fixedpoint
Member
So .. play more Civ? I'm on it.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
New study suggests video games may increase Alzheimer's risk
- Thread starter SomTervo
- Start date
So .. play more Civ? I'm on it.
Bjoern the Smexy
Member
Thread title should read "New study suggests 6+ hours of CoD a day may increase Alzheimer's risk" because I can't see games like, say, Prof. Layton or Zelda increasing this risk.
EDIT:
I playes video games for over 25 years, and I think at least for 15 of those years my gaming sessions tend to be more than 5 hours long, yet I have not been diagnosed with Alzheimer's nor have I a history with it.
My short-term memory isn't particularly good, but it's never been good to begin with. My long-term memory is where it's at, full on hard drive till the day of forever.
It probably depends on whether you play games like Call of Duty or Battlefield all day long (where it's basically "shoot the bad guys" until there are no more bad guys to shoot) or if you switch between genres (for example taking turns in playing Bloodborne, Mario Galaxy, Witcher 3 and Animal Crossing) for a roughly equal time each.
Just shooting all day long makes you stupid. I think this could be treated as fact.
EDIT:
I playes video games for over 25 years, and I think at least for 15 of those years my gaming sessions tend to be more than 5 hours long, yet I have not been diagnosed with Alzheimer's nor have I a history with it.
My short-term memory isn't particularly good, but it's never been good to begin with. My long-term memory is where it's at, full on hard drive till the day of forever.
It probably depends on whether you play games like Call of Duty or Battlefield all day long (where it's basically "shoot the bad guys" until there are no more bad guys to shoot) or if you switch between genres (for example taking turns in playing Bloodborne, Mario Galaxy, Witcher 3 and Animal Crossing) for a roughly equal time each.
Just shooting all day long makes you stupid. I think this could be treated as fact.
I (possibly mistakenly) would venture that your grandparents having the disease would be a much more relevant factor than your gaming. Enjoy your gaming friend.
Jawmuncher
Member
Pretty much sums it up.
Psyrgery ES
Member
This reminds me of a comment I saw not long ago. It was something like this:
Warning! Breathing oxygen for long periods of time or years may lead to death
Edit: Holy shit! No longer a Junior! Woohoo!
Warning! Breathing oxygen for long periods of time or years may lead to death
Edit: Holy shit! No longer a Junior! Woohoo!
Northeastmonk
Gold Member
Where are the famous documented cases? Wouldn't someone in the industry have it before a consumer did?
I'm sure the disease like this effects people, but like violence where are the game designers with all the side effects?
This all sounds made up.
I'm sure the disease like this effects people, but like violence where are the game designers with all the side effects?
This all sounds made up.
Nice. Indeed, this approach must give the opposite of a holistic answer. Eg it's only in a videogaming context/influence. I suppose the big pull is that it allows you to control most of the factors in play, but that's not the case when people are playing at home/playing different videogames. I'd like to see what games they played/if they all played the same games and if it took into account their other activities.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
Score. I can play my favorite games as if they're new every day.
The game connection seems pretty facetious tbh but if Alzheimer's runs in your family, you might be genetically predisposed to it.
I'd say make sure you get mild exercise throughout your life. Some pretty compelling research is suggesting that not doing enough exercise in our 30s/40s is a huge factor increasing the likelihood of getting dementia. Like literally 15-30 minute walk a day would stave it a bit.
CapitalismSucks DonkeyBalls
Banned
That's a blanket statement. Specific games, those that rely on pattern recognition, matching, etc. have shown to sustain processing efficiency in aging adults. These games do not increase processing efficiency, they just hamper the rate at which processing speed deteriorates.
Also, this study cannot be generalized but to a very minute population. Recreational players need not worry. I'd be interested in the effects on competitive gamers though.
That's a killer idea. Then again, I suppose plenty of people in unskilled manual trades to similar things on a daily basis, possibly with game-like interactions. I guess what they're using won't have been designed explicitly as reward-based interactions though.
