For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. It’s Newton’s third law of motion and undoubtedly one taken into account by meticulous game designers dedicated to creating an onscreen experience undetectably different than the real world.
That physics principle extends into another realm of science and equally applies to the biological effects of gaming. However inflexible the views of those who are pro-gaming or anti-gaming, one thing is certain: the brain itself is mutable and highly subject to influence. Jonah Lehrer, author of Proust Was a Neuroscientist and How We Decide told PCMag, “Everything changes the brain—and gaming is not an exception to that rule—we just don't know how. Yet.”
Studies that conclude that gaming results in negative behavior— violence, aggression or decreased attention spans—are balanced by reports that find gaming can have a positive influence, alleviating the symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder or improving attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. One of the first games to use graphical display, Tennis for Two, contained these multitudes. Introduced in 1958, it was a Pong-like creation of nuclear scientist William Higinbotham meant to both entertain and spark scientific interest in Brookhaven National Laboratory visitors.
Akio Mori, a cranial nerve specialist at Nihon University College of Humanities and Sciences in Tokyo, caused a stir when he coined the term “game brain,” a lack of emotion and creativity resulting from gaming, in a 2002 book called The Terror of Game Brain. Mori’s peers criticized the book’s shoddy science for unreliable measures and a lack of focus. Though the book was a big seller, particularly with the parents of gamers, it was nominated for the Japan Outrageous Book Award. A slew of studies have followed and come down on both sides of the issue.
On the 50th anniversary of possibly the first online game, Spacewar!, which took to ARPAnet from MIT in 1961, PCMag takes a look at the flip sides of the current research into gaming and the brain. Whatever camp you fall into, gaming proponent or not, there is no denying what Whole Earth Catalog founder and Spacewar! enthusiast Stewart Brand said in a 1972 Rolling Stone story on the game. In this era “[w]e are all Computer Bums, all more empowered as individuals and as co-operators. That might enhance things…like the richness and rigor of spontaneous creation and of human interaction… of sentient interaction.”
Put down the controller to discover the ways your brain may be affected by gaming.
That physics principle extends into another realm of science and equally applies to the biological effects of gaming. However inflexible the views of those who are pro-gaming or anti-gaming, one thing is certain: the brain itself is mutable and highly subject to influence. Jonah Lehrer, author of Proust Was a Neuroscientist and How We Decide told PCMag, “Everything changes the brain—and gaming is not an exception to that rule—we just don't know how. Yet.”
Studies that conclude that gaming results in negative behavior— violence, aggression or decreased attention spans—are balanced by reports that find gaming can have a positive influence, alleviating the symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder or improving attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. One of the first games to use graphical display, Tennis for Two, contained these multitudes. Introduced in 1958, it was a Pong-like creation of nuclear scientist William Higinbotham meant to both entertain and spark scientific interest in Brookhaven National Laboratory visitors.
Akio Mori, a cranial nerve specialist at Nihon University College of Humanities and Sciences in Tokyo, caused a stir when he coined the term “game brain,” a lack of emotion and creativity resulting from gaming, in a 2002 book called The Terror of Game Brain. Mori’s peers criticized the book’s shoddy science for unreliable measures and a lack of focus. Though the book was a big seller, particularly with the parents of gamers, it was nominated for the Japan Outrageous Book Award. A slew of studies have followed and come down on both sides of the issue.
On the 50th anniversary of possibly the first online game, Spacewar!, which took to ARPAnet from MIT in 1961, PCMag takes a look at the flip sides of the current research into gaming and the brain. Whatever camp you fall into, gaming proponent or not, there is no denying what Whole Earth Catalog founder and Spacewar! enthusiast Stewart Brand said in a 1972 Rolling Stone story on the game. In this era “[w]e are all Computer Bums, all more empowered as individuals and as co-operators. That might enhance things…like the richness and rigor of spontaneous creation and of human interaction… of sentient interaction.”
Put down the controller to discover the ways your brain may be affected by gaming.
