# Benefits of Playing at School: Filler Board Games Improve Visuospatial Memory and Mathematical Skills

^{1}

^{2}

^{3}

^{4}

^{5}

^{*}

^{†}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

## 2. Materials and Methods

#### 2.1. Participants

_{Verbal STM(hits)}= 2784.00, p = 0.010, r = 0.27). Finally, participants who were allocated into intervention or control groups had higher mathematical skills than those children who were not included in the analysis (U

_{Number Operations}= 2966.00, p < 0.001, r = 0.37; U

_{Number Ranking}= 3813.00, p = 0.002, r = 0.29; U

_{Number Production}= 3067.00, p < 0.001, r = 0.34; U

_{Problem Solving}= 3016.50, p < 0.001, r = 0.36).

#### 2.2. Measures

#### 2.2.1. Covariate Measures

#### 2.2.2. Memory Outcome Measures

#### 2.2.3. Mathematical Outcome Measures

#### 2.3. Procedure

#### 2.4. Intervention

#### 2.5. Statistical Analysis

^{2}) and Cramer’s V were calculated as effect size measures [69], respectively. Secondly, changes before and after the intervention were tested between experimental and control conditions. A mixed-model analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to calculate time by group interaction effects for each dependent variable. Group (Math GTG, Memory GTG and CG) was a fixed factor and time was a repeated measures factor (pre and post). We included subjects as random effects. The centred covariates included in the model were age, SES index, fluid intelligence (RPMT score) and math anxiety (AMAS score). Post-hoc pairwise comparisons adjusted with Bonferroni correction were calculated to identify differences between groups. We calculated simple main effects and compared the magnitude of the effects using Cohen’s d. We followed the formula of Brysbaert & Stevens [70] to calculate Cohen’s d. We interpreted Cohen’s d as follows [69]: d < 0.20 = trivial; 0.20 ≤ d < 0.50 = small; 0.50 ≤ d < 0.80 = medium; and d ≥ 0.80 = large. We calculated Cohen’s d between the Math GTG and the CG and between the Math GTG and the Memory GTG.

## 3. Results

#### 3.1. Compliance with the Intervention Program

#### 3.2. Descriptive and Baseline Comparisons

#### 3.2.1. Grade 3

^{2}(2) = 11.11, p = 0.004, ε

^{2}= 0.09). Participants from the Math GTG had higher math anxiety than the Memory GTG (W = −3.87, p = 0.017) and CG (W = 3.57, p = 0.031). Although we found a significant result for age (χ

^{2}(2) = 7.13, p = 0.028, ε

^{2}= 0.06), we did not find any significant difference in pairwise comparisons. In addition, we found significant differences in number operations skills (χ

^{2}(2) = 17.77, p < 0.001, ε

^{2}= 0.15), number ranking skills (χ

^{2}(2) = 30.17, p ≤ 0.001, ε

^{2}= 0.25) and problem-solving skills (χ

^{2}(2) = 19.52, p ≤ 0.001, ε

^{2}= 0.16). Participants from the Math GTG had lower scores than the CG in these measures (W

_{Number Operations}= −5.80, p ≤ 0.001; W

_{Number Ranking}= −7.60, p < 0.001; W

_{Problem Solving}= −5.98, p < 0.001). Finally, participants from the Memory GTG had higher scores than the Math GTG in number ranking (W = 3.75, p = 0.022) and lower scores than the CG in number operations (W = −3.32, p = 0.049) and problem solving (W = −4.56, p = 0.004).

#### 3.2.2. Grade 4

^{2}(2) = 8.92, p = 0.012, ε

^{2}= 0.08). Participants from the Math GTG and from the Memory GTG had a lower SES index than the CG (W

_{Math GTG}= −3.42, p = 0.042; W

_{Memory GTG}= −3.44, p = 0.040). In addition, we found significant differences in verbal WM (χ

^{2}(2) = 9.47, p = 0.009, ε

^{2}= 0.09), in visuospatial STM (χ

^{2}(2) = 7.47, p = 0.024, ε

^{2}= 0.07) and in visuospatial WM (χ

^{2}(2) = 11.25, p = 0.004, ε

^{2}= 0.10). Participants from the Memory GTG had lower scores than the CG in visuospatial STM (W = −3.71, p = 0.024). Participants from the Math GTG and from the Memory GTG had lower scores than the CG in verbal WM (W

_{Math GTG}= −3.70, p = 0.024; W

_{Memory GTG}= −3.74, p = 0.022) and visuospatial WM (W

_{Math GTG}= −3.40, p = 0.043; W

_{Memory GTG}= −4.47, p = 0.004). Finally, we found significant differences in number operations skills (χ

^{2}(2) = 11.44, p = 0.003, ε

^{2}= 0.10). Participants from the Memory GTG had lower scores than the CG in this measure (W = −4.75, p = 0.002).

#### 3.3. Intervention Effects in Grade 3

#### 3.3.1. Memory Outcomes

_{Visuospatial STM(span)}(1,116) = 4.66, p = 0.033, d = 0.25 to F

_{Visuospatial WM}(1,117) = 13.72, p ≤ 0.001, d = 0.39; see all the results in Table 2). Significant main interactions were found between groups and times in visuospatial STM (F

_{Hits}(2,116) = 3.32, p = 0.040; F

_{Span}(2,116) = 5.19, p = 0.007) and visuospatial WM updating (F (2,116) = 3.55, p = 0.032) (see Table 2). For the visuospatial STM and WM updating, simple main effects showed that scores in the Math GTG were significantly higher after the intervention (F

_{Visuospatial STM (hits)}(1,117) = 17.36, p ≤ 0.001; F

_{Visuospatial STM (span)}(1,117) = 21.89, p ≤ 0.001; F

_{Visuospatial WM}(1,117) = 32.61, p ≤ 0.001). The simple main effect showed that scores in the Memory GTG were nearly significant after the intervention in WM updating (F

