Slashdot Mirror
Video Games Found To Decrease Brain Activity
Richard C writes "A Japanese researcher, Akio Mori, from the Nihon University's College of Humanities and Sciences, claims to have found a link between the playing of video games and the balance of activity in the brain. It is also claimed that this effect can cause behavioural changes, such as lack of concentration, difficulty with social association, and short temper. These effects are also thought to be, to some extent, nonreversible." I was gonna say something witty and insightful here, but
I can't think of anything. At least I can't make a windows machine stable
enough to run Neverwinter or my brain would be toast.
doesn't decrease brain activity as much as watching tv, i'd bet.
Haven't there been just as many studies showing the exact *opposite*? I guess it must mean that it does nothing at all in the end, since half of the reaearch shows one way, and half the other. I think it all depends on the agenda the researchs/financers start out to prove...
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
that maybe the reason that it decreases brain activity is because the brain has gotten more efficient at doing tasks?
The first thing that I would like to know is which games were played? I would expect there to be a large difference in brain wave patterns between Pong and an RTS or Strategy game, which would require strategic thinking, game theory, and multitasking. Also, it seems as if the researcher may have had a negative attitude towards video games prior to the study.
"A good conspiracy is an unprovable one." -Conspiracy Theory
Just look at the average /. post for confirmation.
--
As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.
If they're continually playing games, then which period would that be?
Of course, here we see an article of undetermined scientific merit, based upon the research of an individual (with a specific agenda) that has yet to see even a basic peer review. Where have we seen that type of thing before?
Take it as you will.
Sure, games might improve your situational analysis skills and such, to a degree, but once you hit something that wasn't covered in the game, you're toast.
ie, a social situation. People don't have pretty menus and interfaces, and you're not given a choice of three things to say.
People who constantly socialize and interact with others are much lighter on their verbal feet than people who play games all day long. Take your l33t interacting skills into a crowded (real life) room and see how well typing "t A/S/L??? " works.
Games aid your decision making skills withing a certain ruleset. They don't hone your decision making skills outside of that game. For example, if you were attacked by a gun-wielding maniac, based on your gaming, you should run around till you find a gun bigger than his, charge him head on, and pump a round of flak into his gut, and promptly find a health pack to heal your flesh wound. Somehow, I don't think that would work too well.
Not you, but some other guy mentioned Civilization. Playing Civilization makes you as qualified to make decisions that would affect the economy as a goldfish is qualified to be an ocean predator.
Games don't give you real-life skills or abilities - they give you a source of escape and relaxation.
IMO, this rates fairly high on the Duh-O-Meter.
He divided the brain activity of participants into four categories -- naming the activity normal, visual, half-videogame, and videogame.
He probably should have made more groups such as violent videogames, strategy videogames, etc. No where in the article did I see any reference to analyzing the genre of videogame on the subject's brainwaves. It would be interesting to see how/if the brainwave patterns changed when playing Duke Nukem IV: Death To Everyone, WWF Smackdown Vol. 7: The Women, and Pikachu's Happy Hopscotch. If there was no difference, then perhaps the results really don't mean shit.
And the article never did say what was the "visual" group.
GMD
watch this
Exactly.
There are two many medical studies that draw direct conclusions from data when often the consistant occurrance of two effects together are caused by something completely different that the researcher never thought about.
For instance, people who drink one glass of wine a day have fewer heart attacks. But, maybe the real reason is that most of those wine drinkers they STUDIED make more money, take more vitamins, and generally watch their health better. Few doctors will mention that.
They also still don't know why EXACTLY Japanese women, before they move to America, have a lower rate of breast cancer than native Americans, and the descendants of those Japanese women also have a rate of breast cancer similar to other Americans (because they are native Americans at that point). Why? Because their Japanese? Because they eat more fish and less red meat than we do?
Also, with a controversial study like this, you always have to ask, "How many people DID you study and for how many years?". That important little fact seems to be absent from this article -- I've seen too many supposedly legitimate studies over the past 10-15 years that study 50 people over 2 years and call that "conclusive research" on humans. I hate to tell any scientists out there this, but accurate human research takes DECADES on a reasonable number of people (i.e. NOT 50).
When do scientists cross the line between science and tabloid news? I think more scientists need to learn...
I completely agree. This is another "study" or "survey" that looks at a cause and effect yet does not make any strong argument whatsoever as to which is the cause and which is the effect:
.hmm. . . .
"Many of the people in this group told researchers that they got angry easily, couldn't concentrate, and had trouble associating with friends."
Is it that because they play video games that they get angry, can't concentrate and have no friends or is it that they have no friends because they get angry and lack entertaining creativity so thus they play video games for some form of entertainment.
Another one of my favorites in this same category is studies that 'show' that people who live together before marriage tend to get divorced at a higher rate. What is the cause and what is the effect? Is it that because people have lived together before marriage that causes them to later get divorced (aka a direct cause of the divorce) or is it *perhaps* they lived with someone because they could not find anyone else and *did not* want to get married but later said, "what the hell" and got married anyway (aka simply a symptom and by no means a cause of the divorce).
Studies and reports like this that draw a conclusion without a strong argument with evidence are utter horeshit and the people who funded them should be able to sue for gross negligence. If one does not have the facts for a conclusive argument *do not make one*. In this case it should have simply stated, "there is a correlation between video game playing and people who are not creative, have no friends and are angry." It should not have even been implied that video games cause people to become angry, lose their creativity and lose all their friends.
