Can anyone link to an article that shows that an MRI can be used for a clinical diagnosis of either a major depressive episode or major depressive disorder? Example, some structural change in the hippocampus or amgydala? I haven't seen that, but prior posts seem to claim a MRI would be useful for diagnosis.
Even if fMRIs show differences between those with clinical depression and no mood disorder, can anyone link to an article showing that an individual fMRI scan is useful as a diagnostic tool?
Here are the DSM IV criteria for a major depressive episode:
Some are objective (weight change and sleep pattern disturbance):
A. Five (or more) of the following symptoms have been present during the same 2-week period and represent a change from previous functioning; at least one of the symptoms is either (1) depressed mood or (2) loss of interest or pleasure.
Note: Do note include symptoms that are clearly due to a general medical condition, or mood-incongruent delusions or hallucinations.
(1) depressed mood most of the day, nearly every day, as indicated by either subjective report (e.g., feels sad or empty) or observation made by others (e.g., appears tearful). Note: In children and adolescents, can be irritable mood.
(2) markedly diminished interest or pleasure in all, or almost all, activities most of the day, nearly every day (as indicated by either subjective account or observation made by others)
(3) significant weight loss when not dieting or weight gain (e.g., a change of more than 5% of body weight in a month), or decrease or increase in appetite nearly every day. Note: In children, consider failure to make expected weight gains.
(4) insomnia or hypersomnia nearly every day
(5) psychomotor agitation or retardation nearly every day (observable by others, not merely subjective feelings of restlessness or being slowed down)
(6) fatigue or loss of energy nearly every day
(7) feelings of worthlessness or excessive or inappropriate guilt (which may be delusional) nearly every day (not merely self-reproach or guilt about being sick)
(8) diminished ability to think or concentrate, or indecisiveness, nearly every day (either by subjective account or as observed by others)
(9) recurrent thoughts of death (not just fear of dying), recurrent suicidal ideation without a specific plan, or a suicide attempt or a specific plan for committing suicide
B. The symptoms do not meet criteria for a Mixed Episode.
C. The symptoms cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.
D. The symptoms are not due to the direct physiological effects of a substance (e.g., a drug of abuse, a medication) or a general medical condition (e.g., hypothyroidism).
E. The symptoms are not better accounted for by Bereavement, i.e., after the loss of a loved one, the symptoms persist for longer than 2 months or are characterized by marked functional impairment, morbid preoccupation with worthlessness, suicidal ideation, psychotic symptoms, or psychomotor retardation.
The abstract says that the task was a hippocampal-related spacial memory task (since it had a delay between initial learning and recall). Does the full article rule out a prefrontal cortex impairment that has an impact on tasks that involve executive control? Was some form of imaging used (such as fMRI) to help localize the deficit rather than basing it on the nature of the task? (I don't have access to the full article)
It's a resolution from a committee. The committee mostly referenced their own work (example, Anderson and Singer - heavily cited). Note how not one study that did not show an effect of exposure to video games on violence (or some other harmful factor) is cited. So not a true meta-analysis of the literature, and not unbiased.
Also, look carefully at the studies. A large portion of them are not specific to video games, they about television violence.
If you didn't think these academics (and the private practitioner) had an agenda, I'd say that would be naive... as they are citing their own research, mostly about television, applying it to video games (when it's mostly just Anderson and Dill's work that applies) to make a "statement".
You can't say this resolution that is selectively citing past research - only *some* of it related to video games (and most of that only from a few researchers) - is "closer to the truth" than another study. This is not new research - it is for another purpose.
"do calm and non violent kids get violent or aggressive after playing the games?"
You should look at Anderson's studies before charactering them as not being experimental designs. These were normal kids, and he has used other (prior) factors as covariates before.
I'm not saying there aren't other issues (validity) with his work, I'd just say you aren't doing anyone a service by mischaracterizing things.
"I had a mother who actually gave a shit. She cared about what I was watching, and always made a point to tell me that it wasn't real, that it was make-believe, and that there was always someone behind the camera."
This is part of what the resolution said worked in terms of violence and media (in terms of television).
