Slashdot Mirror
Computer Game Designed To Treat Depression As Effective As Traditional Treatment
New submitter sirlark writes "'Researchers at the University of Auckland tested an interactive 3D fantasy game called Sparx on a 94 youngsters diagnosed with depression whose average age was 15 and a half. Sparx invites a user to take on a series of seven challenges over four to seven weeks in which an avatar has to learn to deal with anger and hurt feelings and swap negative thoughts for helpful ones. Used for three months, Sparx was at least as effective as face-to-face conventional counselling, according to several depression rating scales. In addition, 44% of the Sparx group who carried out at least four of the seven challenges recovered completely. In the conventional treatment group, only 26% recovered fully.' One has to wonder if it's Sparx specifically — or gaming in general — that provides the most benefit, given that most of the symptoms of depression relate to a feeling of being unable to influence one's environment (powerlessness, helplessness, ennui, etc) and games are specifically designed to make one feel powerful but challenged (if they hit the sweet spot)."
Won't work outside the lab. As soon as they release it to market and pump it full of DRM and premium-content-ads, they'll get depressed all over again.
you've not had depression, then.
Depression can't be cured. It can be treated, very effectively, and the outcome will last a long time. But once you've had a depressive episode, you are more likely to have another. The longer and more severe the symptoms, the more likely you are to have a recurrance. Whatever it is that triggers depression can be abated, but it weakens the psychological fabric of the person it afflicts, permanently.
I don't know why this is, or the underlying mechanic. There are many studies out that identify variances in neural activity and neurotransmitter levels that are associated with people having a depressive episode; It has a distinct pathology and has definate biological markers, unlike most personality disorders (as a contrast). But there is scant data on what differences persist in the brain post-recovery... only a marked increase in the odds of relapse.
In that respect, it is much like chicken pox. If you've had it, the virus remains in your body, and for 80% of the population, after the acute infection, there are no further symptoms for the rest of their life. But for some, complications arise in the form of shingles. Depression is like that as well, but without the pathogen -- once you've had it, something is changed in you, forever.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
You seem to be thinking of mild depression or even subclinical sadness. This is quite common, as psychiatric disorders tend to be an exaggeration of normal things that everyone feels, so it's easy to underestimate them. You also rarely see them, as holding a job and going out requires a fair degree of psychological health. The last hundred years or so of medical research specifically tests for effectiveness VS a placebo, so it's not like people are just shooting in the dark here. (To throw you a bone, medications don't seem to be very effective against mild depression.) Most of the people I've talked to keep struggling with depression throughout their life and getting treatment means getting better in weeks/months rather than years.
Also, stop getting your medical knowledge from TV, it's wrong. The vast majority of psychologists don't do the couch thing anymore. Plus, CBT (the most common type) isn't really talking about one's feelings at length. If I remember my history right, that sort of therapy died out as psychology progressed beyond Freud. There are likely a few psychologists that still do it, but they cater to rich people with similar misconceptions (it requires almost weekly visits for years before you see significant results -- assuming the psychologist doesn't incorporate newer forms of therapy).
LOLWAT.
Actually, depression and autism are useful for the species-as-a-whole. Sure, severe depression can be crippling -- but some depression is good for society. The pessimists are the ones who tend to see what's going to go wrong, problems with ideas. Worrying about every little thing, to a degree, means every little thing won't go wrong (some still will, but compare to cheery optimists who don't take time to prepare for unfortunate eventualities).
Autism is also a benefit to society, to a degree. Sure, it can be severe, and that's not helpful -- but good grief, go pick out any famous genius from the past, read up on how strange their behavior was. PROTIP: Some of our greatest advancements in knowledge and science came from the minds of people who had strange and inexplicable obsessive habits, who were not socially apt or adapt.
In short, you're pretty much an idiot lacking any understanding of the societal benefits of diversity.
These things persist in society precisely because they were useful.
Hemophilia? Not so much -- but it's rather rare, and ~1/3 of the cases of it aren't caused by genetic inheritance but rather from random gene mutation.
Diabetes? Not really genetic. There can be a genetic predisposition for it, but that doesn't really CAUSE it -- just makes it more likely to happen.
We've had thousands of years "left to nature" for undesirable traits that hinder survival to be weeded out. That these traits persist should be a pretty big fucking clue to you.
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.
You must be new here.
