Support NeoGAF

[SomTervo]

First new thread for me - go easy!

See updates below first text

Key info I couldn't fit in the headline:
- only looks at action video games
- only looks at adult gamers
- only looks at those who play a decent amount, 6+ hours a week
- potential risk increase isn't specifically for Alzheimer's, but neurological disorders broadly

Like most of you (I assume) I'm very cynical about research like this, but this one seems fairly legit. Weighs the pros and potential cons quite evenly. But the below is based on a science news website post. Does anyone have access to the full article? (I don't.)

Link: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150519210303.htm

Snippets with my emphasis:

A new study published in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B shows that while video game players (VGPs) exhibit more efficient visual attention abilities, they are also much more likely to use navigation strategies that rely on the brain's reward system (the caudate nucleus) and not the brain's spatial memory system (the hippocampus).

Past research has shown that people who use caudate nucleus-dependent navigation strategies have decreased grey matter and lower functional brain activity in the hippocampus.

This means that people who spend a lot of time playing video games may have reduced hippocampal integrity, which is associated with an increased risk of neurological disorders such as Alzheimer's disease."

Because past research has shown video games as having positive effects on attention, it is important for future research to confirm that gaming does not have a negative effect on the hippocampus.

Imo there's no point reading junk like this unless we look at what we can do about it. So I present: stuff to keep your hippocampus healthy. Exercise and exercise + learning + relaxation.

UPDATE:

Rebuttal by the Guardian

http://www.theguardian.com/science/...nk-between-video-games-and-alzheimers-disease

So far this is all pretty sensible, so where is the link to Alzheimer’s disease? In fact, the researchers didn’t look at dementia or perform any clinical tests. But they nevertheless embark on a series of logical leaps, which go like this:

1. The type of learning shown by the gamers has been associated in previous studies with increased use of a brain region called the caudate nucleus

2. Increased use of the caudate nucleus can be associated with reduced volume of the hippocampus

3. Reduced volume of the hippocampus can be associated with increased risk of Alzheimer’s disease

4. Therefore (take a deep breath) video gaming could increase risk of Alzheimer’s disease

Convinced?

As usual, the news headlines conflate this conjecture with fact. “Call of Duty increases risk of Alzheimer’s disease”, said the Telegraph. “Video game link to psychiatric disorders suggested by study”, reported the Guardian. The Daily Mail posed the problem as a question, “Could video games increase your risk of Alzheimer’s?”, reminding us that whenever a news headline asks a question, the answer is no.

The original article is quite clear that it's just an association and that videogames don't necessarily directly affect the hippocampus. But well played, Gdian.

UPDATE 2 (direct from source article):

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1808/20142952

The habitual playing of video games is associated with increased grey matter and activity in the striatum. Studies in humans and rodents have shown an inverse relationship between grey matter in the striatum and hippocampus. We investigated whether action video game playing is also associated with increased use of response learning strategies during navigation, known to be dependent on the caudate nucleus of the striatum, when presented in a dual solution task. We tested 26 action video game players (actionVGPs) and 33 non-action video game players (nonVGPs) on the 4-on-8 virtual maze and a visual attention event-related potential (ERP) task, which elicits a robust N-2-posterior-controlateral (N2pc) component. We found that actionVGPs had a significantly higher likelihood of using a response learning strategy (80.76%) compared to nonVGPs (42.42%). Consistent with previous evidence, actionVGPs and nonVGPs differed in the way they deployed visual attention to central and peripheral targets as observed in the elicited N2pc component during an ERP visual attention task. Increased use of the response strategy in actionVGPs is consistent with previously observed increases in striatal volume in video game players (VGPs). Using response strategies is associated with decreased grey matter in the hippocampus. Previous studies have shown that decreased volume in the hippocampus precedes the onset of many neurological and psychiatric disorders. If actionVGPs have lower grey matter in the hippocampus, as response learners normally do, then these individuals could be at increased risk of developing neurological and psychiatric disorders during their lifetime.

Abstract and link to the study (payment required to access the whole article)

UPDATE 3:

OK, so I have access to the full article, and have some basis for understanding what they were doing (I work as a psychologist).

Basically, they observed a strategic difference in how people who play action video games and those who do not solve a particular puzzle. In their discussion they cite previous research that suggests that these strategies are more dependent on different brain areas.

They also cite other lines of research on how the grey matter density of these areas could impact people (such as lower density in the hippocampus being associated with dementia). However, discussion sections are often kind of a discussion of what results could mean and what their implications could be. In this way, the most direct conclusion from their research is simply that the players of action video games are more likely to use a particular strategy than those who do not.