Addiction
The term “video game addiction” gets bandied about but it’s not a bona fide addiction, according to the authority on such things, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). While the hallmarks may be present—desensitization, followed by irritation and misery following its absence—in 2007 the DSM’s publisher, the American Psychiatric Association, concluded that research and evidence could not classify it as a disorder. But that same year, China saw two highly publicized cases of what the public would casually classify as an addiction: a 26-year-old’s two-week online gaming spree and a 30-year-old’s three-day fling, both of which resulted in death. When looking for a culprit in such behavior, dopamine often takes the rap. The feel-good fuel of the brain, it’s released during enjoyable activities. While gaming, men also have more action in the reward centers of the brain than women do, according to a 2008 Stanford University School of Medicine study. Though the feelings generated neurologically keep gamers coming back for more, the brain is a more subtle organ than that. Psychological factors are thought to be at play when gaming crosses the line. Keith Bakker, who treats compulsive gamers at the Smith & Jones Center in Amsterdam, told BBC News, “This is a social problem…Eighty per cent of the young people we see have been bullied at school and feel isolated. Many of the symptoms they have can be solved by going back to good old fashioned communication." So, how much gaming is too much? The American Medical Association’s Council on Science and Public Health reported in “Emotional and Behavioral Effects, Including Addictive Potential, of Video Games” that more than two hours per day is considered overuse, partly based on information from the Entertainment Software Association’s 2005 “Active Gamer Study.”
The term “video game addiction” gets bandied about but it’s not a bona fide addiction, according to the authority on such things, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). While the hallmarks may be present—desensitization, followed by irritation and misery following its absence—in 2007 the DSM’s publisher, the American Psychiatric Association, concluded that research and evidence could not classify it as a disorder. But that same year, China saw two highly publicized cases of what the public would casually classify as an addiction: a 26-year-old’s two-week online gaming spree and a 30-year-old’s three-day fling, both of which resulted in death. When looking for a culprit in such behavior, dopamine often takes the rap. The feel-good fuel of the brain, it’s released during enjoyable activities. While gaming, men also have more action in the reward centers of the brain than women do, according to a 2008 Stanford University School of Medicine study. Though the feelings generated neurologically keep gamers coming back for more, the brain is a more subtle organ than that. Psychological factors are thought to be at play when gaming crosses the line. Keith Bakker, who treats compulsive gamers at the Smith & Jones Center in Amsterdam, told BBC News, “This is a social problem…Eighty per cent of the young people we see have been bullied at school and feel isolated. Many of the symptoms they have can be solved by going back to good old fashioned communication." So, how much gaming is too much? The American Medical Association’s Council on Science and Public Health reported in “Emotional and Behavioral Effects, Including Addictive Potential, of Video Games” that more than two hours per day is considered overuse, partly based on information from the Entertainment Software Association’s 2005 “Active Gamer Study.”
Learning
The dopamine that so often gets blamed for excessive screen time also makes gaming an effective learning tool. The neurochemical is present in feelings of reward, motivation, and cognition. Introducing educational material under the guise of a game could do much to deepen its absorption. Dr. James Paul Gee, a professor at Arizona State University and a leading voice on education and gaming, believes gaming supports the brain learning through experience. He also cites the presence of clear goals, constant feedback, inherent testing, and an environment that encourages risk-taking within safe bounds. The report "Game Changer: Investing in Digital Play to Advance Children’s Learning and Health" from the Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop found, “Despite their reputation as promoters of violence and mayhem, digital games have in fact been shown to help children gain content and vital foundational and 21st-century skills.” The research question is no longer whether game content transfers to nongame situations but how it does so. In the study, the center calls for increased and shared research on the topic.
The dopamine that so often gets blamed for excessive screen time also makes gaming an effective learning tool. The neurochemical is present in feelings of reward, motivation, and cognition. Introducing educational material under the guise of a game could do much to deepen its absorption. Dr. James Paul Gee, a professor at Arizona State University and a leading voice on education and gaming, believes gaming supports the brain learning through experience. He also cites the presence of clear goals, constant feedback, inherent testing, and an environment that encourages risk-taking within safe bounds. The report "Game Changer: Investing in Digital Play to Advance Children’s Learning and Health" from the Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop found, “Despite their reputation as promoters of violence and mayhem, digital games have in fact been shown to help children gain content and vital foundational and 21st-century skills.” The research question is no longer whether game content transfers to nongame situations but how it does so. In the study, the center calls for increased and shared research on the topic.