If violence in video games and movies was the real cause, we should be able to compare the amount of violence in the US with that of another country and see a direct correlation with the rate of violent crimes. In Japan, movies and games are far more violent than they are here in the US. Yet the rate of violent crime is dramatically lower, and gun violence is only a tiny fraction of what it is here.
Not true. Nowhere do they say (media) violence is the "root" cause of violence, or the main cause of violence. Anderson has said that (in the US) it isn't the biggest cause of violence. Here's what Anderson says:
Myth 11. If violent video games cause increases in aggression, violent crime rates in the U.S. would be increasing instead of decreasing.
Facts: Three assumptions must all be true for this myth to be valid: (a) exposure to violent media (including video games) is increasing; (b) youth violent crime rates are decreasing; (c) video game violence is the only (or the primary) factor contributing to societal violence. The first assumption is probably true. The second is not true, as reported by the 2001 Report of the Surgeon General on Youth Violence (Figure 2-7, p. 25). The third is clearly untrue. Media violence is only one of many factors that contribute to societal violence and is certainly not the most important one. Media violence researchers have repeatedly noted this.
Obviously there are multiple factors, and they are not trying to oversimplify it as you suggest. Their studies may be flawed for other reasons, and their resolution may be suspect (as all the work cited is from members of the committee), but they are not making the claims you suggest and not in the way you suggest (making a causal claim on the sole basis of observational / non-experimental data).
Anderson (one of the authors cited in the resolution, and one of the members of the committe that drafted the resolution) has a list of rebuttals to this and other "Myths" about his work:
See Myth 5. Correlational studies are irrelevant.
Facts: The overly simplistic mantra, "Correlation is not causation," is useful when teaching introductory students the risks in too-readily drawing causal conclusions from a simple empirical correlation between two measured variables...
I think he does a crappy job of explaining it. Experimental design gets you out of the "correlation != causation" problem, but opens you up to a host of other problems (validity, due to operationalization of variables, etc.) - which is why there are so many other "Myths" listed on his page he feels the need to debunk.
Just because "correlation != causation" is true for some types of studies (including some psuedo-experimental studies) doesn't mean it's a valid argument for experimental designs like some of the ones listed here. And even with psuedo-experimental designs, if one can establish the occurance of a prior event (or factor), you can establish causality through various statistical models. Example, structural equation modeling (or partial least squares modeling) are perfect for this.
If you take a look you will see that much of the research cited was related to aggressive behavior and Television.
To summarize:
Link between agressive behavior and television (not video games)
Link between child development and media (not video games or electronic media except Singer 2005 - it's mostly television)
Link between aggressive thoughts and violent media (half Television and half Video Games - but Anderson's research is not new)
Lack of "Punishment" for violent actions in media (Television only)
Link between video games and agressive behavior, aggressive thoughts, angry feelings, decreased helpful behavior, and increased physio arousal (Anderson - not new and *only* Anderson et. al. studies cited)
The cited studies of video gaming sexualized violence are video game specific
The other citations are to support general learning theory / repetition arguments - but not citing specific experimental findings unless arleady noted above.
Their last point (before resolving that video games are teh evil) is that "studies on media literacy demonstrate when children are taught to view television critically... there is a reduction of television viewing... a clearer understanding of messages... children feel less frightened... can learn to distinguish between fantasy and reality... and can identify less with aggressive characters"
Questions: Since this isn't new research (just a new resolution from the APA)...
1) Why didn't they make the same resolutions for all violent media (including television)?
Is it because the rating system is failing in terms of video games? Would that fix it? Is the APA making a public policy recommendation because there is some need (current policy is broken for this specific media)? That is, the media is no worse, it's just that the safeguards in place don't work as well as others (TV, Movies)?
2) Why make this resolution now?
If there is no new research and much of the research relates to television? Could some recent events be behind it?
Slashdot Mirror
Can anyone link to an article that shows that an MRI can be used for a clinical diagnosis of either a major depressive episode or major depressive disorder? Example, some structural change in the hippocampus or amgydala? I haven't seen that, but prior posts seem to claim a MRI would be useful for diagnosis. Even if fMRIs show differences between those with clinical depression and no mood disorder, can anyone link to an article showing that an individual fMRI scan is useful as a diagnostic tool?