Everything else is speculation to some extent. Moreover, even if we assume that there is a connection between "action gamers" being more reliant on the caudate nucleus than the hippocampus, they do not have any indication it would result in reduced hippocampus grey matter density. They also suggest that the differences may be the result of action gamers utilizing more efficient attention strategies, which could have also thrown off one of their measurements. Finally, there is also a limitation in that they saw somewhat large individual variation within the groups, indicating that more research needs to be done on these strategies without other factors like video games.

At the end they refer to "action-RPG ego shooter video games," a categorization from another article. This strikes me as funny (and a good example of the technical jargon that gets thrown around in research articles), as I'm both a gamer and a psychologist and I have no clue what that means.

Excuse me, action-RPG ego shooter video games are my favourite kind. Philistine. I love shooting egos.

 

[YianGaruga]

Rebuttal by the Guardian

http://www.theguardian.com/science/...nk-between-video-games-and-alzheimers-disease

So far this is all pretty sensible, so where is the link to Alzheimer’s disease? In fact, the researchers didn’t look at dementia or perform any clinical tests. But they nevertheless embark on a series of logical leaps, which go like this:

1. The type of learning shown by the gamers has been associated in previous studies with increased use of a brain region called the caudate nucleus

2. Increased use of the caudate nucleus can be associated with reduced volume of the hippocampus

3. Reduced volume of the hippocampus can be associated with increased risk of Alzheimer’s disease

4. Therefore (take a deep breath) video gaming could increase risk of Alzheimer’s disease

Convinced?

As usual, the news headlines conflate this conjecture with fact. “Call of Duty increases risk of Alzheimer’s disease”, said the Telegraph. “Video game link to psychiatric disorders suggested by study”, reported the Guardian. The Daily Mail posed the problem as a question, “Could video games increase your risk of Alzheimer’s?”, reminding us that whenever a news headline asks a question, the answer is no.

 

[Hoo-doo]

Do you have a pubmed link? I'll review the full article when I get home.

 

[MegaMelon]

Well yes, playing 6+ hours of videogames a derp read wrong, per week can have some bad effect. Everytthing can be bad if you do too much of it

Spoiler

aside from GAF

, you just gotta keep things in moderation.

 

[CheesecakeRecipe]

Everything will kill you

 

[Card Boy]

I won't lie I think there might be a ring of truth to this based on personal experience.

 

[Neff]

This is why we need exploration and decision-making back in games. Linearity is going to give us all Alzheimer's.

It's a health issue, devs!

 

[Tregard]

Everything will kill you

Seems sort of relevant: A list of everything that gives you cancer, according to the Daily Mail

 

[SomTervo]

Rebuttal by the Guardian

http://www.theguardian.com/science/...nk-between-video-games-and-alzheimers-disease

So far this is all pretty sensible, so where is the link to Alzheimer’s disease? In fact, the researchers didn’t look at dementia or perform any clinical tests. But they nevertheless embark on a series of logical leaps, which go like this:

1. The type of learning shown by the gamers has been associated in previous studies with increased use of a brain region called the caudate nucleus

2. Increased use of the caudate nucleus can be associated with reduced volume of the hippocampus

3. Reduced volume of the hippocampus can be associated with increased risk of Alzheimer’s disease

4. Therefore (take a deep breath) video gaming could increase risk of Alzheimer’s disease

Convinced?

As usual, the news headlines conflate this conjecture with fact. “Call of Duty increases risk of Alzheimer’s disease”, said the Telegraph. “Video game link to psychiatric disorders suggested by study”, reported the Guardian. The Daily Mail posed the problem as a question, “Could video games increase your risk of Alzheimer’s?”, reminding us that whenever a news headline asks a question, the answer is no.

Excellent, putting in OP.

It's a wrap, folks.

 

[FriedConsole]

I think there are so many terrible health studies that the public can just believe whatever they want because there is a study out ther that will agree with you.

Excuse me why I smoke a pack and eat some asbestos.

 

[PFD]

100% of people who drink water will eventually die

 

[Yrael]

Rebuttal by the Guardian

http://www.theguardian.com/science/...nk-between-video-games-and-alzheimers-disease

The Daily Mail posed the problem as a question, “Could video games increase your risk of Alzheimer’s?”, reminding us that whenever a news headline asks a question, the answer is no.

 

[YianGaruga]

Excellent, putting in OP.

It's a wrap, folks.

Nah, I think it's still something worth discussing!

 

[Randam]

Well yes, playing 6+ hours of videogames a day is gonna have some bad effect. Everytthing can be bad if you do too much of it

Spoiler

aside from GAF

, you just gotta keep things in moderation.

A week, not a day.

 

[Goldfishking]

Well yes, playing 6+ hours of videogames a day is gonna have some bad effect. Everytthing can be bad if you do too much of it

Spoiler

aside from GAF

, you just gotta keep things in moderation.

The article says 6+ hours per week, not per day.