I am unhappy to see such a low-quality reference for this article, when the official press release from the journal is available and the full article itself are available online and
Most of the objections raised in the comments above are answered in the article, which looks to me to be about as high quality as is possible given the differences between the treatments used. Making accusations of "lying" before you have read the full article is unethical.
The main weakness pointed out by the authors was that the compliance with the treatment protocols was reported by the adolescent participants, not by the machines or the professionals providing the treatment. Another was that some 13% of the participants who were supposed to receive treatment as usual were merely put on waiting lists, although that may be treatment as usual in some places; but the real kicker here was that excluding them made the treatment as usual even less effective! There have been plenty of previous studies comparing treatment with non-treatment that find treatment more effective, but testing treatments for depression is very tricky because pretty much anything is beneficial, even telling people they are taking part in an experiment and then doing nothing else, but this article reports “[w]e have carried out two small studies of computerised interventions for depressive symptoms; one showed a significant effect compared with placebo and the other was significantly more effective than a waitlist control.”
I know it is futile to ask people to read an article before they comment on it, and I know it is equally futile to ask people who submit articles such as this to post links to original articles instead of second or third sources, but here goes: If you are submitting an article about an article in a scientific journal, please include a link to the original article in the original journal instead of a newspaper article based on a press release announcing the publication of the article. Thank you. And if you are drinking from the Firehose and come across something like this, at least vote it down, and better yet, submit a better article to replace it.
People should not fear their government. Governments should fear their people.
I've been diagnosed with recurring depression and there is quite a lot of that in my family line (father is currently medicated after years long serious depression, etc.). There have been times I've been depressed and not went for treatment and there have been times I've went to a therapist... and there is a world of difference. Of course, depression affects individuals in different ways so everything I say might not apply to everyone but I'll try to speak on a relatively general level.
First of all... "Time, improving life circumstances, and new friends are what end depression"... Those aren't the kind of things that happen during a depression! When you can't force yourself to get into the job (a job you normally love, really want to keep, etc.) in time (or at all) for months and even if you get in, you can't concentrate enough to do anything complex (e.g., coding) efficiently... When you don't feel any interest to meet friends, girlfriend, etc... there's pretty high chance of getting fired, failing your classes, destroying your relationships, etc. which will make the depression deeper. Time might take care of it but if you allow that situation to go on for months first (untreated, my depression usually lasts about 4-5 months), you've probably nearly ruined your life first (been there, done that).
So, if you're depressed, not getting treatment is usually stupid. There are always medications but studies have shown that if you treat your depression with drugs, you're likely to get depressed again sooner and the next depression is likely to be deeper... until the medicines don't have enough effect anymore.
As for what happens in therapy... I've been to quite a few sessions and I've never had to talk about my childhood and whatnot. There are quite a few schools of therapy but Freudian, Jungian, etc. exist only in movies and as fashionable things to try out for the rich people. The therapist I usually go to helps me do damage control: Helps me take the steps that prevent me from ruining my life (Talk with my boss about my need to work at a reduced capacity for a while instead of me just not showing up for work half the time, etc.) at first and then helps me claw my way out of the pit (prioritize the massive bulk of tasks that seem impossible to handle, get small successes on which to build, etc.), helps me find the things that deepen my depression and find ways to solve them (Your home is filthy? You don't think you're going to lose your job immediately? Well, get a cleaner to visit it once a week until you're up and going again!... type of practical solutions)... Nothing magic but just things that you can't get done without help if you're depressed.
CBT -- Cognitive Behavioral Therapy is essentially mind hacking. Suppose you're afraid of snakes. In the old-style Freudian therapy you and your analyst would try to figure out how your childhood development led to that phobia. The CBT therapist isn't interested in where the phobia comes from, he's focused on how it works. He'll help you identify the unspoken assumptions and distorted thinking (that the cognitive part) that maintain your fear of snakes, then encourages you to put those ideas to the test by actually getting firsthand experience handling them (that's the behavioral part).
So the CBT approach is to break a mental problem down to its component assumptions and put each of those assumptions to an empirical test.
There's a similar therapy called "ACT" (Acceptance and Commitment Therapy). If your problem is that you think life sucks, a CBT therapist will approach that belief as a fallacy to be disproven. An ACT therapist would regard that feeling as part of the human condition that can't be banished, and focus on helping you learn to do rewarding and meaningful things despite feeling that way.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.