Slashdot Mirror


Video Gamers See the World Differently

trendspotter points out this research from Duke University: "Hours spent at the video gaming console not only train a player's hands to work the buttons on the controller, they probably also train the brain to make better and faster use of visual input, according to Duke University researchers (abstract). 'Gamers see the world differently,' said Greg Appelbaum, an assistant professor of psychiatry in the Duke School of Medicine. 'They are able to extract more information from a visual scene.' ... Each participant was run though a visual sensory memory task that flashed a circular arrangement of eight letters for just one-tenth of a second. After a delay ranging from 13 milliseconds to 2.5 seconds, an arrow appeared, pointing to one spot on the circle where a letter had been. Participants were asked to identify which letter had been in that spot. At every time interval, intensive players of action video games outperformed non-gamers in recalling the letter."

20 of 160 comments (clear)

  1. Shocking... by geek42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Breaking news: gamers better at playing games.

    1. Re:Shocking... by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 5, Funny

      Breaking news: gamers better at playing games.

      Exactly. I wonder how good they would be at identifying objects in a more natural environment. Drop a bunch of gamers off in the country, give them certain visual/memory tasks, and see if they perform better than a group of non-gamers.

      "How many horses are standing in the shade under the tree?"
      "Is the corn crib to the right or left of the barn?"
      "What gauge shotgun is the farmer shooting at you with from his porch?

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    2. Re:Shocking... by centipedes.in.my.vag · · Score: 4, Funny

      That farmer couldn't even quickscope. lol, what a noob.

      --
      Only on /. can I lose karma with 2x "5, Funny" posts.
    3. Re:Shocking... by centipedes.in.my.vag · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Things don't mimic reality in video games. For example, shotguns.

      --
      Only on /. can I lose karma with 2x "5, Funny" posts.
    4. Re:Shocking... by geirlk · · Score: 4, Informative

      Depends on ammo type, but here's a little table:

      No. 2 - 330 yards
      No. 4 - 286 yards
      No. 6 - 242 yards
      No. 7 1/2- 209 yards
      No. 8 - 198 yards

      Those does not take into account the "extreme maximum" range, but rather the common range for those shots. Even altitude can have a huge impact on range.
      With No. 7 1/2, which is commonly used for trap shooting, one should have a safety range of 300 yards.

      That is provided they use shots, and not slugs. Slugs have good accuracy to 70-80 yards, and are lethal at several times that distance.

    5. Re:Shocking... by ACELLC · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Breaking news: gamers better at playing games.

      Exactly. I wonder how good they would be at identifying objects in a more natural environment. Drop a bunch of gamers off in the country, give them certain visual/memory tasks, and see if they perform better than a group of non-gamers.

      "How many horses are standing in the shade under the tree?" "Is the corn crib to the right or left of the barn?" "What gauge shotgun is the farmer shooting at you with from his porch?

      I'd start with something less technical like: "What is that green stuff covering the ground?" or "What is that large glowing object in the sky?"

    6. Re:Shocking... by upto0013 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Far too much credit.
      I'm a pretty good shot and I can hit a milk jug consistently at 300 yards. But that's a Winchester rifle and a lifetime of practice. I've made shots at 500 yards with a .270 rifle and scope, but I wouldn't count on it if I had to make the shot.
      Anyone hitting even a large, gamer-size target at 200 yards with a shotgun is pretty amazing. The best grouping ever recorded is just under an inch at 100 yards (.798 inches). And those groupings are from professional shooters with $4,000 guns, scopes and military training. Typical slugs can go that far, but the drop from bullet weight is going to be quite significant: about 2 feet. There are slugs that don't drop out to 200 yards, but at $5-10 a shot, no farmer is going to be using them.
      So, unless these gamers got dropped on a mercenary training ground with some kind of ex sniper sitting on the porch, they're going to be fine beyond 150 yards.
      Pick up a gun and shoot, it's not as easy as it looks on YouTube.

    7. Re:Shocking... by Agares · · Score: 3, Informative

      I own a shotgun and I can tell you, as I am sure quite a few of you already know, that they are differetnly much different in real life on how effective they are. I will admit that it irritates me on COD how a near point blank shot wont kill someone quite often when in real life one could easily take down a small bear depending on what ammo is used. Furthermore I agree with what has been said that a lot of gamers probably wouldn't grasp real life concepts to well. For example when I play paintball with my brother in laws they try to use tactics that would work perfectly fine in COD but don't hold up in a real situation since one guy can't go all Rambo on everything in reality. Now I know games aren't going to be realistic, but I am just pointing out that sometimes a game can warp someones sense of what is possible in reality.

    8. Re:Shocking... by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm taking back my original copies of Duke Nukem and Doom, and trading them in for a realistic game like Mortal Combat or World of Warcraft.

      Oh come on. You can't play those games with only one thumb.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
  2. I can believe this by NotSoHeavyD3 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Mostly because I was a long time gamer before I signed up for a psychology experiment.(This was in the early 90's.) They'd flash a single wordson the monitor and see which ones I could or couldn't read.(I forget what they were testing with the words since it's been so long.) To make a long story short they couldn't use me for the experiment because I could always read the words even if flashed for 1 frame. (1/60th of a second or 15milliseconds) I told the psych professor it was probably because I played so many video games.(Which was the only thing that made sense to me since you have to respond to very quick visual stimuli.) Actually this sucked because I signed up for the experiment in the first place because we had to do a couple hours of participating in experiments for the psych class I was taking and basically I wasted an hour on this and got no credit.

    --
    Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
    1. Re:I can believe this by Ultracrepidarian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So they deleted the data points that didn't fit their predetermined bias.

  3. They see the world? by csumpi · · Score: 3, Funny

    I thought they sat in a dark room all day with a black t-shirt that says do not expose to sun.

  4. But is it permanent? by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The first few layers of the visual cortex are highly malleable. Wear a set of glasses that flip the world upside down (or angle the field of view by 10 degrees) and the system will adapt within a couple of days - the user will see the world as normal.

    But also - when the user stops wearing the glasses the system quickly adapts back.

    With all this fluidity, I suspect that a gamer's heightened sense of perception will dissipate if they stop playing games. At a guess this would probably take about 6 weeks.

  5. Re:Faster isn't better by GoodNewsJimDotCom · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There's nothing preventing a video game player from playing in sports and having adequate physical activity. After all, even extreme athletes know there is a rest period.

  6. chicken or egg by Tweezak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Does gaming make you better at these tests or is it just that people that have these particular skills tend to gravitate to action video games?

  7. Re:Faster isn't better by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Funny

    There's nothing preventing a video game player from playing in sports and having adequate physical activity. After all, even extreme athletes know there is a rest period.

    Yes, but do extreme gamers know that?

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  8. Re:Be a better driver. by chromas · · Score: 3, Funny

    I drive at full throttle at all times, lane splitting on the median and using only the handbrake for those times I need to round sharp corners. I run over hundreds of pedestrians, most of whom get right back up and simply curse at me. When the cops come, I drive outside their search radius and they call it off.

    Vidya games have taught me well.

  9. Re:Must terminate... by RedDeadThumb · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They should make it so the first post cannot be anonymous.

  10. Re:Must terminate... by stealth_finger · · Score: 5, Funny

    They should make it so the first post cannot be anonymous.

    It should come with a first post pre attached.

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  11. Re:Faster isn't better by Tagged_84 · · Score: 3

    I usually place 1st in fast paced FPS games like Team Fortress 2, have won numerous local tournaments back in the day for Quake 3 too. From what I recall, many of the pro CS players used to include physical workouts in their training regime too. While I code and design games more than play these days, I still push hard to keep my 10km runs under 40 min. Recently I just so happened to get an achievement in Runkeeper for tracking my 1,000th km.

    We are out there :)