Effects of Video Games Essay
- To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
- As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
- As a template for you assignment
Introduction
School performance, effects on social relationships.
The society has been immensely influenced by the technological changes, which are reshaping some of the activities. The emerging technologies in one way or another have affected every member of society, irrespective of age.
Video Games have had the greatest influence on the lives of children. Children no longer appreciate the outdoor games as was before, as most of their time is spend indoors playing video games.
Although this trend may have a positive impact on the lives of the concerned children as far as their knowledge of computer is concerned, there are various negative impacts.
Various educationists have confirmed that outdoor plays are very important to the development and growth of children.
It helps them develop socially as they meet with their friends and learn to share discussions, get involved in physical activities and develop physically through such games. The paper talks about some of the negative effects of computer games (Finkel, 1995).
It is established through research that computer games do not help children grow academically. In fact, computer games contribute to inactivity of body cells, which might lead to oversight hence causing diseases such as hypertension and diabetes.
Moreover, indoor games contribute to poor academic performance among students because most of the time is spend on useless games that do not offer any academic lessons.
Lastly, computer games lead to the development of antisocial behavior whereby a student is not interested in interacting with his or her peers.
Available literature shows that more children are growing obese owing to the fact that they spend little time exercising and engage frequently with the computer.
Research shows that children who take part in physical exercises are more healthy, intelligent, and active in class. The study conducted by American Heart Association proved that children are contracting heart diseases mainly because of lack of physical activity.
The research indicated that the number of obese children increased by four percent in 1974. Those affected were children aged six to eleven years.
However, the percentage increase could not be compared with the study conducted in 2006 whereby the increase rate was seventeen percent. As from 1971 to 2006, the number of adolescents thought to be obese increased from 6.1 percent to 17.6 percent.
The percentage increase was shocking. Furthermore, the increase was attributed to lack of physical activity and video games (Wiegman, & van Schie, 1998).
Overweight is a costly condition that leads to a number of illnesses among school going children. According to experts at the University of Michigan, obese children have higher risks of contracting diseases such as diabetes, heart diseases, and high blood pressure.
Other illnesses associated with overweight include high cholesterol levels in the body, hyperlipidemia, sleep apnea, respiratory problems, gastrointestinal malfunctions, early adolescence, and finally mental problems.
Studies show that obese children tend to have a low sense of worth and despair.
As AHA records show, obese children are likely to be obese when they attain the adulthood age. This would even cause more problems because they would be exposed to a number of diseases.
A study conducted by Media Literacy Clearinghouse indicated that children had developed a habit towards computer games. Video games had gained relevance among children aged eight and eighteen years to an extent that the rate at which children played computer games rose from an average of 26 minutes in 1999 to 73 minutes in 2009.
Generally, the rate at which children interacted with the computer daily rose from six hours in 1999 to seven hours in 2009. A report compiled in 2004 at the University Hospital of Zurich revealed that a strong link between obesity and video games exist.
It can be concluded that video games do not help children in any way but instead it affects their health. Video games interfere with the children’s eating habits because such children would tend to consume food with high calories.
In this regard, parents need to monitor the behavior of their children as regards to physical fitness.
In the United States, a study conducted to ascertain the effects of computer games on the performance of students proved that PlayStations and other video games such as Xbox Video affects the concentration of children in class.
Furthermore, the study revealed that children who are like using playing video games could not compete favorably with those who prefer physical games. One of the researchers was quoted saying that the performance of students who engage in physical exercises will always improve with time.
Boys are affected more by the new trend since they would rarely improve in class. Their performance would always remain stagnant for a period.
Moreover, boys cannot develop skills that would help them to read and write well in case they are allowed to interact with the computer frequently (Sakurai, 1984).
It should be noted that video games might not necessarily cause poor performance among school going children but the time spent in watching the games or playing them would consume the time that a student would be expected to read, do some homework, and write a good composition.
Definitely, a student would register a poor grade in case he or she does not engage in a serious research. Video games have a tendency of instilling negative reading attitudes to students. This is because a student would find reading a storybook or solving a mathematics problem boring.
Video games are very fast and demand a higher concentration unlike other academic activities that need time for conceptualization. In a joint study conducted in Australia, researchers concluded that video games affect the performance of students in many ways.
Students who spend time playing video games would always perform dismally in class. In fact, the study revealed that computer games do not help children perform well in any of the subjects. This is because students who spend time watching and playing computer games would always score low in each subject.
This research contradicts some of the assumptions that computer games help children to perform well in some subjects. The Australian study revealed that there is no single positive correlation between academic performance and computer games.
Video games are known to influence the cognitive and educational dexterities of children. Moreover, the games can as well as define the children’s social relationships. In a traditional setting, the relationship between the child and the parent or other senior members of society is clearly defined.
The video games have changed meaning that social relations are no longer the same. Studies indicate that video games, especially those that are violent, reshape the behavior of children. Moreover, video games could contain some sort of competition and aggression, which affect the reasoning of children.
In the current society, the rate at which conflicts occur in society has increased. Youths are currently violent because of the new games. The main objective of video games, according to Nintendo and Sega Genesis Center, is violence.
Any game played by children via the computer does not have anything new other than violent content. The companies specializing in selling computer games would convince parents that the games are non-violent but in the real sense, they are not.
A study conducted in 1998 confirmed that many children, over 80%, were familiar to a violent game referred to as Duke Nukem. Unfortunately, only 5% of parents were aware of the game meaning that children are access even those games that are supposed to be accessed by only the adults.
