Digital Dementia

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:

A scientist says that he has science

Science is something you do, not something you have.

Carevto document that assertion? According to dictionary.com "science" is a noun, not a verb.

It's a process, not something you put in your pocket. Nobody "has science."

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

Quote:

It's a process, not something you put in your pocket. Nobody "has science."

It's a method of investigation, study, and research--and the findings drawn from such work.

Hawkeye wasn't entirely incorrect in using the word "science" but I think he used the word awkwardly in his sentence. Had he said that this man backed up his claims with the results of scientific investigation, study, or research, I think it would have sounded better, and better reflected the meaning of what he was saying.

But, why make a big deal of this?

Hawkeye posted an interesting topic for discussion, and the topic itself is considerably more interesting than why he used certain words in introducing it.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

Junk science studies or no such studies....
the junk science people...

What is your definition of valid science and valid scientific research?

What is your definition of "junk science"?

What makes the cognitive, developmental, and neurological research in this area "junk science" according to your definition of that term? Are you finding fault with the methodology used? The population samples studied? The statistical analysis used?

And I hate to tell you this, BillRM, but you cited one of the leading researchers in this general area--Dr. David Strayer, of the University of Utah--in the drunk driving thread, and you used his research results to try to bolster an argument you were making.

So, are these researchers only "junk science people" when you don't like the results of their studies, or the implications of those results?

0 Replies

@firefly,

Oh, was I too mean?

I'm sorry, Hawkeye, for hurting your feelings. I'm sorry if I implied that someone who writes "this guy has science" might not be the best person to interpret the data, or to read the study with a critical eye.

0 Replies

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.318396-Neuroscientist-Dismisses-Dementia-Claims-as-Junk-Science

Cardiff University neuroscientist Dr. Dean Burnett says the claim that videogames cause dementia is "junk science" that reaches "overblown conclusions based on little or no evidence."

Videogames. They'll turn your brain to mush, almost literally in the estimation of Susan Greenfield, a scientist, Baroness and former director of the Royal Institution of Great Britain who said last week that videogames cause such "high arousal" in the minds of children that they can disable connections within the brain, possibly permanently, resulting in dementia. Scary stuff! Except, well, it's not, really.

"The temporary or permanent deactivation of nerve connections in the brain is implied to be a negative consequence of excessive computer game playing, as opposed to a perfectly normal and actually quite essential occurrence in a typical, healthy brain," Burnett wrote in a guest article for The Telegraph. "The constant deactivating of parts of the brain is vital to our functioning as normal cognitive beings. There can be times when too much of the brain is active at once, and these are seldom good things, as anyone who's had a seizure or violent hallucination will probably attest."

He acknowledged that some of Greenfield's statements are essentially accurate but takes her to task for phrasing them in such a way as to leave average readers equal parts confused and concerned. "The phrase 'high arousal, which in turn activates the brain system's underlying addiction and reward, resulting in the attraction of yet more ... activity' is more commonly known as 'fun' or 'enjoyment'," he continued. "This same effect can be seen in football fans or pretty much anyone who has a persistent hobby."

That's the crux of his argument : every activity done to excess, be it football, fishing or playing videogames, will have an impact on the wiring of the brain. And while some games are certainly inappropriate for kids, that's a far cry from suggesting that they actually do long-term damage.

"Baroness Greenfield clearly has her reasons for disliking computer games and other electronic entertainments, and I'm sure they're noble ones," he concluded. "But this does not justify the use of junk science, or the public airing of overblown conclusions based on little or no evidence."

Burnett's response was pared down considerably for The Telegraph; the whole, unedited thing, which he described as "more verbose and piss-taking," can be read at Science Digestible.

Permalink

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

The temporary or permanent deactivation of nerve connections in the brain is implied to be a negative consequence of excessive computer game playing

perhaps, but what is explicitly claimed is that gaming lowers attention span, gumption to tackle real life, impulse control and morals.

Quote:

videogames cause such "high arousal" in the minds of children that they can disable connections within the brain, possibly permanently, resulting in dementia

I have not read the book but from what I have read the argument is that technology dependents keeps useful/needed brain connections from ever forming, that they make us dumb for life not just in old age. it seems to me that "digital dementia" is not a perfect term.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

The word is junk science that been going on all my life centering around the TV.

IQ testing is not showing any decrease over those 60 years so is is nonsense for TV and it will be shown to be nonsense with the other technologies as they been around long enough.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/flynneffect.shtml

Introduction
(back to outline)
In his study of IQ tests scores for different populations over the past sixty years, James R. Flynn discovered that IQ scores increased from one generation to the next for all of the countries for which data existed (Flynn, 1994). This interesting phenomena has been called "the Flynn Effect." Many of the questions about why this effect occurs have not yet been answered by researchers. This site attempts to explain the issues involved in a way that will better help you to understand the Flynn Effect. It also provides references for further inquiry.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How large are the IQ gains?
(back to outline)
Research shows that IQ gains have been mixed for different countries. In general, countries have seen generational increases between 5 and 25 points. The largest gains appear to occur on tests that measure fluid intelligence (Gf) rather than crystallized intelligence (Gc).

Fluid Intelligence

Tests like the Ravens, the Norwegian matrices, the Belgian Shapes test, the Jenkins test, and the Horn test are examples of tests that attempt to measure fluid intelligence. These tests try to emphasize problem solving and minimize a reliance on specific skills or familiarity with words and symbols. These tests on average have shown an increase of about 15 points or one standard deviation per generation (Flynn, 1994)(Flynn, 1987). Deary (2001) notes that it is these types of tests (i.e., "culturally reduced") on which we would not expect to see score increases if the cause of the increases was due to educational factors.

Crystallized Intelligence

Tests like the Wechsler-Binet and purely verbal tests measure crystallized intelligence in addition to fluid intelligence. Some questions on these tests measure problem solving abilities but others measure learned information such as vocabulary and math skills. The IQ gains for these tests have been more moderate, with an average of about 9 points per generation (Flynn, 1994)(Flynn, 1987).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where is the IQ test data from?
(back to outline)

The countries from which data has been gathered to research the increase of IQ scores over time are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Britain, Canada, China, Denmark, East Germany, France, Israel, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Northern Ireland, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, United States of America, and West Germany (Flynn, 1994).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What are possible causes for the Flynn Effect?
(back to outline)

What do intelligence tests really test? To what extent do they measure learning vs. raw intelligence vs. some other factor that is correlated with intelligence? The answers to these questions are still being researched by scholars around the world. Flynn originally offered three categories of potential explanations: Artifacts (e.g., of sampling, improvement in early childhood education), Test Sophistication, and Actual Intelligence Increases. Deary (2001) discusses the weaknesses of the possible explanations, illustrating the complexity of the Flynn Effect.
Flynn's Hypothesis

"The hypothesis that best fits the results is that IQ tests do not measure intelligence but rather correlate with a weak causal link to intelligence." (Flynn, 1987). Based on the presence of the effect on nonverbal tests such as the Raven's Matrices, Flynn believes that the increase is actually an increase in abstract problem solving rather than intelligence. Flynn (1994, 1999) favors environmental explanations for the increase in test scores.

Education a cause of IQ gains?

In many countries the level of education of the general public is increasing. People are spending a larger amount of their time learning and being examined in formal educational settings. In some cases IQ gains are highly correlated to increased years spent in formal education. Again, several scholars point at the increase in culture-free tests as evidence against an educational cause.

The Brand hypothesis: Societal changes causing IQ gains?

Brand suggested that societal changes that teach testing with "time limits" could be a cause of IQ gains. The idea behind this hypothesis is that people in our society have learned to work better within a limited time frame. This societal trend allows later generations to score better on timed tests because they make intelligent guesses and don't waste time trying to get every test item correct. Although this hypothesis seemed promising, there has been research that contradicts its fundamental assumptions (Flynn, 1994)

Better nutrition a cause of IQ gains?

It has also been hypothesized that IQ gains are the results of better world wide nutrition. The idea behind this hypothesis is that better nourished brains would allow subjects to perform better on IQ tests as well as in everyday activities. Experimental data trying to prove this theory are also mixed leading one to believe that nutrition, though a possible contributing cause, cannot account entirely for the massive gains in IQ measured around the world (Flynn, 1994).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why must IQ tests be routinely restandardized?
(back to outline)

Because populations experience IQ gains over time, IQ tests must be constantly restandardized so that subjects are not scored against inaccurate norms. Using obsolete IQ norms can cause problems especially when comparing scores between different groups and populations. Flynn documents an example where scores from a group of Chinese Americans were being compared to an earlier generation of white Americans. This simple mistake caused the researchers to believe that they were working with "an elite IQ group" when in actuality they were working with a group of high achievers with comparable IQs to their peers (Flynn, 1991). In another case documented by Flynn, IQ scores were compared against obsolete norms to incorrectly show large increases in IQ between children adopted into "good" homes and their biological mothers (Flynn, 1984).