Violence
As gaming has become more popular, it’s taken some of the blame from music to explain violent teenage behavior. However, it has flared into a huge debate in the gaming community. Research hasn’t settled the matter so much as fanned the flames. The American Psychiatric Association has refrained from taking a stand, but in a 2007 statement said, “Certainly a child who spends an excessive amount of time playing video games may be exposed to violence and may be at higher risks for behavioral and other health problems.” A literature review of research led by Professor of Developmental Psychology at Iowa State University Douglas A. Gentile found a short-term increase in aggression after an exposure to video game violence is common but that long-term effects are hard to measure. In a subsequent study, Gentile posited that desensitization may also occur. When playing a high-violence video game, gamers used to the level of violence showed lower activity in the rostral anterior cingulate cortex, the repository of empathy and emotion, than those unused to it. When video game violence was broken down frame by frame, University of California at Santa Barbara Professor René Weber found the same lowered activity after the gamer fired a weapon. Before the shots, there was increased activity in the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, which is involved in cognition and planning, perhaps indicating suppressed emotions after committing a violent action.
A correlation between these studies that rely on fMRI and real-life aggression or violence has yet to be found. Villanova University Professor and Director of The Interpersonal Research Laboratory Patrick Markey’s work has shown that a “perfect storm” of personality traits might predict those who are most adversely affected. “Previous research has shown us that personality traits like psychoticism and aggressiveness intensify the negative effects of violent video games and we wanted to find out why,” Markey said when his study was published in the Review of General Psychology. Husband-and-wife Harvard researchers Lawrence Kutner and Cheryl Olson weighed in on the debate with the book Grand Theft Childhood: The Surprising Truth About Violent Video Games and What Parents Can Do. The pair spoke to over 1,200 middle school students and examined the complex correlations between M-rated games and aggressive behavior. Ultimately, they concluded that video games don’t cause violence, though they found a link between M-rated games and aggressive behavior.
As gaming has become more popular, it’s taken some of the blame from music to explain violent teenage behavior. However, it has flared into a huge debate in the gaming community. Research hasn’t settled the matter so much as fanned the flames. The American Psychiatric Association has refrained from taking a stand, but in a 2007 statement said, “Certainly a child who spends an excessive amount of time playing video games may be exposed to violence and may be at higher risks for behavioral and other health problems.” A literature review of research led by Professor of Developmental Psychology at Iowa State University Douglas A. Gentile found a short-term increase in aggression after an exposure to video game violence is common but that long-term effects are hard to measure. In a subsequent study, Gentile posited that desensitization may also occur. When playing a high-violence video game, gamers used to the level of violence showed lower activity in the rostral anterior cingulate cortex, the repository of empathy and emotion, than those unused to it. When video game violence was broken down frame by frame, University of California at Santa Barbara Professor René Weber found the same lowered activity after the gamer fired a weapon. Before the shots, there was increased activity in the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, which is involved in cognition and planning, perhaps indicating suppressed emotions after committing a violent action.
A correlation between these studies that rely on fMRI and real-life aggression or violence has yet to be found. Villanova University Professor and Director of The Interpersonal Research Laboratory Patrick Markey’s work has shown that a “perfect storm” of personality traits might predict those who are most adversely affected. “Previous research has shown us that personality traits like psychoticism and aggressiveness intensify the negative effects of violent video games and we wanted to find out why,” Markey said when his study was published in the Review of General Psychology. Husband-and-wife Harvard researchers Lawrence Kutner and Cheryl Olson weighed in on the debate with the book Grand Theft Childhood: The Surprising Truth About Violent Video Games and What Parents Can Do. The pair spoke to over 1,200 middle school students and examined the complex correlations between M-rated games and aggressive behavior. Ultimately, they concluded that video games don’t cause violence, though they found a link between M-rated games and aggressive behavior.
Heroism
Jane McGonigal believes that if gamers can save the World of Warcraft, they can also save the world. The game designer and author of Reality is Broken: Why Games Make Us Better and How They Can Change the World shared her vision in a TED Talk. McGonigal believes the collective time spent playing online games per week should be raised from the current 3 billion hours to 21 billion to “survive the next century on this planet.” Her research at the Institute for the Future, a think tank, points to solutions for hunger, poverty, climate change, global conflict, and obesity. McGonigal believes that games foster “urgent optimism,” which she defines as extreme self-motivation and that, combined with the tight social fabric gamers find in virtual worlds, global change is possible. “Neurochemically we’re kind of fired up…to take on challenges,” McGonigal said in an interview with Wired last year. “Games take us immediately out of a state of paralysis or alienation or depression and they switch on the positive ways of thinking. They trigger the brain to a state in which it’s possible to do good work. It’s possible to aspire to tough goals.”