This trend affects the social life of children. In 1999, students at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado engaged in a destructive demonstration mainly because of the influence of computer games.
Students shot at their fellow teens and other people because they experienced it through video games. Such kind of behavior is destructive because it could lead to social anomy (Griffith, 1999).
Studies across the world indicate that violent video games increase an individual’s hostility and aggression. Aggressive games would lead to a habit whereby students prefer to play the games rather than engage in physical exercises.
This is even related to overweight. Children who are used to video games tend to be indifferent and unresponsive to the sufferings of other children. They would easily bully their fellow students without mercy.
Finkel, S. (1995). Causal analysis with panel data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Griffith, M. (1999). Violent video games and aggression: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior , 4(2), 203-212.
Sakurai, S. (1984). Construction of the Social Desirability Scale for Children. Japanese Journal of Educational Psychology , 32(2), 310-314.
Wiegman, O., & van Schie, E. (1998). Video game playing and its relations with aggressive and pro-social behavior. British Journal of Social Psychology , 37(2), 367- 378.
- The Relationship between playing Violent Video Games and Children’s Aggressive Behavior - What do the Evidences Show?
- Overweight and Obese Children in Miami Dade County
- Election (1999) Film Review
- Child Thinking and Learning New Skills
- The Ecology of the Family
- Different Behaviors in Children With Autism
- Childhood Evolution and History
- Child and Adolescent Behavior: Becoming Attached
- Chicago (A-D)
- Chicago (N-B)
IvyPanda. (2019, April 3). Effects of Video Games. https://ivypanda.com/essays/effects-of-video-games/
"Effects of Video Games." IvyPanda , 3 Apr. 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/effects-of-video-games/.
IvyPanda . (2019) 'Effects of Video Games'. 3 April.
IvyPanda . 2019. "Effects of Video Games." April 3, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/effects-of-video-games/.
1. IvyPanda . "Effects of Video Games." April 3, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/effects-of-video-games/.
Bibliography
IvyPanda . "Effects of Video Games." April 3, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/effects-of-video-games/.
- Entertainment
Essay Example: Positive Effects Of Video Games
| 📌Category: | , |
| 📌Words: | 454 |
| 📌Pages: | 2 |
| 📌Published: | 17 February 2022 |
Did you know that there are 1.5 billion gamers around the world? That's a lot of people! People argue whether games are good or bad, but did you know that games are good for you and your brain.
To begin with, If you have played a video game with your friends, have you ever noticed that communication is essential while with others? Well, video games are good to improve your socialization skills with others, many people don't even realize this when playing. A source from videogames.org.au stated that “Video games have created a fun and engaging way of connecting with people and can act as an important teaching tool in developing social skills. Video games can help support cooperation skills and supporting skills as players have an option to work together to form alliances and create teams working cooperatively.” From experience, I can support this reasoning as when I am playing video games like Minecraft or Warzone, me and my team need to communicate things like where the enemy is, what we have in our inventory, what's our health, where we are, to revive each other, and much more. This indicates that while you are playing with others, at the same time video games are improving your social skills with others.
Secondly, other than video games being good to improve your socialization skills, video games are good for the brain as well. A study published and written in a springboard article stated “In contrast, a study published in Nature found that through the use of a specifically designed 3-D video game, cognitive performance improved in older adults and some adverse effects on the brain associated with aging, reversed.” Nicole, Hannah. “How Video Games Affect the Brain” Springboard: 92. Some people see video games as something that makes people dumber, but it does the opposite, it helps improve your cognitive performance which relates to things like thinking, problem-solving, remembering, and judging. Overall, video games are good for your brain as it helps improve cognitive performance.
On the other hand, even though video games may have pros, they also have cons. A con such as bullying from other online players/gamers. However, there is a report/block button for those getting bullied by others. The report/block button will either suspend or ban the player you reported. So there's no need to worry about bullying from other players when you can fix the problem with a single click of a button.
In essence, video games are good for you. There is a lot of evidence on video games that prove why it helps you. Whenever gamers are playing with others, video games help improve their socialization skills through communication, and while playing video games, video games help improve the gamer's cognitive performance in their brain. As the world is becoming more advanced in technology, people who play video games will be helping themselves improve both their brain and socialization skills without even realizing it. Will you be playing video games?
Related Samples
- Symbolism in Into the Wild and “The Secret Life of Walter Mitty” (Essay Example)
- The Song of The Pearl in The Pearl by John Steinbeck Essay Example
- Frida by Julie Taymor Movie Review
- Essay Sample about Taylor Swift's "folklore"
- The Effect of Social Media on Teenagers Essay Example
- 10 Things I Hate About You Movie Analysis Essay Example
- Analysis of Skins Uk Series Essay Example
- Dystopian Worlds in 1984 and The Handmaid's Tale
- The Impact of Instagram and YouTube on Depressive State
- Essay on Negative Effect of Perfect Image in Social Media
Didn't find the perfect sample?
You can order a custom paper by our expert writers
An official website of the United States government
The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.
The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.
- Publications
- Account settings
Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .
- Advanced Search
- Journal List
Does Video Gaming Have Impacts on the Brain: Evidence from a Systematic Review
Denilson brilliant t..
1 Department of Biomedicine, Indonesia International Institute for Life Sciences (i3L), East Jakarta 13210, Indonesia
2 Smart Ageing Research Center (SARC), Tohoku University, Sendai 980-8575, Japan; pj.ca.ukohot@iur (R.N.); pj.ca.ukohot@atuyr (R.K.)
3 Department of Cognitive Health Science, Institute of Development, Aging and Cancer (IDAC), Tohoku University, Sendai 980-8575, Japan
Ryuta Kawashima
4 Department of Functional Brain Imaging, Institute of Development, Aging and Cancer (IDAC), Tohoku University, Sendai 980-8575, Japan
Video gaming, the experience of playing electronic games, has shown several benefits for human health. Recently, numerous video gaming studies showed beneficial effects on cognition and the brain. A systematic review of video gaming has been published. However, the previous systematic review has several differences to this systematic review. This systematic review evaluates the beneficial effects of video gaming on neuroplasticity specifically on intervention studies. Literature research was conducted from randomized controlled trials in PubMed and Google Scholar published after 2000. A systematic review was written instead of a meta-analytic review because of variations among participants, video games, and outcomes. Nine scientific articles were eligible for the review. Overall, the eligible articles showed fair quality according to Delphi Criteria. Video gaming affects the brain structure and function depending on how the game is played. The game genres examined were 3D adventure, first-person shooting (FPS), puzzle, rhythm dance, and strategy. The total training durations were 16–90 h. Results of this systematic review demonstrated that video gaming can be beneficial to the brain. However, the beneficial effects vary among video game types.
1. Introduction
Video gaming refers to the experience of playing electronic games, which vary from action to passive games, presenting a player with physical and mental challenges. The motivation to play video games might derive from the experience of autonomy or competing with others, which can explain why video gaming is pleasurable and addictive [ 1 ].
Video games can act as “teachers” depending on the game purpose [ 2 ]. Video gaming has varying effects depending on the game genre. For instance, an active video game can improve physical fitness [ 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 ], whereas social video games can improve social behavior [ 7 , 8 , 9 ]. The most interesting results show that playing video games can change cognition and the brain [ 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 ].
Earlier studies have demonstrated that playing video games can benefit cognition. Cross-sectional and longitudinal studies have demonstrated that the experience of video gaming is associated with better cognitive function, specifically in terms of visual attention and short-term memory [ 14 ], reaction time [ 15 ], and working memory [ 16 ]. Additionally, some randomized controlled studies show positive effects of video gaming interventions on cognition [ 17 , 18 ]. Recent meta-analytical studies have also supported the positive effects of video gaming on cognition [ 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 ]. These studies demonstrate that playing video games does provide cognitive benefits.
The effects of video gaming intervention are ever more widely discussed among scientists [ 13 ]. A review of the results and methodological quality of recently published intervention studies must be done. One systematic review of video gaming and neural correlates has been reported [ 19 ]. However, the technique of neuroimaging of the reviewed studies was not specific. This systematic review reviewed only magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies in contrast to the previous systematic review to focus on neuroplasticity effect. Neuroplasticity is capability of the brain that accommodates adaptation for learning, memorizing, and recovery purposes [ 19 ]. In normal adaptation, the brain is adapting to learn, remember, forget, and repair itself. Recent studies using MRI for brain imaging techniques have demonstrated neuroplasticity effects after an intervention, which include cognitive, exercise, and music training on the grey matter [ 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 ] and white matter [ 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 ]. However, the molecular mechanisms of the grey and white matter change remain inconclusive. The proposed mechanisms for the grey matter change are neurogenesis, gliogenesis, synaptogenesis, and angiogenesis, whereas those for white matter change are myelin modeling and formation, fiber organization, and angiogenesis [ 30 ]. Recent studies using MRI technique for brain imaging have demonstrated video gaming effects on neuroplasticity. Earlier imaging studies using cross-sectional and longitudinal methods have shown that playing video games affects the brain structure by changing the grey matter [ 31 , 32 , 33 ], white matter [ 34 , 35 ], and functional connectivity [ 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 ]. Additionally, a few intervention studies have demonstrated that playing video games changed brain structure and functions [ 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 ].
The earlier review also found a link between neural correlates of video gaming and cognitive function [ 19 ]. However, that review used both experimental and correlational studies and included non-healthy participants, which contrasts to this review. The differences between this and the previous review are presented in Table 1 . This review assesses only experimental studies conducted of healthy participants. Additionally, the cross-sectional and longitudinal studies merely showed an association between video gaming experiences and the brain, showing direct effects of playing video games in the brain is difficult. Therefore, this systematic review specifically examined intervention studies. This review is more specific as it reviews intervention and MRI studies on healthy participants. The purposes of this systematic review are therefore to evaluate the beneficial effects of video gaming and to assess the methodological quality of recent video gaming intervention studies.
Differences between previous review and current review.
| Difference | Previous Review | Current Review |
|---|---|---|
| Type of reviewed studies | Experimental and correlational studies | Experimental studies only |
| Neuroimaging technique of reviewed studies | CT, fMRI, MEG, MRI, PET, SPECT, tDCS, EEG, and NIRS | fMRI and MRI only |
| Participants of reviewed studies | Healthy and addicted participant | Healthy participants Only |
CT, computed tomography; fMRI, functional magnetic resonance imaging; MEG, magnetoencephalography MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; PET, positron emission tomography; SPECT, single photon emission computed tomography; tDCS, transcranial direct current stimulation; EEG, electroencephalography; NIRS, near-infrared spectroscopy.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. search strategy.
This systematic review was designed in accordance with the PRISMA checklist [ 44 ] shown in Appendix Table A1 . A literature search was conducted using PubMed and Google Scholar to identify relevant studies. The keywords used for the literature search were combinations of “video game”, “video gaming”, “game”, “action video game”, “video game training”, “training”, “play”, “playing”, “MRI”, “cognitive”, “cognition”, “executive function”, and “randomized control trial”.
2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
The primary inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trial study, video game interaction, and MRI/fMRI analysis. Studies that qualified with only one or two primary inclusions were not included. Review papers and experimental protocols were also not included. The secondary inclusion criteria were publishing after 2000 and published in English. Excluded were duration of less than 4 weeks or unspecified length intervention or combination intervention. Also excluded were studies of cognition-based games, and studies of participants with psychiatric, cognitive, neurological, and medical disorders.
2.3. Quality Assessment
Each of the quality studies was assessed using Delphi criteria [ 45 ] with several additional elements [ 46 ]: details of allocation methods, adequate descriptions of control and training groups, statistical comparisons between control and training groups, and dropout reports. The respective total scores (max = 12) are shown in Table 3. The quality assessment also includes assessment for risk of bias, which is shown in criteria numbers 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 12.
2.4. Statistical Analysis
Instead of a meta-analysis study, a systematic review of the video game training/video gaming and the effects was conducted because of the variation in ranges of participant age, video game genre, control type, MRI and statistical analysis, and training outcomes. Therefore, the quality, inclusion and exclusion, control, treatment, game title, participants, training period, and MRI analysis and specification of the studies were recorded for the respective games.
The literature search made of the databases yielded 140 scientific articles. All scientific articles were screened based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Of those 140 scientific articles, nine were eligible for the review [ 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 ]. Video gaming effects are listed in Table 2 .
Summary of beneficial effect of video gaming.
| Author | Year | Participant Age | Game Genre | Control | Duration | Beneficial Effect |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gleich et al. [ ] | 2017 | 18–36 | 3D adventure | passive | 8 weeks | Increased activity in hippocampus |
| Decreased activity in DLPFC | ||||||
| Haier et al. [ ] | 2009 | 12–15 | puzzle | passive | 3 months | Increased GM in several visual–spatial processing area |
| Decreased activity in frontal area | ||||||
| Kuhn et al. [ ] | 2014 | 19–29 | 3D adventure | passive | 8 weeks | Increased GM in hippocampal, DLPFC and cerebellum |
| Lee et al. [ ] | 2012 | 18–30 | strategy | active | 8–10 weeks | Decreased activity in DLPFC |
| 8–11 weeks | Non-significant activity difference | |||||
| Lorenz et al. [ ] | 2015 | 19–27 | 3D adventure | passive | 8 weeks | Preserved activity in ventral striatum |
| Martinez et al. [ ] | 2013 | 16–21 | puzzle | passive | 4 weeks | Functional connectivity change in multimodal integration system |
| Functional connectivity change in higher-order executive processing | ||||||
| Roush [ ] | 2013 | 50–65 | rhythm dance | active | 24 weeks | Increased activity in visuospatial working memory area |
| Increased activity in emotional and attention area | ||||||
| passive | Similar compared to active control- | |||||
| West et al. [ ] | 2017 | 55–75 | 3D adventure | active | 24 weeks | Non-significant GM difference |
| passive | Increased cognitive performance and short-term memory | |||||
| Increased GM in hippocampus and cerebellum | ||||||
| West et al. [ ] | 2018 | 18–29 | FPS | active | 8 weeks | Increased GM in hippocampus (spatial learner *) |
| Increased GM in amygdala (response learner *) | ||||||
| Decreased GM in hippocampus (response learner) |
Duration was converted into weeks (1 month = 4 weeks); DLPFC, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex; GM, grey matter; FPS, first person shooting. * Participants were categorized based on how they played during the video gaming intervention.
We excluded 121 articles: 46 were not MRI studies, 16 were not controlled studies, 38 were not intervention studies, 13 were review articles, and eight were miscellaneous, including study protocols, non-video gaming studies, and non-brain studies. Of 18 included scientific articles, nine were excluded. Of those nine excluded articles, two were cognitive-based game studies, three were shorter than 4 weeks in duration or were without a specified length intervention, two studies used a non-healthy participant treatment, and one was a combination intervention study. A screening flowchart is portrayed in Figure 1 .
Flowchart of literature search.
3.1. Quality Assessment
The assessment methodology based on Delphi criteria [ 45 ] for the quality of eligible studies is presented in Table 3 . The quality scores assigned to the studies were 3–9 (mean = 6.10; S.D. = 1.69). Overall, the studies showed fair methodological quality according to the Delphi criteria. The highest quality score of the nine eligible articles was assigned to “Playing Super Mario 64 increases hippocampal grey matter in older adult” published by West et al. in 2017, which scored 9 of 12. The scores assigned for criteria 6 (blinded care provider) and 7 (blinded patient) were lowest because of unspecified information related to blinding for those criteria. Additionally, criteria 2 (concealed allocation) and 5 (blinding assessor) were low because only two articles specified that information. All articles met criteria 3 and 4 adequately.
Methodological quality of eligible studies.
| Author | Year | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q5 | Q6 | Q7 | Q8 | Q9 | Q10 | Q11 | Q12 | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gleich et al. [ ] | 2017 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 |
| Haier et al. [ ] | 2009 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 5 |
| Kuhn et al. [ ] | 2014 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 5 |
| Lee et al. [ ] | 2012 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 |
| Lorenz et al. [ ] | 2015 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 |
| Martinez et al. [ ] | 2013 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
| Roush [ ] | 2013 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 7 |
| West et al. [ ] | 2017 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 9 |
| West et al. [ ] | 2018 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 7 |
| Score | 6 | 2 | 9 | 9 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 8 | 7 | 5 |
Q1, Random allocation; Q2, Concealed allocation; Q3, Similar baselines among groups; Q4, Eligibility specified; Q5, Blinded assessor outcome; Q6, Blinded care provider; Q7, Blinded patient; Q8, Intention-to-treat analysis; Q9, Detail of allocation method; Q10, Adequate description of each group; Q11, Statistical comparison between groups; Q12, Dropout report (1, specified; 0, unspecified).
3.2. Inclusion and Exclusion
Most studies included participants with little or no experience with gaming and excluded participants with psychiatric/mental, neurological, and medical illness. Four studies specified handedness of the participants and excluded participants with game training experience. The inclusion and exclusion criteria are presented in Table 4 .
Inclusion and exclusion criteria for eligible studies.
| Author | Year | Inclusion | Exclusion | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| i1 | i2 | i3 | e1 | e2 | e3 | e4 | e5 | ||
| Gleich et al. [ ] | 2017 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Haier et al. [ ] | 2009 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Kuhn et al. [ ] | 2014 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Lee et al. [ ] | 2012 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Lorenz et al. [ ] | 2015 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Martinez et al. [ ] | 2013 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Roush [ ] | 2013 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| West et al. [ ] | 2017 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| West et al. [ ] | 2018 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| total | 8 | 4 | 3 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | |
i1, Little/no experience in video gaming; i2, Right-handed; i3, Sex-specific; e1, Psychiatric/mental illness; e2, Neurological illness; e3, Medical illness; e4, MRI contraindication; e5, experience in game training.
3.3. Control Group
Nine eligible studies were categorized as three types based on the control type. Two studies used active control, five studies used passive control, and two studies used both active and passive control. A summary of the control group is presented in Table 5 .
Control group examined eligible studies.
| Control | Author | Year |
|---|---|---|
| Active control | Lee et al. [ ] | 2012 |
| West et al. [ ] | 2018 | |
| Passive control | Gleich et al. [ ] | 2017 |
| Haier et al. [ ] | 2009 | |
| Kuhn et al. [ ] | 2014 | |
| Lorenz et al. [ ] | 2015 | |
| Martinez et al. [ ] | 2013 | |
| Active–passive control | Roush [ ] | 2013 |
| West et al. [ ] | 2017 |
3.4. Game Title and Genre
Of the nine eligible studies, four used the same 3D adventure game with different game platforms, which were “Super Mario 64” original and the DS version. One study used first-person shooting (FPS) shooting games with many different game titles: “Call of Duty” is one title. Two studies used puzzle games: “Tetris” and “Professor Layton and The Pandora’s Box.” One study used a rhythm dance game: Dance Revolution. One study used a strategy game: “Space Fortress.” Game genres are presented in Table 6 .
Genres and game titles of video gaming intervention.
| Genre | Author | Year | Title |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3D adventure | Gleich et al. [ ] | 2017 | Super Mario 64 DS |
| Kuhn et al. [ ] | 2014 | Super Mario 64 | |
| Lorenz et al. [ ] | 2015 | Super Mario 64 DS | |
| West et al. [ ] | 2017 | Super Mario 64 | |
| FPS | West et al. * [ ] | 2018 | Call of Duty |
| Puzzle | Haier et al. [ ] | 2009 | Tetris |
| Martinez et al. [ ] | 2013 | Professor Layton and The Pandora’s Box | |
| Rhythm dance | Roush [ ] | 2013 | Dance Revolution |
| Strategy | Lee et al. [ ] | 2012 | Space Fortress |
* West et al. used multiple games; other games are Call of Duty 2, 3, Black Ops, and World at War, Killzone 2 and 3, Battlefield 2, 3, and 4, Resistance 2 and Fall of Man, and Medal of Honor.
3.5. Participants and Sample Size
Among the nine studies, one study examined teenage participants, six studies included young adult participants, and two studies assessed older adult participants. Participant information is shown in Table 7 . Numbers of participants were 20–75 participants (mean = 43.67; S.D. = 15.63). Three studies examined female-only participants, whereas six others used male and female participants. Six studies with female and male participants had more female than male participants.
Participant details of eligible studies.
| Category | Author | Year | Age | Sample Size | Ratio (%) | Detail | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lowest | Highest | Range | Female | Male | |||||
| Teenager | Haier et al. [ ] | 2009 | 12 | 15 | 3 | 44 | 70.45 | 29.54 | Training ( 24) Control ( 20) |
| Young adult | Gleich et al. [ ] | 2017 | 18 | 36 | 18 | 26 | 100 | 0 | Training ( 15) |
| Control ( 11) | |||||||||
| Kuhn et al. [ ] | 2014 | 19 | 29 | 10 | 48 | 70.8 | 29.2 | Training ( 23) | |
| Control ( 25) | |||||||||
| Lee et al. [ ] | 2012 | 18 | 30 | 12 | 75 | 61.4 | 38.6 | Training A ( 25) | |
| Training B ( 25) | |||||||||
| Control ( 25) | |||||||||
| Lorenz et al. [ ] | 2015 | 19 | 27 | 8 | 50 | 72 | 28 | Training ( 25 | |
| Control ( 25) | |||||||||
| Martinez et al. [ ] | 2013 | 16 | 21 | 5 | 20 | 100 | 0 | Training ( 10) | |
| Control ( 10) | |||||||||
| West et al. [ ] | 2018 | 18 | 29 | 11 | 43 | 67.4 | 32.5 | Action game ( 21) | |
| Non-action game ( 22) | |||||||||
| Older adult | Roush [ ] | 2013 | 50 | 65 | 15 | 39 | 100 | 0 | Training ( 19) |
| Active control ( 15) | |||||||||
| Passive control ( 5) | |||||||||
| West et al. [ ] | 2017 | 55 | 75 | 20 | 48 | 66.7 | 33.3 | Training ( 19) | |
| Active control ( 14) | |||||||||
| Passive control ( 15) | |||||||||
3.6. Training Period and Intensity
The training period was 4–24 weeks (mean = 11.49; S.D. = 6.88). One study by Lee et al. had two length periods and total hours because the study examined video game training of two types. The total training hours were 16–90 h (mean = 40.63; S.D. = 26.22), whereas the training intensity was 1.5–10.68 h/week (mean = 4.96; S.D. = 3.00). One study did not specify total training hours. Two studies did not specify the training intensity. The training periods and intensities are in Table 8 .
Periods and intensities of video gaming intervention.
| Author | Year | Length (Week) | Total Hours | Average Intensity (h/Week) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gleich et al. [ ] | 2017 | 8 | 49.5 | 6.2 |
| Haier et al. [ ] | 2009 | 12 | 18 | 1.5 |
| Kuhn et al. [ ] | 2014 | 8 | 46.88 | 5.86 |
| Lorenz et al. [ ] | 2012 | 8 | 28 | 3.5 |
| Lee et al. [ ] | 2015 | 8–11 * | 27 | n/a |
| Martinez et al. [ ] | 2013 | 4 | 16 | 4 |
| Roush [ ] | 2013 | 24 | ns | n/a |
| West et al. [ ] | 2017 | 24 | 72 | 3 |
| West et al. [ ] | 2018 | 8.4 | 90 | 10.68 |
The training length was converted into weeks (1 month = 4 weeks). ns, not specified; n/a, not available; * exact length is not available.
3.7. MRI Analysis and Specifications
Of nine eligible studies, one study used resting-state MRI analysis, three studies (excluding that by Haier et al. [ 40 ]) used structural MRI analysis, and five studies used task-based MRI analysis. A study by Haier et al. used MRI analyses of two types [ 40 ]. A summary of MRI analyses is presented in Table 9 . The related resting-state, structural, and task-based MRI specifications are presented in Table 10 , Table 11 and Table 12 respectively.
MRI analysis details of eligible studies.
| MRI Analysis | Author | Year | Contrast | Statistical Tool | Statistical Method | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Resting | Martinez et al. [ ] | 2013 | (post- > pre-training) > (post>pre-control) | MATLAB; SPM8 | TFCE uncorrected | <0.005 |
| Structural | Haier et al. * [ ] | 2009 | (post>pre-training) > (post>pre-control) | MATLAB 7; SurfStat | FWE corrected | <0.005 |
| Kuhn et al. [ ] | 2014 | (post>pre-training) > (post>pre-control) | VBM8; SPM8 | FWE corrected | <0.001 | |
| West et al. [ ] | 2017 | (post>pre-training) > (post>pre-control) | Bpipe | Uncorrected | <0.0001 | |
| West et al. [ ] | 2018 | (post>pre-training) > (post>pre-control) | Bpipe | Bonferroni corrected | <0.001 | |
| Task | Gleich et al. [ ] | 2017 | (post>pre-training) > (post>pre-control) | SPM12 | Monte Carlo corrected | <0.05 |
| Haier et al. * [ ] | 2009 | (post>pre-training) > (post>pre-control) | SPM7 | FDR corrected | <0.05 | |
| Lee et al. [ ] | 2012 | (post>pre-training) > (post>pre-control) | FSL; FEAT | uncorrected | <0.01 | |
| Lorenz et al. [ ] | 2015 | (post>pre-training) > (post>pre-control) | SPM8 | Monte Carlo corrected | <0.05 | |
| Roush [ ] | 2013 | post>pre-training | MATLAB 7; SPM8 | uncorrected | =0.001 |
* Haier et al. conducted structural and task analyses. + Compared pre-training and post-training between groups without using contrast. TFCE, Threshold Free Cluster Enhancement; FEW, familywise error rate; FDR, false discovery rate.
Resting-State MRI specifications of eligible studies.
| Author | Year | Resting State | Structural | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Imaging | TR (s) | TE (ms) | Slice | Imaging | TR (s) | TE (ms) | Slice | ||
| ] | 2013 | gradient-echo planar image | 3 | 28.1 | 36 | T1-weighted | 0.92 | 4.2 | 158 |
Structural MRI specifications of eligible studies.
| Author | Year | Imaging | TR (s) | TE (ms) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kuhn et al. [ ] | 2014 | 3D T1 weighted MPRAGE | 2.5 | 4.77 |
| West et al. [ ] | 2017 | 3D gradient echo MPRAGE | 2.3 | 2.91 |
| West et al. [ ] | 2018 | 3D gradient echo MPRAGE | 2.3 | 2.91 |
Task-Based MRI specifications of eligible studies.
| Author | Year | Task | BOLD | Structural | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Imaging | TR (s) | TE (ms) | Slice | Imaging | TR (s) | TE (ms) | Slice | |||
| Gleich et al. [ ] | 2017 | win–loss paradigm | T2 echo-planar image | 2 | 30 | 36 | T1-weighted | 2.5 | 4.77 | 176 |
| Haier et al. [ ] | 2009 | Tetris | Functional echo planar | 2 | 29 | ns | 5-echo MPRAGE | 2.53 | 1.64; 3.5; 5.36; 7.22; 9.08 | ns |
| Lee et al. [ ] | 2012 | game control | fast echo-planar image | 2 | 25 | ns | T1-weighted MPRAGE | 1.8 | 3.87 | 144 |
| Lorenz et al. [ ] | 2015 | slot machine paradigm | T2 echo-planar image | 2 | 30 | 36 | T1-weighted MPRAGE | 2.5 | 4.77 | ns |
| Roush [ ] | 2013 | digit symbol substitution | fast echo-planar image | 2 | 25 | 34 | diffusion weighted image | ns | ns | ns |
All analyses used 3 Tesla magnetic force; TR = repetition time; TE = echo time, ns = not specified.
4. Discussion
This literature review evaluated the effect of noncognitive-based video game intervention on the cognitive function of healthy people. Comparison of studies is difficult because of the heterogeneities of participant ages, beneficial effects, and durations. Comparisons are limited to studies sharing factors.
4.1. Participant Age
Video gaming intervention affects all age categories except for the children category. The exception derives from a lack of intervention studies using children as participants. The underlying reason for this exception is that the brain is still developing until age 10–12 [ 52 , 53 ]. Among the eligible studies were a study investigating adolescents [ 40 ], six studies investigating young adults [ 41 , 42 , 43 , 47 , 49 , 51 ] and two studies investigating older adults [ 48 , 50 ].
Differences among study purposes underlie the differences in participant age categories. The study by Haier et al. was intended to study adolescents because the category shows the most potential brain changes. The human brain is more sensitive to synaptic reorganization during the adolescent period [ 54 ]. Generally, grey matter decreases whereas white matter increases during the adolescent period [ 55 , 56 ]. By contrast, the cortical surface of the brain increases despite reduction of grey matter [ 55 , 57 ]. Six studies were investigating young adults with the intention of studying brain changes after the brain reaches maturity. The human brain reaches maturity during the young adult period [ 58 ]. Two studies were investigating older adults with the intention of combating difficulties caused by aging. The human brain shrinks as age increases [ 56 , 59 ], which almost invariably leads to declining cognitive function [ 59 , 60 ].
4.2. Beneficial Effects
Three beneficial outcomes were observed using MRI method: grey matter change [ 40 , 42 , 50 ], brain activity change [ 40 , 43 , 47 , 48 , 49 ], and functional connectivity change [ 41 ]. The affected brain area corresponds to how the respective games were played.
Four studies of 3D video gaming showed effects on the structure of hippocampus, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), cerebellum [ 42 , 43 , 50 ], and DLPFC [ 43 ] and ventral striatum activity [ 49 ]. In this case, the hippocampus is used for memory [ 61 ] and scene recognition [ 62 ], whereas the DLPFC and cerebellum are used for working memory function for information manipulation and problem-solving processes [ 63 ]. The grey matter of the corresponding brain region has been shown to increase during training [ 20 , 64 ]. The increased grey matter of the hippocampus, DLPFC, and cerebellum are associated with better performance in reference and working memory [ 64 , 65 ].
The reduced activity of DLPFC found in the study by Gleich et al. corresponds to studies that showed reduced brain activity associated with brain training [ 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 ]. Decreased activity of the DLPFC after training is associated with efficiency in divergent thinking [ 70 ]. 3D video gaming also preserved reward systems by protecting the activity of the ventral striatum [ 71 ].
Two studies of puzzle gaming showed effects on the structure of the visual–spatial processing area, activity of the frontal area, and functional connectivity change. The increased grey matter of the visual–spatial area and decreased activity of the frontal area are similar to training-associated grey matter increase [ 20 , 64 ] and activity decrease [ 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 ]. In this case, visual–spatial processing and frontal area are used constantly for spatial prediction and problem-solving of Tetris. Functional connectivity of the multimodal integration and the higher-order executive system in the puzzle solving-based gaming of Professor Layton game corresponds to studies which demonstrated training-associated functional connectivity change [ 72 , 73 ]. Good functional connectivity implies better performance [ 73 ].
Strategy gaming affects the DLPFC activity, whereas rhythm gaming affects the activity of visuospatial working memory, emotional, and attention area. FPS gaming affects the structure of the hippocampus and amygdala. Decreased DLPFC activity is similar to training-associated activity decrease [ 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 ]. A study by Roush demonstrated increased activity of visuospatial working memory, emotion, and attention area, which might occur because of exercise and gaming in the Dance Revolution game. Results suggest that positive activations indicate altered functional areas by complex exercise [ 48 ]. The increased grey matter of the hippocampus and amygdala are similar to the training-associated grey matter increase [ 20 , 64 ]. The hippocampus is used for 3D navigation purposes in the FPS world [ 61 ], whereas the amygdala is used to stay alert during gaming [ 74 ].