A widely held hypothesis is that people lose fluid intelligence as they age. This phenomena is caused by comparing the IQ tests of elderly people with today's young people. However, when compared to the IQ scores of youth in their own era (a half a century before) the IQ losses with age are minimal (Raven, 1992, pp. G22-G26). In a final example, Flynn explains that the WISC, an intelligence test used widely in the United States, was not restandardized for 25 years between 1947 and 1972. This comparison of IQ scores to obsolete norms caused the number of children who were officially classified as mentally retarded to drop from 8.8 million in 1947 to 2.6 million in 1972 (Flynn, 1985).

A note of caution: The Flynn Effect illustrates the difficulty of comparing test results over time, but it says little about the validity of the tests within a given time period (Flynn talks about the validity "within generations").

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

it seems to me that "digital dementia" is not a perfect term.

I agree with you that "digital dementia" is not a perfect term. In fact, it is clearly an inappropriate term to use when referring to possible changes in the developing brains of children and adolescents since dementia refers to a degenerative process.

It appears that the term "digital dementia" came about to explain adverse effects in adult cognitive functions, like memory, due to the reliance on digital devices, rather than our brains, to do the work of storing and retrieving information. In that regard, digital devices might be facilitating a sort of premature aging of certain cognitive abilities, and causing them to decline, but, unlike dementia, these negative effects might be reversible with re-training and greater use of one's own memory capacities. But, calling these declines in memory abilities "digital dementia," merely creates a catchy media or pop-science phrase to attract public interest, and simplify public understanding, by comparing it to another disorder associated with aging. But, as is the case with children and adolescents, it's important to remember that we're not really talking about true dementia, of any sort, when we refer to "digital dementia".

There is a great deal of neurological and neurocognitive research going on regarding the developing brain, and the impact of internet use and video gaming on that developing brain, and on the development of internet and video gaming addictions, and whether these result from changes in the brain, or whether they are causes of changes in the brain. It's a fascinating, and highly complex area of study, but also a fairly new area which has not yet yielded clear cut results from which meaningful conclusions can be drawn.

This area of study is not at all "junk science"--the people working in this field are very highly regarded researchers, including Dr. Susan Greenfield, who is disparaged by Dr. Dean Burnett in the article BillRM posted. She has quite an impressive resume.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Greenfield,_Baroness_Greenfield
Where Dr Greenfield goes astray is jumping to some unwarranted conclusions about the negative influences of our electronic devices, like computers, which are not yet justified by the current results of research, and then trying to sell her ideas, and demonization of these devices, to the public. In doing that, she's not being a "junk scientist" she's being a publicly irresponsible scientist--she's drawing conclusions that aren't yet warranted by the data. She may well be onto something, but, so far, the jury is still out.

An example of the type of neurological research that is going on, regarding behaviors such as internet addiction, and associated brain changes, is this one.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3108989/

By no stretch is that study "junk science", nor is it the sort of study which is easily understood by the public. But, a glance at the references cited at the end of the article, will give you some idea of the other research going on in this area.

This was the conclusion of that study--IAD refers to Internet Addiction Disorder:

Quote:

Conclusion

We provided evidences indicating that IAD subjects had multiple structural changes in the brain. The gray matter atrophy and white matter FA changes of some brain regions were significantly correlated with the duration of internet addiction. These results may be interpreted, at least partially, as the functional impairment of cognitive control in IAD. The prefrontal cortex abnormalities were consistent with previous substance abuse studies [23], [48], [80], [81], hence we suggested that there may exist partially overlapping mechanisms in IAD and substance use. We hoped that our results will enhance our understanding of IAD and aid in improving the diagnosis and prevention of IAD.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3108989/

While the study did find multiple structural changes in the brains of those considered to have Internet Addictive Disorder, and the types of changes were associated with the duration of the disorder, and were similar to those found in substance abuse studies, this study alone could not answer the issue of cause and effect, or which came first, the chicken or the egg. Were these brain changes pre-existing in these adolescents who had IAD, so that they were what caused the IAD, or did the IAD, and excessive internet use, cause those changes? Trying to answer that cause and effect question will be the goal of these researchers, and others, as they continue to do research in this area.

Where someone, like Dr Susan Greenfield, errs is in jumping the gun--she's erroneously assuming that cause and effect question has already been answered when it hasn't. She's assuming that the damaging effects in the brain are from excessive internet use, and that this has been clearly established, when that is not yet the case. She should stop with her public pronouncements and go back to her lab and do the research to answer the question, and to back up the advice she's offering to the public. She's an excellent scientist, and she should remember to think like one when addressing the public and giving advice.