Jane McGonigal believes that if gamers can save the World of Warcraft, they can also save the world. The game designer and author of Reality is Broken: Why Games Make Us Better and How They Can Change the World shared her vision in a TED Talk. McGonigal believes the collective time spent playing online games per week should be raised from the current 3 billion hours to 21 billion to “survive the next century on this planet.” Her research at the Institute for the Future, a think tank, points to solutions for hunger, poverty, climate change, global conflict, and obesity. McGonigal believes that games foster “urgent optimism,” which she defines as extreme self-motivation and that, combined with the tight social fabric gamers find in virtual worlds, global change is possible. “Neurochemically we’re kind of fired up…to take on challenges,” McGonigal said in an interview with Wired last year. “Games take us immediately out of a state of paralysis or alienation or depression and they switch on the positive ways of thinking. They trigger the brain to a state in which it’s possible to do good work. It’s possible to aspire to tough goals.”
Irresponsibility
Reckless endangerment defines games like Grand Theft Auto. Drivers crossing double yellow lines in the game might be crossing lines in real life, though. Research conducted by Ana Draghici, a doctoral student in psychology at Dartmouth College, showed an association between adolescent reports of speeding, tailgating, weaving, and crossing double yellow lines and playing games such as Grand Theft Auto III. Continental Tyre polled 2,000 people, 1,000 of whom identified themselves as playing racing games and 1,000 of which did not. Those who did reported a statistically significant higher rate of being stopped by the police, using a phone while driving, making an insurance claim for an accident, running red lights, hitting stationary objects, not reporting some accidents, engaging in risky driving behavior, exhibiting road rage, and speeding.
Reckless endangerment defines games like Grand Theft Auto. Drivers crossing double yellow lines in the game might be crossing lines in real life, though. Research conducted by Ana Draghici, a doctoral student in psychology at Dartmouth College, showed an association between adolescent reports of speeding, tailgating, weaving, and crossing double yellow lines and playing games such as Grand Theft Auto III. Continental Tyre polled 2,000 people, 1,000 of whom identified themselves as playing racing games and 1,000 of which did not. Those who did reported a statistically significant higher rate of being stopped by the police, using a phone while driving, making an insurance claim for an accident, running red lights, hitting stationary objects, not reporting some accidents, engaging in risky driving behavior, exhibiting road rage, and speeding.
Skill
Many professions require extreme hand-eye coordination, surgeons especially. In studying their own, the medical community has found that playing video games for several hours a week makes for a better laparoscopic, gastrointestinal endoscopic, or endovascular surgeon. A study conducted by James Rosser, director of the Advanced Medical Technology Institute at Beth Israel Medical Center, shows that laparoscopic surgeons who play games for more than three hours a week made 37 percent fewer errors than those who didn’t game. The credit goes to improved hand-eye coordination and depth perception. Likewise, the Royal College of Surgeons in Dublin discovered that medical students who spent 7 hours or more per week playing video games had significantly better psychomotor skills than those who didn’t game regularly. Laparoscopic, gastrointestinal endoscopic, and endovascular techniques were acquired quicker by frequent gamers, according to a literature review conducted by the Department of Surgery at Royal Sussex County Hospital, in Brighton, England. But curiously, gaming did not improve robotic surgery, like that performed with the joystick-driven Da Vinci surgical robot, when the Division of Urology at Loma Linda University Medical Center performed a test among medical students.
Many professions require extreme hand-eye coordination, surgeons especially. In studying their own, the medical community has found that playing video games for several hours a week makes for a better laparoscopic, gastrointestinal endoscopic, or endovascular surgeon. A study conducted by James Rosser, director of the Advanced Medical Technology Institute at Beth Israel Medical Center, shows that laparoscopic surgeons who play games for more than three hours a week made 37 percent fewer errors than those who didn’t game. The credit goes to improved hand-eye coordination and depth perception. Likewise, the Royal College of Surgeons in Dublin discovered that medical students who spent 7 hours or more per week playing video games had significantly better psychomotor skills than those who didn’t game regularly. Laparoscopic, gastrointestinal endoscopic, and endovascular techniques were acquired quicker by frequent gamers, according to a literature review conducted by the Department of Surgery at Royal Sussex County Hospital, in Brighton, England. But curiously, gaming did not improve robotic surgery, like that performed with the joystick-driven Da Vinci surgical robot, when the Division of Urology at Loma Linda University Medical Center performed a test among medical students.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment