Make the time count.

Three ways to practice

• Sixteen continuous games. Each has eight stages that change routes, memory demand, competing tasks or spatial relationships. Stage clears describe performance in that game. Every game raises pressure during successful play and gives recovery room after mistakes. You can choose a faster starting pace. Game pressure is not a cognitive rating.
• Sixteen hockey games. Select your position and practice situations alongside each existing Moment. These simulations simplify real hockey; your role and the displayed context determine the options.
• Sixteen research companions. Practice provides feedback. Experimental assessment uses fixed conditions with coaching withheld. These are custom tasks inspired by cognitive research, not standardized clinical tests.

What your results mean

Successes, errors, omissions and response timing are recorded separately where the task supports them. Game progress and research results stay separate from your original Moment scores. Space Update practice adjusts its memory load only after a complete, sufficiently sampled run; its assessment stays at two signals back.

Getting better at a game is a useful first result. To establish broader benefit, we need to test performance on unfamiliar tasks, retention over time and independently scored hockey decisions. A study with an active comparison group would be needed to attribute on-ice improvement to this training.

We have not established that these games improve hockey performance. We are building playable hypotheses and measurements that can test that claim.

Research behind the questions

The original studies provide task families and experimental methods. Their norms and conclusions do not automatically apply to our adaptations.

• Following several moving objects: Lantern and Track Pack ask you to retain identities through motion. Pylyshyn & Storm, multiple-object tracking (1988).
• Remembering spatial sequences: Driftline asks you to keep a route available while steering. Spatial span offers an independent measurement candidate. Kessels et al., Corsi block-tapping standardization (2000).
• Cancelling an initiated action: Forge uses visible faults to require a release. Its results are not stop-signal reaction time. Verbruggen et al., stop-signal consensus guide (2019).
• Dividing attention among tasks: Ember and Switchyard involve competing demands. NASA, Multi-Attribute Task Battery II guide (2011).
• Rotating objects mentally: Lattice explores spatial fit. Its direct connection to hockey is especially tentative. Shepard & Metzler, mental rotation (1971).

Eight more ways to play

Parallax asks you to extrapolate a disappearing trajectory. Pulse asks you to account for flight time before releasing. Crossing combines steering with the timing of moving gaps. Tandem asks you to cover the arrival your partner leaves. Prism changes which feature matters. Cascade asks you to compare connected sequences of gains and losses. Undertow adds conflicting information around the relevant guide. Orbit asks you to update your recent landings as the garden moves.

Each has a primary Moment pairing and eight stages. A pairing identifies a research question; it does not demonstrate that the same underlying ability determines hockey performance. Lattice’s connection to Ice Read remains especially exploratory.

• Motion and temporal expectation: Doherty et al. (2005), spatial and temporal expectations for an occluded moving target. Parallax and Pulse adapt that broad question with different controls and outcomes.
• Switching rules: Allport & Wylie (2000), task switching and switch costs. Prism records the cued rule and switch/repeat condition on every crystal. Its game speed is not a laboratory switch-cost estimate.
• Planning connected actions: Shallice (1982), specific impairments of planning. Cascade uses a different task; a standardized planning test would be an independent comparator.
• Competing directional cues: Eriksen & Eriksen (1974), target identification with surrounding noise. Undertow records relevant direction and flanker compatibility separately.
• Self-ordered updating: Petrides & Milner (1982), self-ordered pointing tasks. Orbit changes the stimulus movement, time pressure and response method, so published norms cannot be applied.
• Complementary actions: Schmitz et al. (2018), representation of a co-actor’s action order. Tandem has a simulated partner; its connection to real interpersonal coordination needs separate testing.

Your practice records

These additional games save results in this browser. They do not currently sync to your account or across devices. Download a session from its results screen to keep a copy. Clearing browser storage removes local progress.

Pause when you need to. Interrupted timing is marked separately in research records. Assessments are optional; you can enjoy the games without completing them.

Choose a game → · Choose your hockey practice →