But Dr. Greenfield is also atypical. Most reputable scientists aren't running around making the rash, and controversial, statements she is known for, but that doesn't make her a "junk scientist" either, nor does it mean that this area of study is "junk science".

BillRM pounced on a single statement, about a specific person, to claim an entire body of research, done by highly regarded, and quite reputable, scientists is "junk science". BillRM doesn't know what the hell he is talking about. And he is trying to disparage your very interesting topic in the process, without even understanding, or looking at, the research which has been done in this area.

I think we do have to wonder whether the intense involvement with computers and video games, that many children display, affects developing brains, and whether, if it does, it does so in ways that are negative or a mixed bag. I think we have to wonder whether the mushrooming problem with diagnosed, and undiagnosed, attention deficits is related to the constant input of highly arousing stimuli these devices deliver to children. And we do have to wonder whether the multi-tasking, and shuttling from one device to another, negatively affects the ability to focus more deeply, and consistently, when the child or adolescent is shifted to an environment requiring that sort of adaptation, or whether children and adolescents are more prone to avoid tasks and situations that don't deliver a constant barrage of arousing stimuli and, instead, make more demands on their ability to focus and to to think in a verbal rather than visual way. Are some of the academic and educational problems we see in classrooms related to children's excessive use of technology--and has that technology affected developing brains in a way that might not be reversible? Those are all worthwhile questions to consider, and this topic helps to raise them.

Finding all of the the answers, through careful research, may take some time. But, in the meantime, we shouldn't disparage the topic in the uninformed way BillRM is trying to do. You posted an interesting topic that is very worthy of considered exploration and discussion.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Sorry dear I been around long enough that claims of doom whenever a new major technology that impact the public come alone is getting boring.

So far those predictions of harm had turn out to be 100 percents nonsense and there would need to be one hell of a lot more then a so call scientist who is going to the public press for me to give it a hearing.

When her studies had been peer review and a large percent of her colleagues are in agreement then is the time to consider the matter as neither history or commonsense is on her side.

Foot note I had not taken note that the people who love and live for computers for the last few generations now are having any problems with their intellect or their brain wiring.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

there would need to be one hell of a lot more then a so call scientist who is going to the public press for me to give it a hearing.

There is considerably more--but you wouldn't know about it because you haven't read the actual research studies in this area. And I truthfully doubt you could even understand them if you did.

And, judging from your posting of irrelevant info on I.Q. scores, you have no knowledge, let alone the faintest idea, of the research in this area, and what is studied, and how it is studied. Nor do you have the intellectual curiosity to find those things out.

You're free to remain ignorant.

And this "so call scientist"--Dr. Manfred Spitzer-- referred to in Hawkeye's OP seems to have quite real scientific credentials--certainly more than you have.

Quote:

Spitzer studied simultaneously medicine , philosophy and psychology at the Albert-Ludwigs-University of Freiburg . After graduating in psychology and promotions in the other two subjects, Medicine (1983) and Philosophy (1985), completed his habilitation in 1989, he also for the subject Psychiatry (Psychiatrist). From 1990 to 1997 he worked at the Psychiatric University Hospital in Heidelberg, working as a senior consultant. Twice he has been a visiting professor at Harvard University , led another research visit him at the Institute for Cognitive and Decision Sciences of the University of Oregon . In 1997 he was on the newly created Department of Psychiatry of the University of Ulm and was appointed the youngest to date Professor of Psychiatry in Germany. A short time after Spitzer was editor of the journal for interdisciplinary training of Neurology publishing Schattauer in Stuttgart, which publishes his contributions in mind, brain and neurology annually since 2000.
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manfred_Spitzer&prev=/search%3Fq%3D-%2BDr.%2BManfred%2BSpitzer%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D1152%26bih%3D614%26prmd%3Dimvnso&sa=X&ei=iy5VUIXZDsjy0gH5soCACQ&ved=0CCIQ7gEwAA

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

Makes us dumb, or reveals that certain people are dumb?

As to the first, it's debatable. Considering your argument attempting to explain away US terrorism, I'd say that the second is a fair personal assessment.

0 Replies

@firefly,

While I can see that video games might cause the brain to develop differently, I think only time will tell whether these differences are actually detrimental.

5 Replies

@DrewDad,

Quote:

While I can see that video games might cause the brain to develop differently, I think only time will tell whether these differences are actually detrimental.