Here are the DSM IV criteria for a major depressive episode: Some are objective (weight change and sleep pattern disturbance): A. Five (or more) of the following symptoms have been present during the same 2-week period and represent a change from previous functioning; at least one of the symptoms is either (1) depressed mood or (2) loss of interest or pleasure. Note: Do note include symptoms that are clearly due to a general medical condition, or mood-incongruent delusions or hallucinations. (1) depressed mood most of the day, nearly every day, as indicated by either subjective report (e.g., feels sad or empty) or observation made by others (e.g., appears tearful). Note: In children and adolescents, can be irritable mood. (2) markedly diminished interest or pleasure in all, or almost all, activities most of the day, nearly every day (as indicated by either subjective account or observation made by others) (3) significant weight loss when not dieting or weight gain (e.g., a change of more than 5% of body weight in a month), or decrease or increase in appetite nearly every day. Note: In children, consider failure to make expected weight gains. (4) insomnia or hypersomnia nearly every day (5) psychomotor agitation or retardation nearly every day (observable by others, not merely subjective feelings of restlessness or being slowed down) (6) fatigue or loss of energy nearly every day (7) feelings of worthlessness or excessive or inappropriate guilt (which may be delusional) nearly every day (not merely self-reproach or guilt about being sick) (8) diminished ability to think or concentrate, or indecisiveness, nearly every day (either by subjective account or as observed by others) (9) recurrent thoughts of death (not just fear of dying), recurrent suicidal ideation without a specific plan, or a suicide attempt or a specific plan for committing suicide B. The symptoms do not meet criteria for a Mixed Episode. C. The symptoms cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning. D. The symptoms are not due to the direct physiological effects of a substance (e.g., a drug of abuse, a medication) or a general medical condition (e.g., hypothyroidism). E. The symptoms are not better accounted for by Bereavement, i.e., after the loss of a loved one, the symptoms persist for longer than 2 months or are characterized by marked functional impairment, morbid preoccupation with worthlessness, suicidal ideation, psychotic symptoms, or psychomotor retardation.
The abstract says that the task was a hippocampal-related spacial memory task (since it had a delay between initial learning and recall). Does the full article rule out a prefrontal cortex impairment that has an impact on tasks that involve executive control? Was some form of imaging used (such as fMRI) to help localize the deficit rather than basing it on the nature of the task? (I don't have access to the full article)
It's a resolution from a committee. The committee mostly referenced their own work (example, Anderson and Singer - heavily cited). Note how not one study that did not show an effect of exposure to video games on violence (or some other harmful factor) is cited. So not a true meta-analysis of the literature, and not unbiased.
Also, look carefully at the studies. A large portion of them are not specific to video games, they about television violence.
If you didn't think these academics (and the private practitioner) had an agenda, I'd say that would be naive... as they are citing their own research, mostly about television, applying it to video games (when it's mostly just Anderson and Dill's work that applies) to make a "statement".
You can't say this resolution that is selectively citing past research - only *some* of it related to video games (and most of that only from a few researchers) - is "closer to the truth" than another study. This is not new research - it is for another purpose.
"do calm and non violent kids get violent or aggressive after playing the games?"
You should look at Anderson's studies before charactering them as not being experimental designs. These were normal kids, and he has used other (prior) factors as covariates before.
I'm not saying there aren't other issues (validity) with his work, I'd just say you aren't doing anyone a service by mischaracterizing things.
"I had a mother who actually gave a shit. She cared about what I was watching, and always made a point to tell me that it wasn't real, that it was make-believe, and that there was always someone behind the camera."
This is part of what the resolution said worked in terms of violence and media (in terms of television).
If violence in video games and movies was the real cause, we should be able to compare the amount of violence in the US with that of another country and see a direct correlation with the rate of violent crimes. In Japan, movies and games are far more violent than they are here in the US. Yet the rate of violent crime is dramatically lower, and gun violence is only a tiny fraction of what it is here.
