him. He looks like he is tearing up as he put his hands on her shoulders and says she can look at a case with an open heart and he can’t do that. Benson tries to talk but he stops her, saying he has to look at a case through clear eyes. She tries to talk again but he tells her to stop and listen. He tells her he had to move on; he has to go or risk getting blinded again. She whispers for him to wait, but be removes his hands and tells her to take care of herself. They look at each other and finally he breaks her gaze and turns and walks away, leaving her there standing alone, staring ahead. She takes a few deep breaths, turns and walks away as we fade to black.

Cast:
Mariska Hargitay – Lieutenant Olivia Benson
Ice-T – Sergeant Odafin “Fin” Tutuola
Kelli Giddish – Detective Amanda Rollins
Peter Scanavino – Detective Dominick “Sonny” Carisi, Jr.
Philip Winchester – ADA Peter Stone

Guest stars:
Callie Thorne – Nikki Staines
Titus Welliver – Rob Miller
Richard Kind – William Biegel
Jazzy Kae – Brooke Davis
Nahanni Johnstone – Vanessa Parker
Alex Cranmer –
Aida Turturro – Judge Catano
Marilee Talkington – Golda Simon
Mike McGowan – Alex Kay
Sherin Shetty – M.E. Carrie Stover
Travis Mitchell – Sgt. Carl Matthews
Ryan Buggle Noah Porter Benson
Michael Scott – Frank Burton
Ryan Vincent Anderson – James
Bobby James Evers – Adam Rhodes
Silas Anthony – Kevin Shea
Annie Baltic – Lindsay Parker
Ger Payawal – Jury Foreperson
Jillian Rose – Attica Staines
Quincy Giles – Lamar Jackson

All Content (Recaps, Review, Commentary) Copyright © allthingslawandorder.blogspot.com unless otherwise noted

Check out my blog home page for the latest Law & Order information, on All Things Law And Order.

Also, see my companion Law & Order site,These Are Their Stories.

Charlie Staines the first player in 83 years to score six tries in his first two NRL games | Parkes Champion-Post

Charlie Staines became the first player in 83 years to score six tries in his first two NRL games as his wild ride continued in Penrith’s 42-12 flogging of Manly.

Staines scored two in 25 action-filled minutes at Lottoland on Saturday night before limping off with a hamstring injury.

Nathan Cleary also put on a masterclass, setting up two tries and scoring one of his own in the second half when he regathered his own grubber.

But while Penrith shot out of the blocks to a 22-0 lead after 30 minutes, it was an absolute horror show for Manly.

Dylan Walker suffered a new fracture in his foot, Brad Parker suffered a serious concussion and Curtis Sironen faces time out with a knee injury.

But still, Staines was the main story.

He became the first man since South Sydney’s Don Manson in 1937 to score six tries in his first two games, according to Fox Sports Stats.

Incredibly, his four-pointers have come in just 105 minutes – or one every 17 minutes of his first-grade career.

And perhaps the only people more relieved than Manly when he left the field was the Post Office Hotel in his home town of Forbes, who were again offering a free shout to their 40 patrons every time he scored.

“My tries, like my four tries the other week, they were off the back of good set plays,” Staines said.

“That was the case again tonight.

“On my way to the line with the second try, I felt a tweak in my hammy. I’ll get it looked at and hopefully be back in a couple of weeks.”

Charlie Staines has played his second game for the Penrith Panthers NRL side.

The performance was one of the best of ladder-leaders Penrith’s season, completing at 91 per cent playing expansive football.

Parkes’ Billy Burns was absent from the weekend’s match, after almost weekly appearances for the Panthers this 2020 season.

Staines opened the scoring when he got the ball down in a tight space on the right edge in the 10th minute, then Cleary gifted him with a perfect lofted ball for his second.

The Penrith halfback was in everything against his likely Queensland State of Origin opposite number.

He kicked a 40-20 before another try, before one of his grubbers rebounded into Penrith hands and Viliame Kikau put on an offload for Stephen Crichton to score.

“That would have been in the back of his mind (playing against Daly Cherry-Evans),” coach Ivan Cleary said of his son.

“Everyone wants to do well against their opponent and someone he has looked up to. His kicking game was really good tonight, he stuck solid to the plan all night.”

Cherry-Evans, meanwhile, was clearly Manly’s best.

He put Jake Trbojevic over with an inside ball for their only first-half try and kicked for Jorge Taufua for one in the second.

He also somehow held up Kikau to save one and stopped another when he chased down Naden after running 80 metres from a Lachlan Croker intercept.

ALSO MAKING SPORTING NEWS:

What time does the NRL final start? start time, Penrith Panthers vs South Sydney Rabbitohs, kick off, how to watch, scores, results, video, highlights

The NRL final is upon us.

Here is everything you need know so you can enjoy the big dance between the Penrith Panthers and South Sydney Rabbitohs.

Watch Fox Leagues’s massive line-up of Grand Final week coverage on Kayo including live pre-game, half-time and post-game coverage with full analysis from the best team in the business. New to Kayo? Start your free trial >