Give me a break video games rewiring the human brain!!!!!!!!!!!!

Let see we had video games since the 1980s or so and that is thirty years so where are the evidences in real life that any harm had been done?

I remember some nice games on the first home computers such as the ti99 and the c-64.

Hell there were second generation console games in the mid to late 1970s.

As far as the internet we had dial up world wide computer networks such as Genie and CIS along with BBS systems from the 1980 also available to the public.

I in fact met my wife from across the country on CIS in 1985.

No matter how many grants and how many degrees people putting out nonsense have it is still nonsense and junk science.

2 Replies

@DrewDad,

First the research has to show that the video games affect the brain--and that's the direction they're going in now.

Quote:

Does Frequent Video Game Playing Alter the Brain?
Study Shows Differences in Brain's Reward Center for Frequent Video Game Players
By Salynn Boyles
WebMD Health News

Reviewed by Laura J. Martin, MD

Nov. 15, 2011 -- Kids who spend hours a day playing video games may be hardwired to behave that way -- or their brains may have been altered as a result of all the gaming.

The answer is not yet clear, but when researchers compared the brains of 14-year-olds who played video games excessively to those who played less often, they found key differences in an area of the brain associated with reward and addiction.

The brain imaging study revealed that the structure and activity in the part of the brain associated with reward processing was bigger in frequent gamers.

Specifically, an area of the brain known as the ventral striatum -- considered key to motivation and reward -- had more gray matter in kids who played video games nine hours or more a week compared to those who spent less time gaming.

It was not clear if playing video games led to the increase or if kids with larger volumes of ventral striatum were more drawn to video games in the first place.

Researcher Simone Kuhn, PhD, of the University of Ghent in Belgium, says more research is needed to tease this out. But she says that it may be that people with larger ventral striatum volumes might derive more pleasure from playing video games.

Brain Scans for Video Game Players

The study included 154 German 14-year-olds who were asked about their video game habits. The teens underwent brain scans, and the researchers examined differences in their brains.

The study participants were considered frequent gamers if they reported playing more than nine hours a week or infrequent gamers if they spent less time playing video games.

The scans revealed that the frequent gamers had more gray matter volume in the part of the brain known for reward and addiction. And they also showed more evidence of brain activity in this region when they completed a gambling task designed to simulate winning a video game.

The findings suggest that people with more gray matter in this part of the brain might experience video gaming as more rewarding, Kuhn says.

The study is published online in Translational Psychiatry.

In an effort to determine if playing video games actually alters the brain, Kuhn and colleagues plan to study people who have not previously played them. The researchers plan to scan these people's brains before and several months after they are introduced to video gaming.
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=151674

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

We can already see both positive and negative effects.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-VD_BRDuFBrc/T2NtH-zAv6I/AAAAAAAAAbY/PMkKvrgavT4/s1600/Neurology-of-Gaming.png

What has to be looked at, in continuing research, are the more significant, and possible structural, changes in the brain that excessive gaming might cause in a developing brain--and those could be positive or detrimental.

0 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

Nov. 15, 2011 -- Kids who spend hours a day playing video games may be hardwired to behave that way -- or their brains may have been altered as a result of all the gaming.

The answer is not yet clear, but when researchers compared the brains of 14-year-olds who played video games excessively to those who played less often, they found key differences in an area of the brain associated with reward and addiction.

I love the statement that the games could be doing zero to the kids brains it just that the kids who are drawn to playing those games for long periods are not the same as kids who could play or leave them alone and we can now detect those differences with a few million dollar machine. For this they are releasing news stories to the press!!!!!!!

Quote:

Researcher Simone Kuhn, PhD, of the University of Ghent in Belgium, says more research is needed to tease this out. But she says that it may be that people with larger ventral striatum volumes might derive more pleasure from playing video games.

In other word I need more grants money to paid my house note.

Quote:

In an effort to determine if playing video games actually alters the brain, Kuhn and colleagues plan to study people who have not previously played them. The researchers plan to scan these people's brains before and several months after they are introduced to video gaming.

Sound like enough grant funding to not only keep paying off the house note but also buy a new car.

Wonder how they plan to force kids who are not interested in playing those games for endless hours to do so in order to see any possible brain changes.

Then there is the fun question of how ethics would if be to run such a program if they was under the real impression that such game playing might change or even harm children brains.

The above alone tell me that they are playing not video games but the game of junk science instead.