Not true. Nowhere do they say (media) violence is the "root" cause of violence, or the main cause of violence. Anderson has said that (in the US) it isn't the biggest cause of violence. Here's what Anderson says:
Myth 11. If violent video games cause increases in aggression, violent crime rates in the U.S. would be increasing instead of decreasing. Facts: Three assumptions must all be true for this myth to be valid: (a) exposure to violent media (including video games) is increasing; (b) youth violent crime rates are decreasing; (c) video game violence is the only (or the primary) factor contributing to societal violence. The first assumption is probably true. The second is not true, as reported by the 2001 Report of the Surgeon General on Youth Violence (Figure 2-7, p. 25). The third is clearly untrue. Media violence is only one of many factors that contribute to societal violence and is certainly not the most important one. Media violence researchers have repeatedly noted this.
Obviously there are multiple factors, and they are not trying to oversimplify it as you suggest.
Their studies may be flawed for other reasons, and their resolution may be suspect (as all the work cited is from members of the committee), but they are not making the claims you suggest and not in the way you suggest (making a causal claim on the sole basis of observational / non-experimental data).
Anderson (one of the authors cited in the resolution, and one of the members of the committe that drafted the resolution) has a list of rebuttals to this and other "Myths" about his work:
http://www.apa.org/science/psa/sb-anderson.html
See Myth 5. Correlational studies are irrelevant. Facts: The overly simplistic mantra, "Correlation is not causation," is useful when teaching introductory students the risks in too-readily drawing causal conclusions from a simple empirical correlation between two measured variables...
I think he does a crappy job of explaining it. Experimental design gets you out of the "correlation != causation" problem, but opens you up to a host of other problems (validity, due to operationalization of variables, etc.) - which is why there are so many other "Myths" listed on his page he feels the need to debunk.
Just because "correlation != causation" is true for some types of studies (including some psuedo-experimental studies) doesn't mean it's a valid argument for experimental designs like some of the ones listed here.
And even with psuedo-experimental designs, if one can establish the occurance of a prior event (or factor), you can establish causality through various statistical models. Example, structural equation modeling (or partial least squares modeling) are perfect for this.
Yes, I like how the committee was made up of Carll, Singer, Anderson, Bushman, Dill, and Friedland ...
...
and most of the references come from
Carll, Singer, Anderson, Bushman, and Dill...
I guess they wanted to pump up their citation count.
It's not one study, it's a resultion citing a combination of studies on television and media (including but not exclusive to video games).
e nce.pdf
http://www.apa.org/releases/resolutiononvideoviol
Anderson's studies are video game specific, but they are not new.
It's a new resolution from the APA. Here's the link to the pdf of the resolution: http://www.apa.org/releases/resolutiononvideoviole nce.pdf
If you take a look you will see that much of the research cited was related to aggressive behavior and Television.
To summarize:
Link between agressive behavior and television (not video games)
Link between child development and media (not video games or electronic media except Singer 2005 - it's mostly television)
Link between aggressive thoughts and violent media (half Television and half Video Games - but Anderson's research is not new)
Lack of "Punishment" for violent actions in media (Television only)
Link between video games and agressive behavior, aggressive thoughts, angry feelings, decreased helpful behavior, and increased physio arousal (Anderson - not new and *only* Anderson et. al. studies cited)
The cited studies of video gaming sexualized violence are video game specific
The other citations are to support general learning theory / repetition arguments - but not citing specific experimental findings unless arleady noted above.
Their last point (before resolving that video games are teh evil) is that "studies on media literacy demonstrate when children are taught to view television critically... there is a reduction of television viewing... a clearer understanding of messages... children feel less frightened... can learn to distinguish between fantasy and reality... and can identify less with aggressive characters"
Questions: Since this isn't new research (just a new resolution from the APA)...
1) Why didn't they make the same resolutions for all violent media (including television)?
Is it because the rating system is failing in terms of video games? Would that fix it? Is the APA making a public policy recommendation because there is some need (current policy is broken for this specific media)? That is, the media is no worse, it's just that the safeguards in place don't work as well as others (TV, Movies)?
2) Why make this resolution now?
If there is no new research and much of the research relates to television? Could some recent events be behind it?