_{Visuospatial WM}(1,116) = 3.77, p = 0.055), but were not significant in visuospatial STM (F

_{Visuospatial STM (hits)}(1,117) = 1.60, p = 0.208; F

_{Visuospatial STM (span)}(1,115) = 0.69, p = 0.408). Regarding the CG, the simple main effect showed that scores in this group did not change after the intervention (F

_{Visuospatial STM (hits)}(1,116) = 0.20, p = 0.653; F

_{Visuospatial STM (span)}(1,115) = 0.69, p = 0.406; F

_{Visuospatial WM}(1,116) = 0.16, p = 0.690). The change in the Memory GTG in comparison to the CG showed small effect sizes in visuospatial STM (hits: d = 0.41; span: d = 0.42) and visuospatial WM updating (d = 0.37). However, the change in the Math GTG in comparison to the CG showed significant medium–large effect sizes in visuospatial STM (hits: d = 0.61; span: d = 0.85) and visuospatial WM updating (d = 0.58) (see Figure 3A–C).

#### 3.3.2. Math Skills

_{Problem Solving}(1,121) = 8.08, p = 0.005, d = 0.38 to F

_{Number Operation}(1,116) = 61.68, p < 0.001, d = 0.83; see all of the results in Table 2). In addition, we found significant group differences in number ranking (F (2,117) = 7.13, p = 0.001) and problem solving (F (2,117) = 7.36, p ≤ 0.001). The CG had higher global scores than the Math GTG in number ranking skills (t (109) = 3.67, p = 0.001) and problem-solving skills (t (110) = 3.30, p = 0.004). The CG had higher global scores than the Memory GTG in problem-solving skills (t (127) = 3.33, p = 0.003), but not in number ranking skills (t (127) = 1.03, p = 0.914). Moreover, significant interactions were found between groups and times in number operation skills (F (2,113) = 3.73, p = 0.027) and number ranking skills (F (2,117) = 6.22, p = 0.003) (see Table 2). Simple main effects showed that scores in number operations were significantly higher after the intervention in the three groups (F

_{Math GTG}(1,108) = 124.59 p ≤ 0.001; F

_{Memory GTG}(1,122) = 8.08, p = 0.005; F

_{CG}(1,107) = 15.47, p ≤ 0.001). Simple main effects showed that scores in number ranking skills were significantly higher after the intervention in the three groups (F

_{Math GTG}(1,108) = 114.34, p ≤ 0.001; F

_{Memory GTG}(1,132) = 7.35, p = 0.008; F

_{CG}(1,106) = 6.74, p = 0.011). The change in the Memory GTG in comparison to the CG showed trivial and small effect sizes in number operations skills (d = 0.07) and number ranking skills (d = 0.32), respectively. However, the change in the Math GTG in comparison to the CG showed medium and large effect sizes in number operations skills (d = 0.48) and number ranking skills (d = 0.91), respectively (see Figure 3D,E).

#### 3.4. Intervention Effects in Grade 4

#### 3.4.1. Memory Outcomes

_{Visuospatial STM(span)}(1,109) = 3.96, p = 0.049, d = 0.26 to F

_{Visuospatial WM}(1,109) = 33.65, p ≤ 0.001, d = 0.68; see all of the results in Table 1 and Table 2). In addition, we found significant group differences in visuospatial STM (F

_{Hits}(2,106) = 4.90, p = 0.009; F

_{Span}(2,106) = 3.55, p = 0.032) and in visuospatial WM updating (F (2,106) = 5.10, p = 0.008). The CG had higher global scores than the Memory GTG in visuospatial STM (hits) (t (106) = 3.12, p = 0.007). The CG had higher global scores than the Math GTG (t (106) = 2.66, p = 0.027) and Memory GTG (t (106) = 2.89, p = 0.014) in visuospatial WM updating. Although we found main group differences in visuospatial STM span, we only found nearly significant post hoc comparisons (comparison between the CG and Math GTG: t (106) = 2.34, p = 0.063; comparison between the CG and Memory GTG: t (106) = 2.30, p = 0.070). Considering simple main effects, all of the participants improved in visuospatial WM updating (F

_{Math GTG}(1,109) = 9.01, p = 0.003; F

_{Memory GTG}(1,109) = 31.84, p ≤ 0.001; F

_{CG}(1,109) = 7.13, p = 0.009). Participants from the Math and Memory GTGs improved verbal WM updating (F

_{Math GTG}(1,108) = 4.77, p = 0.031; F

_{Memory GTG}(1,108) = 9.20, p = 0.003; F

_{CG}(1,108) = 0.08, p = 0.605) and only the Memory GTG improved visuospatial STM (hits) (F

_{Math GTG}(1,109) = 0.28, p = 0.779; F

_{Memory GTG}(1,109) = 8.05, p = 0.005; F

_{CG}(1,109) = 1.78, p = 0.185). However, no significant interactions were found (see Table 1 and Table 2).

#### 3.4.2. Math Skills

_{Problem Solving}(1,97) = 27.40, p ≤ 0.001, d = 0.49 to F

_{Number Production}(1,100) = 60.92, p < 0.001, d = 0.72; see all of the results in Table 1 and Table 2). In addition, we found significant group differences in number operations (F (2,100) = 9.33, p ≤ 0.001) and number production (F (2,106) = 3.48, p = 0.034). The CG had higher global scores than the Memory GTG in number operation skills (t (105) = 4.27, p ≤ 0.001) and nearly significant differences in number production skills (t (105) = 2.43, p = 0.050). Significant interactions were found between groups and times in number production skills (F (2,101) = 8.00, p < 0.001) and problem-solving skills (F (2,98) = 3.25, p = 0.043) (see Table 1 and Table 2). Simple main effects showed that scores in number production were significantly higher after the intervention in the three groups (F

_{Math GTG}(1,99) = 10.89, p = 0.001; F

_{Memory GTG}(1,104) = 10.95, p = 0.001; F

_{CG}(1,100) = 53.73, p ≤ 0.001). The change in the Math GTG (d = −0.46) and the Memory GTG (d = −0.76) in comparison to the CG showed a small and medium effect size in number production skills (see Figure 3F), respectively. Simple main effects showed that scores in problem solving were significantly higher after the intervention in both the Memory GTG (F (1,102) = 47.53, p ≤ 0.001) and CG (F (1,97) = 5.57, p = 0.020), but not in the Math GTG (F (1,96) = 2.50, p = 0.117). The change in the Math GTG in comparison to the CG did not show any effect size in problem-solving skills (d = −0.04). However, the change in the Memory GTG in comparison to the CG showed a small effect size in problem-solving skills (d = 0.41) (see Figure 3G).