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

Quote:

Violent Video Games Alter Brain Function in Young Men

ScienceDaily (Dec. 1, 2011) — Sustained changes in the region of the brain associated with cognitive function and emotional control were found in young adult men after one week of playing violent video games, according to study results presented by Indiana University School of Medicine researchers at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America.

This is the first time the IU researchers, who have studied the effects of media violence for more than a decade, have conducted an experimental study that showed a direct relationship between playing violent video games over an extended period of time and a subsequent change in brain regions associated with cognitive function and emotional control.

The controversy over whether or not violent video games are potentially harmful to players has been debated for many years, even making it as far as the Supreme Court in 2010. There has been little scientific evidence demonstrating that the games have a prolonged negative neurological effect.

"For the first time, we have found that a sample of randomly assigned young adults showed less activation in certain frontal brain regions following a week of playing violent video games at home," said Yang Wang, M.D., assistant research professor in the IU Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences. "The affected brain regions are important for controlling emotion and aggressive behavior."

For the study, 28 healthy adult males, age 18 to 29, with low past exposure to violent video games were randomly assigned to two groups of 14. Members of the first group were instructed to play a shooting video game for 10 hours at home for one week and refrain from playing the following week. The second group did not play a video game at all during the two-week period.

Each of the 28 men underwent functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) analysis at the beginning of the study, with follow-up exams at one and two weeks. During fMRI, the participants completed an emotional interference task, pressing buttons according to the color of visually presented words. Words indicating violent actions were interspersed among nonviolent action words. In addition, the participants completed a cognitive inhibition counting task.

The results showed that after one week of violent game play, the video game group members showed less activation in the left inferior frontal lobe during the emotional Stroop task and less activation in the anterior cingulate cortex during the counting Stroop task, compared to their baseline results and the results of the control group after one week. After the video game group refrained from game play for an additional week, the changes to the executive regions of the brain returned closer to the control group. Stroop task tests an individual's ability to control cognitive flexibility and attention.

"These findings indicate that violent video game play has a long-term effect on brain functioning," Dr. Wang said. "These effects may translate into behavioral changes over longer periods of game play."

Dr. Wang said that another important point of the study was that the young men were supplied with laptop computers and played at home in their "natural environment." Some of the previous research was done with players participating in a lab setting.

Coauthors are Tom Hummer, Ph.D., IU assistant research professor of psychiatry; William Kronenberger, Ph.D., associate professor of clinical psychology in the IU Department of Psychiatry; Kristine Mosier, D.M.D., Ph.D., IU associate professor of radiology; and Vincent P. Mathews, M.D., IU professor of neuroradiology. Drs. Wang, Hummer and Mosier are members of the IU Center for Neuroimaging.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111130095251.htm

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

And here's a study which shows some positive effects of gaming.

Quote:

Video Gaming Prepares Brain for Bigger Tasks
ScienceDaily

(Sep. 24, 2010) — Playing video games for hours on end may prepare your child to become a laparoscopic surgeon one day, a new study has shown. Reorganisation of the brain's cortical network in young men with significant experience playing video games gives them an advantage not only in playing the games but also in performing other tasks requiring visuomotor skills.

The findings are published in the October 2010 issue of Elsevier's Cortex.

Researchers from the Centre for Vision Research at York University in Canada compared a group of 13 young men in their twenties, who had played video games at least four hours a week for the previous three years, to a group of 13 young men without that experience. The subjects were placed in a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) machine and asked to complete a series of increasingly difficult visuomotor tasks, such as using a joystick or looking one way while reaching another way.

"By using high resolution brain imaging (fMRI), we were able to actually measure which brain areas were activated at a given time during the experiment," said Lauren Sergio, associate professor in the Faculty of Health at York University. "We tested how the skills learned from video game experience can transfer over to new tasks, rather than just looking at brain activity while the subject plays a video game."

The study found that during the tasks the less experienced gamers were relying most on the parietal cortex (the brain area typically involved in hand-eye coordination), whereas the experienced gamers showed increased activity in the prefrontal cortex at the front of the brain.

The finding that using visuomotor skills can reorganize how the brain works offers hope for future research into the problems experienced by Alzheimer's patients, who struggle to complete the simplest visuomotor tasks.

Lead author Joshua Granek added that, in future, it would be interesting to study if the brain pattern changes are affected by the type of video games a player has used and the actual total number or hours he has played, and to study female video gamers, whose brain patterns in earlier studies were different than those of males.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100924095824.htm

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

Give me a break video games rewiring the human brain!!!!!!!!!!!!

highly likely. we have here Bill one of those times were you and I completely disagree.

1 Reply

Digital Dementia

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know