Now for me, I am angry but also creative and I have a few friends but yet I do not play video games. . .
I also wonder if there is some correlation between the intensity and/or longevity of the effects and age (I would expect that the effects are more pronounced and long-lasting in kids than adults, for instance).
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
First of all, the entire point of games, or entertainment for that matter, is to get away from things like that. To do something that doesn't REALLY matter that much, and have fun while doing it. Not everyone is in the position to start a business, get laid every other day, or start a family. Not everyone wants too, for that matter. Its not likely that learning to defend your cities will translate much into real world situations, but it sure as hell teaches you to be prepared and to not put all your eggs in one basket. You can say that games make you less intelligent, and that we can't tell that video games make us less intelligent, and so can scientists for that matter, but it doesn't mean its true for everyone. When I play Counter-Strike, I learn from almost every round. Maybe I won't use that info in real life unless I plan on storming any cs_assault-like buildings, but it teaches you fundamentals. If you screw up, learn what you did wrong, and don't do it again. Neh.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
Based on your argument, nothing is worth learning because it applies only to certain, very limited, situations. I'm afraid I have to disagree. Playing video games may not give you skills directly related to much else, but they can help indirectly.
Any game (well, almost any game) has problems to solve and goals that must be reached. Beating a game can take dedication, concentration, skill, logic, manual dexterity, observation, memory, intuition, strategy, cunning, and a ridiculous number of other skills / traits.
Just because you can't apply most things you 'learn' in games directly, doesn't mean they can't affect your intellect / skillset in a positive way.
Games don't give you real-life skills or abilities - they give you a source of escape and relaxation
You make a valid point about how specific gaming skills rarely cross over into real life. But the thing about games, and the reason we play them at all, is that they excercise certain skills in a unique and valuable way. For example, less than a year ago my 5-year-old nephew was doing about normal in terms of hand/eye coordination. Then his parents got a gamecube, and he learned to play Simpsons Road Rage. Not long after, his drawing skills improved a LOT. Before, he was drawing people made of circles and lines, and now he makes highly detailed pictures of soldiers with armor and decorative swords, etc. Also, his confidence is way up, due to the fact that he can beat his dad at the game once in a while (without letting him win, I might add). This is exactly the same reason we play games like baseball, air hockey, or chess. Not because they have a direct correlation to real-life activities, but because it feels good to sharpen different skills, useful or not.
That said, while playing Tetris might improve some sort of shape-visualization part of the brain, playing EverQuest likely exercises nothing more than whichever finger you use to press "attack" with. Video games are like TV shows. Some improve you somehow and some are mindless entertainment (which isn't necessarily worthless). The author of the study would've done better to compare how different games affect your brain, rather than try to make a sweeping generalization about a huge and complex genre.
c-hack.com |
This seems to be another case where there may be a strong correlation but debatable causation. If you have bad social skills you are far more likely to engage in introverted hobies, included amongst those is playing video games.
Also, I'd be very curious to see a study showing the relation between different kinds of games and brain activity. Does playing a stategic game alter the effects versus a shoot 'em up kind of game. Seems to me that a puzzle solving game is probably going to have a different effect than say pac man.
Finally, I'm curious as to what his conclusions are actually saying. I'm not a neurologist so I can't comment with any real expertise, but I've done a little research about brain waves, mental states, etc. I had always been under the impression that having a brain heavily in alpha waves was good. This is, as I understand it, the state one is supposed to be in when meditating. So is this necessarily a bad thing?
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Using an EEG to make statements about the effects of gaming on the brain is like trying to benchmark your computer's processing power with a voltmeter. Likewise, using self-selecting experimental groups is poor science. If this researcher was at all serious about proving a causal relationship between gaming and negative effects on the brain, why didn't he:
1) Select a random sample consisting only of healthy people who don't play games for more than X hours a week to participate in the study.
2) Randomly divide that sample into a control group (who don't modify their behavior) and several experimental groups. Take measurements of brain activity for all participants before any of them play games. Use standardized psychological tests and health history questionnaires to rule out participants who are abnormal psychologically or physiologically.
3) Choose an archetypal set of games representative of different game categories (puzzle, shoot-'em-up, etc.)
4) Administer no games to the control group, games from a single archetype to individual experimental groups, and a mixture of games from different archetypes to one of the experimental groups. Give each experimental group an equal amount of time playing games.
5) Take measurements of the control group at rest. Take measurements of the experimental groups prior to gaming, while they are gaming, and after gaming.
6) Use a better system of measurement than surveys and EEG. Neurofunctional MRI and standardized psychological tests would work nicely.
?
Huh?
Basically, the researcher is saying that people with ADD have a neurological problem that causes them to seek stimulation in the form of video games and that ADD also causes other problems in life. ADD is caused by a lack of arousal in the brain under normal circumstances, so these people must seek external arousal.
This is standard issue "third-variable" research in linking two things together. I'm sure that the same researcher will discover a correlation between lack of normal brain arousal and low income next month. Then it will be video games and criminal behaviour. Then video games and hard music. Then hard music and criminal behaviour. Then criminal behaviour and low income (unless you're an executive).