#### 3.5. Educative and Memory Profile of the Games

## 4. Discussion

#### Generalizability and Limitations of the Study

## 5. Conclusions

## Supplementary Materials

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Institutional Review Board Statement

## Informed Consent Statement

## Data Availability Statement

## Acknowledgments

## Conflicts of Interest

## References

- Titz, C.; Karbach, J. Working memory and executive functions: Effects of training on academic achievement. Psychol. Res.
**2014**, 78, 852–868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Baddeley, A. Working memory. Science
**2010**, 20, 136–140. [Google Scholar] - Alloway, T.P.; Gathercole, S.E.; Pickering, S.J. Verbal and Visuospatial Short-Term and Working Memory in Children: Are They Separable? Child Dev.
**2006**, 77, 1698–1716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Baddeley, A. Working Memory: Theories, Models, and Controversies. Annu. Rev. Psychol.
**2012**, 63, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Baddeley, A. Working memory: Looking back and looking forward. Nat. Rev. Neurosci.
**2003**, 4, 829–839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Miyake, A.; Friedman, N.P.; Emerson, M.J.; Witzki, A.H.; Howerter, A.; Wager, T.D. The Unity and Diversity of Executive Functions and Their Contributions to Complex ‘Frontal Lobe’ Tasks: A Latent Variable Analysis. Cogn. Psychol.
**2000**, 41, 49–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Henry, L. The Working Memory Model. In The Development of Working Memory in Children; Henry, L., Ed.; City University London: London, UK; Sage Pub: Washington, DC, USA, 2011; pp. 1–36. [Google Scholar]
- Clair-Thompson, H.L.S.; Gathercole, S.E. Executive functions and achievements in school: Shifting, updating, inhibition, and working memory. Q. J. Exp. Psychol.
**2006**, 59, 745–759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Den Bos, I.F.-V.; Van Der Ven, S.H.G.; Kroesbergen, E.H.; Van Luit, J.E.H. Working memory and mathematics in primary school children: A meta-analysis. Educ. Res. Rev.
**2013**, 10, 29–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Bull, R.; Espy, K.A.; Wiebe, S.A. Wiebe Short-term memory, working memory, and executive functioning in preschoolers: Longitudinal predictors of mathematical achievement at age 7 years. Dev. Neuropsychol.
**2008**, 33, 205–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Bahar-Fuchs, A.; Clare, L.; Woods, B. Cognitive training and cognitive rehabilitation for persons with mild to moderate dementia of the Alzheimer’s or vascular type: A review. Alzheimers. Res. Ther.
**2013**, 5, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Tajik-Parvinchi, D.; Wright, L.; Schachar, R. Cognitive Rehabilitation for Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD): Promises and Problems. J. Can. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry
**2014**, 23, 207–217. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] - Sala, G.; Gobet, F. Does Far Transfer Exist? Negative Evidence from Chess, Music, and Working Memory Training. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci.
**2017**, 26, 515–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Astle, D.E.; Barnes, J.J.; Baker, K.; Colclough, G.L.; Woolrich, M.W. Cognitive Training Enhances Intrinsic Brain Connectivity in Childhood. J. Neurosci.
**2015**, 35, 6277–6283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Rapport, M.D.; Orban, S.A.; Kofler, M.J.; Friedman, L.M. Do programs designed to train working memory, other executive functions, and attention benefit children with ADHD? A meta-analytic review of cognitive, academic, and behavioral outcomes. Clin. Psychol. Rev.
**2013**, 33, 1237–1252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Tamm, L.; Epstein, J.N.; Peugh, J.L.; Nakonezny, P.A.; Hughes, C.W. Preliminary data suggesting the efficacy of attention training for school-aged children with ADHD. Dev. Cogn. Neurosci.
**2013**, 4, 16–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Sala, G.; Gobet, F. Working memory training in typically developing children: A meta-analysis of the available evidence. Dev. Psychol.
**2017**, 53, 671–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Schwaighofer, M.; Fischer, F.; Bühner, M.; Schwaighofer, M.; Fischer, F.; Markus, B. Does Working Memory Training Transfer? A Meta- Analysis Including Training Conditions as Moderators Does Working Memory Training Transfer? A Meta-Analysis Including Training Conditions as Moderators. Educ. Psychol.
**2015**, 50, 138–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Melby-Lervåg, M.; Hulme, C. Is working memory training effective? A meta-analytic review. Dev. Psychol.
**2013**, 49, 270–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Sanchez-Perez, N.; Castillo, A.; Lopez-Lopez, J.A.; Pina, V.; Puga, J.L.; Campoy, G.; Gonzalez-Salinas, C.; Fuentes, L.J. Computer-Based Training in Math and Working Memory Improves Cognitive Skills and Academic Achievement in Primary School Children: Behavioral Results. Front. Psychol.
**2018**, 8, 2327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ramani, G.B.; Jaeggi, S.M.; Daubert, E.N.; Buschkuehl, M. Domain-Specific and Domain-General Training to Improve Kindergarten Children’s Mathematics. J. Numer. Cogn.
**2017**, 3, 468–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kuhn, J.-T.; Holling, H. Number sense or working memory? The effect of two computer-based trainings on mathematical skills in elementary school. Adv. Cogn. Psychol.
**2014**, 10, 59–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Clements, D.H.; Sarama, J.; Germeroth, C. Learning executive function and early mathematics: Directions of causal relations. Early Child. Res. Q.
**2016**, 36, 79–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ninaus, M.; Pereira, G.; Stefitz, R.; Prada, R.; Paiva, A.; Neuper, C.; Wood, G. Game elements improve performance in a working memory training task. Int. J. Serious Games
**2015**, 2, 3–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Prins, P.J.M.; Dovis, S.; Ponsioen, A.; Brink, E.T.; van der Oord, S. Does Computerized Working Memory Training with Game Elements Enhance Motivation and Training Efficacy in Children with ADHD? Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw.
**2011**, 14, 115–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Iizuka, A.; Suzuki, H.; Ogawa, S.; Kobayashi-Cuya, K.E.; Kobayashi, M.; Inagaki, H.; Sugiyama, M.; Awata, S.; Takebayashi, T.; Fujiwara, Y. Does social interaction influence the effect of cognitive intervention program? A randomized controlled trial using Go game. Int. J. Geriatr. Psychiatry
**2019**, 34, 324–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Gauthier, A.; Kato, P.M.; Bul, K.C.M.; Dunwell, I.; Walker-Clarke, A.; Lameras, P. Board Games for Health: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis. Games Health J.
**2019**, 8, 85–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Gobet, F.; Retschitzki, J.; de Voogt, A. Introduction. In Moves in Mind: The Psychology of Board Games; Gobet, F., Retschitzki, J., de Voogt, A., Eds.; Psychology Press: London, UK, 2004; pp. 1–10. [Google Scholar]
- Sousa, M.; Bernardo, E. Back in the Game. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference Videogame Sciences and Arts, Aveiro, Portugal, 27–29 November 2019; Zagalo, N., Veloso, A.I., Costa, L., Mealha, Ó., Eds.; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 72–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bartolucci, M.; Mattioli, F.; Batini, F. Do board games make people smarter? Two initial exploratory studies. Int. J. Game-Based Learn.