YankeeDonB
Member
Exactly. First big question is whether gamers use this reward-based navigation style in the real world. After all, these results are for an in-scanner task that was, essentially, a video game. Much of cognition is context-dependent.
the guardian refuted the headline, not the study. there is a worthwhile discussion here, although maybe an enthusiast game forum is the wrong location for that.
visiblemode
Member
Yep!
Exactly. If your headline is a question, the answer to that question is almost always no. Otherwise the headline would be a statement.
Anyway, there were some studies kicking around that video games were good for your mind. It's all pure bs.
Every 5 years we're informed that everything we used to think was good for us, is horrible for us. Then 5 more years pass, and studies show they "might not be as bad as previously thought." Five more years pass, and most stuff is exhonerated.
Sure some things are bad for you objectively, cigarettes, asbestos, lead in food, but most of these other things are just the product of an attempt by researchers to acquire and justify grants, combined with a desire by the media to excite the public, combined finally with the public's desire to be told what all the answers are, even if they aren't actually true.
brandonh83
Banned
I believe it as gamers tend to only remember games that came out at the end of the year and not the beginning, at least when it comes to awards.
I don't think it's a bad paper. This was a study which lead to a rational hypothesis that clearly needs further testing.
There were no scientific conclusions presented about gamers' Alzheimer's risk. Just a hypothesis. I'm not going to defend my hobby against the scientific possibility that it could be harmful to me. I'd rather see this sort of thing published and consider the broader implications for myself than bury my head in the sand.
Hopefully, more scientists will continue to study the effects of games on different parts of the brain.
RowdyReverb
Member
I wonder if the phenomenon of using the caudate nucleus and reward pathway for navigation could be circumvented by playing VR games. That could potentially elicit more hippocampus spatial navigation strategies since you're learning to navigate areas in a way that's more natural for the brain.
I can definitely feel that navigation in present games is more reward focused than spatial. Going into a town is about making a beeline to whatever vendor or quest point, not about learning the lay of the land. I feel like this would be different if I actually felt like I was in the shoes of the character.
I can definitely feel that navigation in present games is more reward focused than spatial. Going into a town is about making a beeline to whatever vendor or quest point, not about learning the lay of the land. I feel like this would be different if I actually felt like I was in the shoes of the character.
Black Mantis
Member
I was getting scared, until I read the part about doing excercise+learning+relaxation. Do all three a lot 
So this means I'll get to replay great games like The Last of Us, Metroid Prime, and Bioshock and every time it'll be like playing it for the first time? That's a win in my book.
I know this was said in jest, but Alzheimer's is really sad, man.
It would be nice if we had a series of games that didn't gameify everything. I thought, for instance, No Man's Sky might be one but then they put in PvE shooting.
I think selling games, whether console or mobile, to publishers and investors requires an action --> goal loop that can hook players. Hopefully VR can escape that fate.
Northeastmonk
Gold Member
I'd say there are some massive limitations and errors to these studies. The thing is they've all been pulling at the same reigns for years. They neglect entire generations, millions of people who actually work inside the gaming industry, and they're confusing brain functions with an actual cause. If you are meant to develop AZ I believe you'll develop it with or without visual stimulation.
That would mean every visual effects, animator, game tester, design artists, and the like would have had an impact. What a joke? All they're doing is making people believe this because they are making these claims. I think this is just researchers making claims that they aren't fully aware of.
That would mean every visual effects, animator, game tester, design artists, and the like would have had an impact. What a joke? All they're doing is making people believe this because they are making these claims. I think this is just researchers making claims that they aren't fully aware of.
Minecraft seems like it breaks that mold. I still haven't really played it myself, but I may give a try (not due to the study, but due to a general curiosity I have about it).
I know Im just messing around. It's honestly a fear of mine to have a loved one get this disease. I've seen some documentaries. And, you're right sad stuff.
Northeastmonk
Gold Member
How many parents or how many people in the world will now pull the plug on MineCraft or video games because they're fearful? This is the mentality of the world and its produced through scare tactics.
I say, "breathing clean air causes AZ" and you believe me.
I can't believe there's a causation here. It's a correlation which means other factors are at play in both gamers and those with alzheimer's.
Video games are active and interactive. You're doing something; you're thinking about something. I have to believe sitting in front of a TV passively watching shows 6 hours a night has a more profound link to dementia.
