Does playing action video games improve performance on tests of cognitive ability? A recent meta-analysis ( Bediou et al., 2018a ) summarized the available evidence and concluded that it can. Their analysis, however, did not adequately correct for publication bias. We re-analyzed the same set of studies with more appropriate adjustments for publication bias and found minimal evidence for transfer of training to cognitive ability measures. Instead, it is possible that there are little or no benefits, just publication bias — the exclusion of non-significant results from the published literature. That bias may be the cause of a lab effect reported in the original meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed that studies from the Bavelier lab (the senior author of the meta-analysis) reported larger effects than other labs. We show that many of these original studies distributed different outcomes from the same or highly overlapping sets of participants across publications without noting the overlap. This salami-slicing might contribute to the extent of publication bias in the literature. More compelling, independent, and transparent evidence is needed before concluding that action video game training transfers to performance on other cognitive tasks.

When you lack the facts, how do you decide what is true and what is not? In the absence of knowledge, we sometimes rely on non-probative information. For example, participants judge concretely worded trivia items as more likely to be true than abstractly worded ones (the linguistic truth effect ; Hansen & Wänke, 2010 ). If minor language differences affect truth judgements, ultimately they could influence more consequential political, legal, health, and interpersonal choices. This Registered Report includes two high-powered replication attempts of Experiment 1 from Hansen and Wänke ( 2010 ). Experiment 1a was a dual-site, in-person replication of the linguistic concreteness effect in the original paper-and-pencil format ( n = 253, n = 246 in analyses). Experiment 1b replicated the study with an online sample ( n = 237, n = 220 in analyses). In Experiment 1a, the effect of concreteness on judgements of truth (Cohen’s d z = 0.08; 95% CI: [–0.03, 0.18]) was smaller than that of the original study. Similarly, in Experiment 1b the effect (Cohen’s d z = 0.11; 95% CI [–0.01, 0.22]) was smaller than that of the original study. Collectively, the pattern of results is inconsistent with that of the original study.

When we selectively attend to one set of objects and ignore another, we often fail to notice unexpected events. The likelihood of noticing varies depending on the similarity of an unexpected object to other items in the display, a process thought to be controlled by the attention set that we create for the attended and ignored objects. It remains unclear, though, how attention sets are formed and structured. Do they enhance features of attended objects (“white”) and suppress features of ignored objects (“black”), or do they distinguish objects based on relations or categories (“darker” versus “lighter,” or “dark objects” versus “light objects”)? In previous work, these explanations are confounded; the objects would be partitioned into the same groups regardless the structure of the attention set. In the present three experiments, the attended or ignored set of objects was a constant color while the other set was variable. When people attended white and ignored a multicolored set of objects (Experiment 1), novel colors were suppressed just as much as display colors, suggesting nonselective filtering of nonwhite objects. When the color of one set of objects varied across displays but was constant within them (Experiments 2 and 3), we again found as much suppression for task-irrelevant and novel colors as for actively ignored ones. Whenever people ignored a set of objects that varied in color, they suppressed unexpected objects that matched the ignored colors and that differed from the actively ignored items on the critical trial. In contrast, when people attended a varying set, noticing was enhanced only for unexpected objects that matched the currently attended color. In this task, attentional filtering is category-based and did not depend on the features of the individual objects.

Few studies have used online data collection to study cognitive aging. We used a large ( N = 515) online sample to replicate the findings that inattentional blindness increases with age and with the distance of the unexpected object from the focus of attention. Critically, we assessed whether distance moderates the relationship between age and noticing. We replicated both age and distance effects, but found no age by distance interaction. These findings disconfirm a plausible explanation for age differences in noticing (restricted field of view), while for the first time highlighting the advantages and disadvantages of using Mechanical Turk for the study of cognitive aging.