Edit: Damn you Randam

 

[SomTervo]

Well yes, playing 6+ hours of videogames a day is gonna have some bad effect. Everytthing can be bad if you do too much of it

Spoiler

aside from GAF

, you just gotta keep things in moderation.

Read again.

Spoiler

Of course you're right, though.

 

[10k]

100% of people who drink water will eventually die

Source?

 

[MegaMelon]

A week, not a day.

Derp, edited.

 

[MikeDip]

Well yes, playing 6+ hours of videogames a day is gonna have some bad effect. Everytthing can be bad if you do too much of it

Spoiler

aside from GAF

, you just gotta keep things in moderation.

In the OP it says 6 hours a week, not 6 hours a day. Which is... not a lot at all.

EDIT: Everyone beat me, sorry megaman. But still, if they actually do mean 6 hours a week, that seems way too low yes?

 

[KCroxtonJr]

Everything will kill you

This really made me lol for some reason.

lol

 

[Anfony O]

Didn't read the article but based on what i read in the first two posts... It's bullshit. Medicine does not work like this. We only rely on evidence, hypothesising based on theoretical outcomes just does not work. There must be a proper study to come close to calling this theoretical link legitimate. If we followed this logic in medicine there would have been several drugs in this day and age that should take care of diseases we still suffer from today.

 

[bomblord1]

At least the article admits that it's something that needs to be studied further and didn't jump to conclusions.

 

[YianGaruga]

Didn't read the article but based on what i read in the first two posts... It's bullshit. Medicine does not work like this. We only rely on evidence, hypothesising based on theoretical outcomes just does not work. There must be a proper study to come close to calling this theoretical link legitimate. If we followed this logic in medicine there would have been several drugs in this day and age that should take care of diseases we still suffer from today.

Yeah, the result of this study should be "hey this is something worth investigating" and not lead to sensationalized headlines. Gotta get your funding somehow though

 

[SomTervo]

Nah, I think it's still something worth discussing!

True, and as I wrote in the OP, the scientists are quite clear that it's just an interesting association they noticed. They never categorically wrote 'vidyagams give u dementia'.

Didn't read the article but based on what i read in the first two posts... It's bullshit. Medicine does not work like this. We only rely on evidence, hypothesising based on theoretical outcomes just does not work. There must be a proper study to come close to calling this theoretical link legitimate. If we followed this logic in medicine there would have been several drugs in this day and age that should take care of diseases we still suffer from today.

Wise words. It's fairly clear, however, that the article is suggesting a possible association rather than properly flipping out over what they think is categorical evidence.

 

[astonish]

I imagine if I get Alzheimers I'll just recall all the videogame memories of my life.

"Remember when we used to dance atop the bank in Ogrimmar?"

 

[LiquidMetal14]

Liberty Medical took care of us with diabeetus, they will rise again for us here!

 

[SomTervo]

I imagine if I get Alzheimers I'll just recall all the videogame memories of my life.

"Remember when we used to dance atop the bank in Ogrimmar?"

"You? My son? I don't have a son.

But I had a dad. His name was John Marston."

 

[Fonds]

Research can be so confusing.http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/09/04/video-games-brain-power-dementia/2762523/

 

[Cave Johnson]

I was about to ask a series of follow up questions based on the original article but I'm glad YianGaruga found something to refute their claims.

 

[Turrican3]

The habitual playing of video games is associated with increased grey matter and activity in the striatum. Studies in humans and rodents have shown an inverse relationship between grey matter in the striatum and hippocampus. We investigated whether action video game playing is also associated with increased use of response learning strategies during navigation, known to be dependent on the caudate nucleus of the striatum, when presented in a dual solution task. We tested 26 action video game players (actionVGPs) and 33 non-action video game players (nonVGPs) on the 4-on-8 virtual maze and a visual attention event-related potential (ERP) task, which elicits a robust N-2-posterior-controlateral (N2pc) component. We found that actionVGPs had a significantly higher likelihood of using a response learning strategy (80.76%) compared to nonVGPs (42.42%). Consistent with previous evidence, actionVGPs and nonVGPs differed in the way they deployed visual attention to central and peripheral targets as observed in the elicited N2pc component during an ERP visual attention task. Increased use of the response strategy in actionVGPs is consistent with previously observed increases in striatal volume in video game players (VGPs). Using response strategies is associated with decreased grey matter in the hippocampus. Previous studies have shown that decreased volume in the hippocampus precedes the onset of many neurological and psychiatric disorders. If actionVGPs have lower grey matter in the hippocampus, as response learners normally do, then these individuals could be at increased risk of developing neurological and psychiatric disorders during their lifetime.

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1808/20142952

Abstract and link to the study (payment required to access the whole article)

 

[darkwing]

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1808/20142952

Abstract and link to the study (payment required to access the whole article)

welp, it was fun

 

[SomTervo]

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1808/20142952

Abstract and link to the study (payment required to access the whole article)

Thanks

At work so I can't do as much research into this as I'd like

 

[Kocolino67]

Each time I read reports about such studies, I have this blog post in mind: The vegetables of truth

...don't forget to watch the documentary at the end

 

[jerry1594]

*post about how other stuff is also bad*

 

[YankeeDonB]

Yeah, the result of this study should be "hey this is something worth investigating" and not lead to sensationalized headlines. Gotta get your funding somehow though

That's right. Unfortunately, science journalism doesn't work that way (source: finishing my 2nd year as a research fellow at a major University, have been involved in two findings that got global media attention). Most actual scientists are pretty careful about the claims we make in our papers (wouldn't get through peer review otherwise). When a new study is out, and it's time to do a press release, the more conscientious among us make a real effort to try and highlight the core, important finding, and downplay over simplified but "sexy" interpretations. But solid, careful science really is seldom what journalists want to talk about in interviews. There's the option of not going for press splash, but:

A. Universities like the attention, so there's some pressure on investigators to do so
B. It can affect hiring and tenure decisions
C. Many scientists now find out about most new findings in their field via the media, as opposed to conferences and networking, so
D. Media splash helps you get attention and citations (which see B. again).

Bit of a vicious cycle.

As a consumer of science journalism, the best thing to do is to get as close to the source as you can. Often, it's quite sensible. The shift to a caudate (read: appetite driven) navigation strategy versus a more hippocampal free exploratory strategy in video gamers is an interesting finding, and certainly bears follow-up. But it's a long way from showing strong relationship to Alzheimer's. That's just the angle that got the press, which gets the attention and possibly funding the researchers need to actually follow up in the first place.

What this does suggest should come as no surprise: video games tend to be Skinner boxes, and they clearly reward and reinforce a very goal driven style of thought. Not necessarily a bad thing, but can lead to missing the forest for the trees.

 

[NeoFaff]

Tiny sample size. You can't get anything remotely conclusive on such a complex topic from 26 people.

 

[Pandy]

What I took away from this is that I'll still be able to play video games even if I get Alzheimer's, as they use different parts of the brain.

Good news, then.

 

[Asd202]

Is there anything in this world that is not harmful?

 

[Surbii]

I'm interested in what kind of activity stimulates the grey matter of the hippocampus.

 

[YankeeDonB]

Tiny sample size. You can't get anything remotely conclusive on such a complex topic from 26 people.

Not true. Plenty big sample to show a moderate to large effect, which they do here. And 26 was the video game group, had 33 controls.

 

[SomTervo]

What this does suggest should come as no surprise: video games tend to be Skinner boxes, and they clearly reward and reinforce a very goal driven style of thought. Not necessarily a bad thing, but can lead to missing the forest for the trees.

Nice insight - but what's a Skinner box?

 

[Dryk]

Yeah, the result of this study should be "hey this is something worth investigating" and not lead to sensationalized headlines. Gotta get your funding somehow though

It's probably not so much about funding as it is a first year postgrad student publishing their literature review and problem statement as an article. (My first publication was like that).

 

[Always-honest]

I doubt it

 

[YankeeDonB]

Nice insight - but what's a Skinner box?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning_chamber

In short, an extremely limited tool for delving the depths of cognitive faculty in rodents and pigeons.

As a comparative psychologist, my problem with them has always been that they reduce the essential interactive complexity of the real world to a couple of restricted choices. That is, not an ecologically valid way to learn much about real brains and how they effect behavior in the real world. But they do serve as a more reasonable model for video games, which even in 2015 have the tiniest fraction of the richness and complexity of real life.

 

[Cave Johnson]

Nice insight - but what's a Skinner box?

See the explanation below

The visualized version:

Mobile gaming and Ubi-style design in a nutshell.

 

[Darksol]

I speak three languages. It'll balance out. Science!

 

[Ramenman]

So I guess that explains about the Sonic Cycle and such ?

 

[mclem]

Yeah, the result of this study should be "hey this is something worth investigating" and not lead to sensationalized headlines. Gotta get your funding somehow though

Out of interest, is it the case for research scientists that "If we say something true enough to get sensational headlines, we can get more funding from the publicity"?

Edit: YankeeDonB seems to have already answered the rough spirit of that query.

 

[YankeeDonB]

Out of interest, is it the case for research scientists that "If we say something true enough to get sensational headlines, we can get more funding from the publicity"?

Edit: YankeeDonB seems to have already answered the rough spirit of that query.

Yeah, it's depressing. Most scientists I know at least have the decency to feel weird about it, but it's hard to take a principled stance against when you may not have a career if you do so (it's hard out here for a scientist, dawg).

 

[Ranma]

If i read all of this i'll probably forget about it after a week of videogaming.