Video games are active and interactive. You're doing something; you're thinking about something. I have to believe sitting in front of a TV passively watching shows 6 hours a night has a more profound link to dementia.
I haven't really read the article in details, but why would gaming have a higher chance for Alzheimer than, say just being in front of a computer browsing the internet or simply doing your job? Isn't it the same thing? Watching stuff on a screen and pressing buttons to make stuff happen? Is it all about the adrenaline from the action?
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.
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.
Northeastmonk
Gold Member
So since I can solve those Resident Evil puzzles then I'm somehow like Akira? I can now use my brain and control everyone. Everyone is weak if they can't solve a puzzle. That's thrilling really. You must solve the puzzle or you will suffer the consequences. Failure is simply not an option.
Thanks for reviewing the journal.
I was getting scared, until I read the part about doing excercise+learning+relaxation. Do all three a lot
Whenever I get scared about stuff like this I immediately look up remedies and usually my concerns are alleviated
glad it helped!
Muchi Muchi Pink
Member
What was this topic about, again?
Beelzebufo
Banned
I was going exercise, relax, and learn today, but now I'm worried all my ways I doing the latter two will give me Alzheimer's :'(
Let's put this topic a different way.
Doing one type of thing will make you good at that thing... and make you more likely to do that type of thing in the way you're used to, and less likely to employ the alternative strategy of doing that thing.
I guess the issue here is that the study doesn't do a good job of giving us an understanding on whether or not it's an opportunity cost issue, and that the feedback loop of employing a response strategy is what's problematic - or some other factor that hasn't been understood yet.
Because if it's just the feedback loop - then the solution is to engage in a broader range of cognitive tasks in order to improve cognitive well being - especially tasks that engage planning and memory skills rather than response skills.
Doing one type of thing will make you good at that thing... and make you more likely to do that type of thing in the way you're used to, and less likely to employ the alternative strategy of doing that thing.
I guess the issue here is that the study doesn't do a good job of giving us an understanding on whether or not it's an opportunity cost issue, and that the feedback loop of employing a response strategy is what's problematic - or some other factor that hasn't been understood yet.
Because if it's just the feedback loop - then the solution is to engage in a broader range of cognitive tasks in order to improve cognitive well being - especially tasks that engage planning and memory skills rather than response skills.
CapitalismSucks DonkeyBalls
Banned
When I used to assess children during graduate school, nearly all of them who were either AD/HD or ASD would do nothing but talk about Minecraft. I'm talking about like 8-10 year olds who would get so off task because they wanted to ask me another question about Minecraft.
Militaratus
Member
Must have been referring to Defiance, an Action-RPG shooter where player levels is referred to as EGO. Which makes sense as I can feel braincells dying while playing that.
Joking aside, Alzheimer is not fun. Had a grandma who would only recognize me when I shaved. Those boyish looks...
Switching between games probably h as a good deal in memory cycle as you have to keep track of what you're doing. Getting out of the house I would imagine has a greater course and your age also has a tic-toc role. I believe there are a lot of factors to play as there are never just one or two variables. They are still conducting the study. Perhaps you are a good candidate?
You're right, it is every 5 years. The below url indicates that video games lead to accurate reaction times and it came out in 2010.
http://rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=3679
DrROBschiz
Member
The number one cause is Alheimers is just aging
Its that simple. This supposed link has to be so infintesimally small that its honestly not even worth mentioning let alone studying. What a waste of money
Research should be going into anti-aging fields. Preventing DNA damage and degradation. Finding ways for our cells to split with less randomness and errors and improving the natural gene correction our bodies already have
Its that simple. This supposed link has to be so infintesimally small that its honestly not even worth mentioning let alone studying. What a waste of money
Research should be going into anti-aging fields. Preventing DNA damage and degradation. Finding ways for our cells to split with less randomness and errors and improving the natural gene correction our bodies already have
I actually edit a quarterly national magazine about dementia. It's a powerful thing. Hence why I found this article particularly interesting.
Great, haha.
Edit: added to OP
dinazimmerman
Incurious Bastard
Thanks, good post.