**2019**, 9, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Jirout, J.J.; Newcombe, N.S. Building Blocks for Developing Spatial Skills: Evidence from a Large, Representative U.S. Sample. Psychol. Sci.
**2015**, 26, 302–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Newman, S.D.; Hansen, M.T.; Gutierrez, A. An fMRI Study of the Impact of Block Building and Board Games on Spatial Ability. Front. Psychol.
**2016**, 7, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Nath, S.; Szücs, D. Construction play and cognitive skills associated with the development of mathematical abilities in 7-year-old children. Learn. Instr.
**2014**, 32, 73–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Benzing, V.; Schmidt, M.; Jäger, K.; Egger, F.; Conzelmann, A.; Roebers, C.M. A classroom intervention to improve executive functions in late primary school children: Too ‘old’ for improvements? Br. J. Educ. Psychol
**2019**, 89, 225–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Estrada-Plana, V.; Esquerda, M.; Mangues, R.; March-Llanes, J.; Moya-Higueras, J. A Pilot Study of the Efficacy of a Cognitive Training Based on Board Games in Children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Games Health J.
**2019**, 8, 265–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Vita-Barrull, N.; Estrada-Plana, V.; March-Llanes, J.; Sotoca-Orgaz, P.; Guzmán, N.; Ayesa, R.; Moya-Higueras, J. Do you play in class? Board games to promote cognitive and educational development in primary school: A cluster randomized controlled trial. Learn. Instr.
**2024**, 93, 101946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kaufman, D.; Kaufman, P. Strategy Training and Remedial Techniques. J. Learn. Disabil.
**1975**, 12, 416–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kermani, F.K.; Mohammadi, M.R.; Yadegari, F.; Haresabadi, F.; Sadeghi, S.M. Working memory training in the form of structured games in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Iran. J. Psychiatry
**2016**, 11, 224–233. [Google Scholar] - Kim, S.H.; Han, D.H.; Lee, Y.S.; Kim, B.N.; Cheong, J.H.; Han, S.H. Baduk (the game of go) improved cognitive function and brain activity in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Psychiatry Investig.
**2014**, 11, 143–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ramani, G.B.; Siegler, R.S.; Hitti, A. Taking it to the classroom: Number board games as a small group learning activity. J. Educ. Psychol.
**2012**, 104, 661–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ramani, G.B.; Siegler, R.S. Reducing the gap in numerical knowledge between low- and middle-income preschoolers. J. Appl. Dev. Psychol.
**2011**, 32, 146–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Siegler, R.S.; Ramani, G.B. Playing linear numerical board games promotes low-income children’s numerical development. Dev. Sci.
**2008**, 11, 655–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Siegler, R.S.; Ramani, G.B. Playing linear number board games—But not circular ones—Improves low-income preschoolers’ numerical understanding. J. Educ. Psychol.
**2009**, 101, 545–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Scalise, N.R.; Daubert, E.N.; Ramani, G.B. Benefits of Playing Numerical Card Games on Head Start Children’s Mathematical Skills. J. Exp. Educ.
**2020**, 88, 200–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Passolunghi, M.C.; Costa, H.M. Working memory and early numeracy training in preschool children. Child Neuropsychol.
**2016**, 22, 81–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Reeves, B.C.; Gaus, W. Guidelines for Reporting Non-Randomised Studies. Forsch Komplementärmed Kl. Naturheilkd
**2004**, 11, 46–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hackman, D.A.; Gallop, R.; Evans, G.W.; Farah, M.J. Socioeconomic status and executive function: Developmental trajectories and mediation. Dev. Sci.
**2015**, 18, 686–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Dehn, M.J. How working memory enables fluid reasoning. Appl. Neuropsychol. Child
**2017**, 6, 245–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Green, C.T.; Bunge, S.A.; Chiongbian, V.B.; Barrow, M.; Ferrer, E. Fluid reasoning predicts future mathematical performance among children and adolescents. J. Exp. Child Psychol.
**2017**, 157, 125–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Luttenberger, S.; Wimmer, S.; Paechter, M. Spotlight on math anxiety. Psychol. Res. Behav. Manag.
**2018**, 11, 311–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hollingshead, A.B. Four Factor Index of Social Status; Yale University: New Haven, CT, USA, 1975. [Google Scholar]
- Raven, J.C.; Court, J.H.; Raven, J. Manual Matrices Progresivas de Raven, 3rd ed.; TEA Ediciones: Madrid, Spain, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Tejedor, B.; Santos, M.A.; García-Orza, J.; Carratalà, P.; Navas, M. Variables involved in math anxiety: A study in a sixth grade sample. Anu. Psicol.
**2009**, 40, 345–355. [Google Scholar] - Wechsler, D. Escala de Inteligencia de Wechsler para Niños-IV (WISC-IV); TEA Ediciones: Madrid, Spain, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Andersson, U.; Lyxell, B. Working memory deficit in children with mathematical difficulties: A general or specific deficit? J. Exp. Child Psychol.
**2007**, 96, 197–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Tamnes, C.K.; Østby, Y.; Walhovd, K.B.; Westlye, L.T.; Due-Tønnessen, P.; Fjell, A.M. Neuroanatomical correlates of executive functions in children and adolescents: A magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) study of cortical thickness. Neuropsychologia
**2010**, 48, 2496–2508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Alloway, T.P.; Passolunghi, M.C. The relationship between working memory, IQ, and mathematical skills in children. Learn. Individ. Differ.
**2011**, 21, 133–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Knizia, R. Alles Kanone! Zoch Zum Spielen: Fürth, Germany, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Knizia, R. Alles Tomate! Zoch Zum Spielen: Fürth, Germany, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Schannen, M. Spooky Stairs; Iberia Devir: Barcelona, Spain, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Nedergaard-Andersen, M. Out of Mine! Huch! & Friends: Günzburg, Germany, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Zoch, K. Chicken Cha Cha Cha; Devir Iberia: Barcelona, Spain, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Hiron, M. 7 Ate 9; 999 Games: Almere, The Netherlands, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Lennett, T. Numenko in a Bag; TSL Enterprises Ltd.: Jasper, TX, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Pnueli, A. Pig 10; Zoch Zum Spielen: Fürth, Germany, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Shut the Box; Gollnest & Kiesel: Güster, Germany, 1999.
- Becker, K.; Schliemann, J.-P. Auf Zack! Drei Hasen in der Abendsonne: Uehlfeld, Germany, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- The Jamovi Project. Jamovi (Version 1.6.15) [Computer Program]. 2021. Available online: https://www.jamovi.org (accessed on 1 April 2021).
- Ellis, P.D. The Essential Guide to Effect Sizes: Statistical Power, Meta-Analysis and the Interpretation of Research Results; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Brysbaert, M.; Stevens, M. Power Analysis and Effect Size in Mixed Effects Models: A Tutorial. J. Cogn.
**2018**, 1, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Vita-Barrull, N.; March-Llanes, J.; Guzmán, N.; Estrada-Plana, V.; Mayoral, M.; Moya-Higueras, J.; Garrido, A.; Domínguez, G.; Cabezas, I.; González, J.; et al. The Cognitive Processes Behind Commercialized Board Games for Intervening in Mental Health and Education: A Committee of Experts. Games Health J.
**2022**, 11, 414–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Moya-Higueras, J.; Solé-Puiggené, M.; Vita-Barrull, N.; Estrada-Plana, V.; Guzmán, N.; Arias, S.; Garcia, X.; Ayesa-Arriola, R.; March-Llanes, J. Just Play Cognitive Modern Board and Card Games, It’s Going to Be Good for Your Executive Functions: A Randomized Controlled Trial with Children at Risk of Social Exclusion. Children
**2023**, 10, 1492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ready, D.D. Socioeconomic disadvantage, school attendance, and early cognitive development: The differential effects of school exposure. Sociol. Educ.
**2010**, 83, 271–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Garon-Carrier, G.; Boivin, M.; Lemelin, J.-P.; Kovas, Y.; Parent, S.; Séguin, J.R.; Vitaro, F.; Tremblay, R.E.; Dionne, G. Early developmental trajectories of number knowledge and math achievement from 4 to 10 years: Low-persistent profile and early-life predictors. J. Sch. Psychol.
**2018**, 68, 84–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Hattie, J.A.C. The nature of the evidence: A synthesis of meta-analysis. In Visible Learning: A Synthesis of over 800 Meta-Analysis Relating to Achievement; Hattie, J., Ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Klingberg, T.; Forssberg, H.; Westerberg, H. Increased Brain Activity in Frontal and Parietal Cortex Underlies the Development of Visuospatial Working Memory Capacity during Childhood. J. Cogn. Neurosci.
**2002**, 14, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Ashkenazi, S.; Black, J.M.; Abrams, D.A.; Hoeft, F.; Menon, V. Neurobiological underpinnings of math and reading learning disabilities. J. Learn. Disabil.
**2013**, 46, 549–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Johann, V.E.; Karbach, J. Education Application of Cognitive Training. In Cognitive Training: An Overview of Features and Applications, 2nd ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2020; pp. 334–347. [Google Scholar]
- Lyons, I.M.; Beilock, S.L. Numerical ordering ability mediates the relation between number-sense and arithmetic competence. Cognition
**2011**, 121, 256–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Peng, P.; Namkung, J.; Barnes, M.; Congying, S. A Meta-Analysis of Mathematics and Working Memory: Moderating Effects of Working Memory Domain, Type of Mathematics Skill, and Sample Characteristics. J. Educ. Psychol.
**2016**, 108, 455–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Zheng, X.; Swanson, H.L.; Marcoulides, G.A. Working memory components as predictors of children’s mathematical word problem solving. J. Exp. Child Psychol.
**2011**, 110, 481–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Vita-Barrull, N.; Estrada-Plana, V.; March-Llanes, J.; Guzmán, N.; Fernández-Muñoz, C.; Ayesa, R.; Moya-Higueras, J. Board game-based intervention to improve executive functions and academic skills in rural schools: A randomized controlled trial. Trends Neurosci. Educ.
**2023**, 33, 100216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Raghubar, K.P.; Barnes, M.A.; Hecht, S.A. Working memory and mathematics: A review of developmental, individual difference, and cognitive approaches. Learn. Individ. Differ.
**2010**, 20, 110–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - McKenzie, B.; Bull, R.; Gray, C. The effects of phonological and visual-spatial interference on children’s arithmetical performance. Educ. Child Psychol.
**2003**, 20, 93–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - de Souza-Salvador, L.; Moura, R.; Wood, G.; Haase, V.G. Cognitive heterogeneity of math difficulties: A bottom-up classification approach. J. Numer. Cogn.
**2019**, 5, 55–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Holmes, J.; Gathercole, S.E.; Place, M.; Dunning, D.L.; Hilton, K.A.; Elliott, J.G. Working memory deficits can be overcome: Impacts of training and medication on working memory in children with ADHD. Appl. Cogn. Psychol.
**2010**, 24, 827–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kirk, H.; Gray, K.; Ellis, K.; Taffe, J.; Cornish, K. Impact of Attention Training on Academic Achievement, Executive Functioning, and Behavior: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Am. J. Intellect. Dev. Disabil.
**2017**, 122, 97–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Diamond, A.; Lee, K. Interventions Shown to Aid Executive Function Development in Children 4 to 12 Years Old. Science
**2011**, 333, 959–964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Cheema, J.R.; Sheridan, K. Time spent on homework, mathematics anxiety and mathematics achievement: Evidence from a US sample. Issues Educ. Res.
**2015**, 25, 246–259. [Google Scholar]

**Figure 2.**Timeline with the time ranges of the assessments and the interventions. Note. AMAS = Anxiety Math Abbreviated Scale; CG = control group; KTT = Keep Track Task; RPMT = Raven Progressive Matrices Test; SES = social status; GTG = game training group; VS = Visuospatial.

**Figure 3.**Plots from interaction results divided into memory and mathematical measures. Note. (

**A**) Visuospatial STM (hits) in third grade; (

**B**) visuospatial STM (span) in third grade; (

**C**) visuospatial WM in third grade; (

**D**) number operation skills in third grade; (

**E**) number ranking skills in third grade; (

**F**) number production skills in fourth grade; and (

**G**) = problem-solving skills in fourth grade. * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001.

Grade 3 | Grade 4 | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Math GTG (n = 75) ^{c} | Memory GTG (n = 18) | CG (n = 28) | ${\mathit{\chi}}^{2}$ (p Value) | ε^{2}/V | Math GTG (n = 17) ^{c} | Memory GTG (n = 66) | CG (n = 30) | ${\mathit{\chi}}^{2}$ (p Value) | ε^{2}/V | |

Demographical characteristics | Demographical characteristics | |||||||||

Age (in years) M ± SD | 8.31 ± 0.38 | 8.47 ± 0.36 | 8.46 ± 0.28 | 7.13 * (0.028) | 0.06 | 9.42 ± 0.26 | 9.39 ± 0.40 | 9.39 ± 0.32 | 0.79 (0.673) | 0.01 |

Sex ^{a} | 4.66 (0.097) | 0.20 | 1.64 (0.441) | 0.12 | ||||||

Boys, n (%) | 46 (62%) | 14 (78%) | 13 (46%) | 6 (35%) | 34 (52%) | 13 (43%) | ||||

Girls, n (%) | 28 (38%) | 4 (22%) | 15 (54%) | 11 (65%) | 32 (48%) | 17 (57%) | ||||

SES Index, M ± SD | 32.80 ± 11.14 | 33.89 ± 9.74 | 35.46 ± 12.16 | 1.26 (0.532) | 0.01 | 25.74 ± 11.11 | 30.62 ± 12.01 | 36.47 ± 15.01 | 8.92 * (0.012) | 0.08 |

Ethnicity ^{b} | 0.64 (0.728) | 0.08 | 7.86 (0.447) | 0.20 | ||||||

Spanish | 57 (92%) | 15 (94%) | 27 (96%) | 10 (100%) | 54 (87%) | 29 (97%) | ||||

European | 5 (8%) | 1 (6%) | 1 (4%) | 0 (0%) | 5 (8%) | 0 (0.0%) | ||||

Others | 0 (0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (5%) | 1 (3%) | ||||

Psychological characteristics | Psychological characteristics | |||||||||

Fluid reasoning, M ± SD | 29.32 ± 9.38 | 28.72 ± 9.83 | 33.43 ± 8.09 | 4.64 (0.098) | 0.04 | 31.88 ± 9.82 | 32.56 ± 8.92 | 31.70 ± 9.86 | 0.01 (0.993) | 0.00 |

AMAS, M ± SD | 22.81 ± 6.43 | 18.67 ± 4.30 | 18.89 ± 6.87 | 11.11 ** (0.04) | 0.09 | 23.59 ± 7.26 | 21.45 ± 7.09 | 18.77 ± 5.90 | 5.19 (0.075) | 0.05 |

Baseline outcome levels | Baseline outcome levels | |||||||||

Verbal STM (hits), M ± SD | 7.30 ± 1.64 | 6.83 ± 1.65 | 6.96 ± 1.84 | 1.88 (0.390) | 0.02 | 7.00 ± 1.90 | 7.41 ± 1.75 | 8.20 ± 2.04 | 5.06 (0.080) | 0.05 |

Verbal STM (span), M ± SD | 5.03 ± 0.99 | 4.78 ± 0.94 | 4.96 ± 0.96 | 1.02 (0.600) | 0.01 | 4.81 ± 1.11 | 5.18 ± 1.04 | 5.50 ± 1.11 | 4.49 (0.106) | 0.04 |

VS STM (hits), M ± SD | 6.49 ± 1.56 | 6.89 ± 1.53 | 6.93 ± 1.76 | 0.80 (0.669) | 0.01 | 7.06 ± 1.73 | 6.67 ± 1.49 | 7.60 ± 2.04 | 7.47 * (0.024) | 0.07 |

VS STM (span), M ± SD | 4.78 ± 0.91 | 5.00 ± 0.77 | 5.11 ± 1.10 | 1.42 (0.492) | 0.01 | 5.00 ± 0.89 | 4.97 ± 0.98 | 5.30 ± 1.06 | 3.05 (0.218) | 0.03 |

Verbal WM, M ± SD | 21.70 ± 4.54 | 21.89 ± 3.32 | 21.75 ± 4.28 | 0.15 (0.929) | 0.00 | 21.00 ± 4.38 | 22.26 ± 4.18 | 24.47 ± 4.08 | 9.47 * (0.009) | 0.09 |

VS WM M ± SD | 20.88 ± 5.42 | 22.28 ± 6.14 | 22.46 ± 5.30 | 2.63 (0.268) | 0.02 | 20.31 ± 6.76 | 21.59 ± 4.88 | 24.97 ± 4.47 | 11.25 ** (0.004) | 0.10 |

Number Operations, M ± SD | 12.52 ± 4.00 | 13.67 ± 3.11 | 16.21 ± 3.44 | 17.77 *** (<0.001) | 0.15 | 16.18 ± 4.64 | 14.80 ± 4.47 | 18.30 ± 4.32 | 11.44 ** (0.003) | 0.10 |

Number Ranking, M ± SD | 21.44 ± 8.49 | 26.11 ± 9.59 | 30.04 ± 4.26 | 30.17 *** (<0.001) | 0.25 | 29.65 ±9.73 | 29.23 ± 9.24 | 33.47 ± 7.61 | 4.75 (0.093) | 0.04 |

Number Production, M ± SD | 4.96 ± 3.95 | 5.22 ± 5.38 | 6.29 ± 4.66 | 1.53 (0.465) | 0.01 | 7.06 ± 4.10 | 6.61 ± 5.14 | 7.67 ± 5.14 | 1.24 (0.538) | 0.01 |

Problem Solving, M ± SD | 4.35 ± 2.24 | 4.11 ± 2.30 | 7.00 ± 2.82 | 19.52 *** (<0.001) | 0.16 | 6.47 ± 2.83 | 5.77 ± 3.04 | 7.37 ± 3.85 | 3.69 (0.158) | 0.03 |

^{a}. Sex was only registered in a subset of children in Math GTG in grade 3 (n = 74).

^{b}. Ethnicity was only registered in a subset of children at pretest in grade 3 (n = 106) and in a subset of children at pretest in grade 4 (n = 102).

^{c}. Memory Tests were only administered to a subset of children in Math GTG in grade 3 (n = 74) and to a subset of children in Math GTG in grade 4 (n = 16). * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001. ε

^{2}< 0.02 = trivial; 0.02 ≤ ε

^{2}< 0.13= small; 0.13 ≤ ε

^{2}< 0.26 = medium; ε

^{2}≥ 0.26= large. V < 0.10= trivial; 0.10 ≤ V < 0.30= small; 0.30 ≤ V < 0.50= medium; V ≥ 0.50 = large.

**Table 2.**Before and after intervention, memory scores (Mean ± SE), math scores (Mean ± SE) and mixed model results for grades 3 and 4.

Grade 3 ^{a} | Grade 4 ^{b} | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Math GTG (n = 75) | Memory GTG (n = 18) | CG (n = 28) | Time (p) | Group (p) | Timex Group (p) | Math GTG (n = 17) | Memory GTG (n = 66) | CG (n = 30) | Time (p) | Group (p) | Timex Group (p) | ||

Verbal STM (hits) | Pre | 7.31 ± 0.18 | 6.92 ± 0.37 | 6.88 ± 0.30 | 1.12 (0.292) | 0.74 (0.480) | 0.59 (0.553) | 7.20 ± 0.50 | 7.43 ± 0.24 | 8.04 ± 0.37 | 0.12 (0.730) | 0.46 (0.630) | 0.96 (0.386) |

Post | 7.30 ± 0.18 | 7.37 ± 0.37 | 6.99 ± 0.30 | 7.58 ± 0.50 | 7.68 ± 0.24 | 7.67 ± 0.37 | |||||||

Verbal STM (span) | Pre | 5.03 ± 0.11 | 4.84 ± 0.22 | 4.91 ± 0.17 | 1.34 (0.250) | 0.71 (0.493) | 0.62 (0.539) | 4.92 ± 0.25 | 5.20 ± 0.12 | 5.41 ± 0.19 | 0.89 (0.349) | 0.79 (0.458) | 0.59 (0.554) |

Post | 5.14 ± 0.11 | 5.17 ± 0.22 | 4.87 ± 0.17 | 5.17 ± 0.25 | 5.35 ± 0.12 | 5.35 ± 0.19 | |||||||

VS STM (hits) | Pre | 6.53 ± 0.18 | 6.94 ± 0.37 | 6.80 ± 0.30 | 4.66 *(0.033) | 0.66 (0.517) | 3.32 *(0.040) | 7.06 ± 0.38 | 6.66 ± 0.19 | 7.61 ± 0.28 | 3.96 *(0.049) | 4.90 **(0.009) | 0.53 (0.590) |

Post | 7.35 ± 0.18 | 7.44 ± 0.37 | 6.66 ± 0.30 | 7.19 ± 0.38 | 7.28 ± 0.19 | 8.04 ± 0.28 | |||||||

VS STM (span) | Pre | 4.82 ± 0.11 | 5.03 ± 0.22 | 5.02 ± 0.18 | 3.25 (0.074) | 0.74 (0.481) | 5.19 **(0.007) | 4.99 ± 0.24 | 4.97 ± 0.12 | 5.30 ± 0.17 | 3.07 (0.082) | 3.55 *(0.032) | 0.57 (0.566) |

Post | 5.44 ± 0.11 | 5.25 ± 0.22 | 4.84 ± 0.18 | 4.99 ± 0.24 | 5.33 ± 0.12 | 5.70 ± 0.17 | |||||||

Verbal WM | Pre | 22.09 ± 0.90 | 21.78 ± 0.44 | 21.42 ± 0.73 | 13.30 ***(<0.001) | 0.21 (0.808) | 0.24 (0.790) | 21.32 ± 1.01 | 22.30 ± 0.50 | 24.21 ± 0.74 | 9.30 *(0.003) | 1.97 (0.144) | 1.27 (0.284) |

Post | 23.93 ± 0.90 | 23.23 ± 0.44 | 23.56 ± 0.73 | 23.82 ± 1.01 | 24.03 ± 0.50 | 24.64 ± 0.74 | |||||||

VS WM | Pre | 21.23 ± 0.57 | 22.30 ± 1.15 | 21.66 ± 0.93 | 13.72 ***(<0.001) | 0.80 (0.452) | 3.55 *(0.032) | 20.81 ± 1.09 | 21.67 ± 0.53 | 24.53 ± 0.80 | 33.65 ***(<0.001) | 5.10 **(0.008) | 0.54 (0.583) |

Post | 24.38 ± 0.57 | 24.46 ± 1.15 | 22.01 ± 0.93 | 24.25 ± 1.09 | 24.85 ± 0.53 | 26.76 ± 0.80 | |||||||

Number Operations | Pre | 12.76 ± 0.44 | 13.63 ± 0.89 | 15.56 ± 0.72 | 61.68 ***(<0.001) | 3.06 (0.050) | 3.73 *(0.027) | 16.51 ± 1.00 | 14.81 ± 0.50 | 18.06 ± 0.76 | 42.20 ***(<0.001) | 9.33 ***(<0.001) | 0.50 (0.606) |

Post | 16.96 ± 0.44 | 16.29 ± 1.04 | 17.96 ± 0.72 | 18.63 ± 1.00 | 17.36 ± 0.53 | 21.23 ± 0.77 | |||||||

Number Ranking | Pre | 21.69 ± 0.77 | 26.39 ± 1.58 | 29.22 ± 1.28 | 48.78 ***(<0.001) | 7.13 **(0.001) | 6.22 **(0.003) | 30.86 ± 2.00 | 29.35 ± 1.00 | 32.45 ± 1.52 | 37.26 ***(<0.001) | 2.44 (0.0.92) | 0.24 (0.789) |

Post | 31.57 ± 0.78 | 32.41 ± 1.97 | 33.11 ± 1.28 | 35.62 ± 2.00 | 34.90 ± 1.08 | 38.90 ± 1.54 | |||||||

Number Production | Pre | 5.28 ± 0.53 | 5.25 ± 1.09 | 5.39 ± 0.88 | 22.97 ***(<0.001) | 0.06 (0.943) | 0.09 (0.914) | 7.69 ± 1.16 | 6.63 ± 0.58 | 7.24 ± 0.88 | 60.92 ***(<0.001) | 3.48 *(0.034) | 8.00 ***(<0.001) |

Post | 7.78 ± 0.54 | 7.30 ± 1.28 | 8.04 ± 0.88 | 10.81 ± 1.16 | 8.36 ± 0.61 | 12.53 ± 0.89 | |||||||

Problem Solving | Pre | 4.53 ± 0.26 | 4.19 ± 0.54 | 6.48 ± 0.43 | 8.08 **(0.005) | 7.36 ***(<0.001) | 1.71 (0.185) | 6.80 ± 0.68 | 5.77 ± 0.34 | 7.17 ± 0.52 | 27.40 ***(<0.001) | 1.13 (0.327) | 3.25 *(0.043) |

Post | 5.88 ± 0.27 | 5.10 ± 0.66 | 6.80 ± 0.43 | 7.68 ± 0.68 | 7.89 ± 0.36 | 8.18 ± 0.52 |

^{a}. In third grade, memory tests were administered to a subset of children in Math GTG (n = 74). Mathematical tasks were administered to a subset of children at post-test in Math GTG (n = 73) and in CG (n = 11).

^{b}. In fourth grade, memory tests were administered to a subset of children in Math GTG (n = 16) and Memory GTG (n

_{Verbal WM}= 65). Mathematical tasks were administered to a subset of children at post-test in Memory GTG (n = 54) and in CG (n = 29). * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |

© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Estrada-Plana, V.; Martínez-Escribano, A.; Ros-Morente, A.; Mayoral, M.; Castro-Quintas, A.; Vita-Barrull, N.; Terés-Lleida, N.; March-Llanes, J.; Badia-Bafalluy, A.; Moya-Higueras, J.
Benefits of Playing at School: Filler Board Games Improve Visuospatial Memory and Mathematical Skills. *Brain Sci.* **2024**, *14*, 642.
https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci14070642

**AMA Style**

Estrada-Plana V, Martínez-Escribano A, Ros-Morente A, Mayoral M, Castro-Quintas A, Vita-Barrull N, Terés-Lleida N, March-Llanes J, Badia-Bafalluy A, Moya-Higueras J.
Benefits of Playing at School: Filler Board Games Improve Visuospatial Memory and Mathematical Skills. *Brain Sciences*. 2024; 14(7):642.
https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci14070642

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Estrada-Plana, Verónica, Andrea Martínez-Escribano, Agnès Ros-Morente, Maria Mayoral, Agueda Castro-Quintas, Nuria Vita-Barrull, Núria Terés-Lleida, Jaume March-Llanes, Ares Badia-Bafalluy, and Jorge Moya-Higueras.
2024. "Benefits of Playing at School: Filler Board Games Improve Visuospatial Memory and Mathematical Skills" *Brain Sciences* 14, no. 7: 642.
https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci14070642