4.3. Duration
Change of the brain structure and function was observed after 16 h of video gaming. The total durations of video gaming were 16–90 h. However, the gaming intensity must be noted because the gaming intensity varied: 1.5–10.68 h per week. The different intensities might affect the change of cognitive function. Cognitive intervention studies demonstrated intensity effects on the cortical thickness of the brain [ 75 , 76 ]. A similar effect might be observed in video gaming studies. More studies must be conducted to resolve how the intensity can be expected to affect cognitive function.
4.4. Criteria
Almost all studies used inclusion criteria “little/no experience with video games.” The criterion was used to reduce the factor of gaming-related experience on the effects of video gaming. Some of the studies also used specific handedness and specific sex of participants to reduce the variation of brain effects. Expertise and sex are shown to affect brain activity and structure [ 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 ]. The exclusion criterion of “MRI contraindication” is used for participant safety for the MRI protocol, whereas exclusion criteria of “psychiatric/mental illness”, “neurological illness”, and “medical illness” are used to standardize the participants.
4.5. Limitations and Recommendations
Some concern might be raised about the quality of methodology, assessed using Delphi criteria [ 45 ]. The quality was 3–9 (mean = 6.10; S.D. = 1.69). Low quality in most papers resulted from unspecified information corresponding to the criteria. Quality improvements for the studies must be performed related to the low quality of methodology. Allocation concealment, assessor blinding, care provider blinding, participant blinding, intention-to-treat analysis, and allocation method details must be improved in future studies.
Another concern is blinding and control. This type of study differs from medical studies in which patients can be blinded easily. In studies of these types, the participants were tasked to do either training as an active control group or to do nothing as a passive control group. The participants can expect something from the task. The expectation might affect the outcomes of the studies [ 81 , 82 , 83 ]. Additionally, the waiting-list control group might overestimate the outcome of training [ 84 ].
Considering the sample size, which was 20–75 (mean = 43.67; S.D. = 15.63), the studies must be upscaled to emphasize video gaming effects. There are four phases of clinical trials that start from the early stage and small-scale phase 1 to late stage and large-scale phase 3 and end in post-marketing observation phase 4. These four phases are used for drug clinical trials, according to the food and drug administration (FDA) [ 85 ]. Phase 1 has the purpose of revealing the safety of treatment with around 20–100 participants. Phase 2 has the purpose of elucidating the efficacy of the treatment with up to several hundred participants. Phase 3 has the purpose of revealing both efficacy and safety among 300–3000 participants. The final phase 4 has the purpose of finding unprecedented adverse effects of treatment after marketing. However, because medical studies and video gaming intervention studies differ in terms of experimental methods, slight modifications can be done for adaptation to video gaming studies.
Several unresolved issues persist in relation to video gaming intervention. First, no studies assessed chronic/long-term video gaming. The participants might lose their motivation to play the same game over a long time, which might affect the study outcomes [ 86 ]. Second, meta-analyses could not be done because the game genres are heterogeneous. To ensure homogeneity of the study, stricter criteria must be set. However, this step would engender a third limitation. Third, randomized controlled trial video gaming studies that use MRI analysis are few. More studies must be conducted to assess the effects of video gaming. Fourth, the eligible studies lacked cognitive tests to validate the cognitive change effects for training. Studies of video gaming intervention should also include a cognitive test to ascertain the relation between cognitive function and brain change.
5. Conclusions
The systematic review has several conclusions related to beneficial effects of noncognitive-based video games. First, noncognitive-based video gaming can be used in all age categories as a means to improve the brain. However, effects on children remain unclear. Second, noncognitive-based video gaming affects both structural and functional aspects of the brain. Third, video gaming effects were observed after a minimum of 16 h of training. Fourth, some methodology criteria must be improved for better methodological quality. In conclusion, acute video gaming of a minimum of 16 h is beneficial for brain function and structure. However, video gaming effects on the brain area vary depending on the video game type.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank all our other colleagues in IDAC, Tohoku University for their support.
PRISMA Checklist of the literature review.
| Section/Topic | # | Checklist Item | Reported on Page # |
|---|---|---|---|
| Title | 1 | Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both. | 1 |
| Structured summary | 2 | Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number. | 1 |
| Rationale | 3 | Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known. | 1, 2 |
| Objectives | 4 | Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed related to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS). | 2 |
| Protocol and registration | 5 | Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it is accessible (e.g., Web address), and if available, provide registration information including registration number. | 2 |
| Eligibility criteria | 6 | Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale. | 2 |
| Information sources | 7 | Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched. | 2 |
| Search | 8 | Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated. | 2 |
| Study selection | 9 | State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and if applicable, included in the meta-analysis). | 3 |
| Data collection process | 10 | Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators. | 3 |
| Data items | 11 | List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made. | 3 |
| Risk of bias in individual studies | 12 | Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis. | 2 |
| Summary measures | 13 | State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means). | - |
| Synthesis of results | 14 | Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I ) for each meta-analysis. | - |
| Risk of bias across studies | 15 | Specify any assessment of risk of bias that might affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies). | - |
| Additional analyses | 16 | Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified. | - |
| Study selection | 17 | Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram. | 3,5 |
| Study characteristics | 18 | For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations. | 5-11 |
| Risk of bias within studies | 19 | Present data on risk of bias of each study, and if available, any outcome level assessment (see item 12). | 5,6 |
| Results of individual studies | 20 | For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot. | 4 |
| Synthesis of results | 21 | Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency. | - |
| Risk of bias across studies | 22 | Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item 15). | - |
| Additional analysis | 23 | Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item 16]). | - |
| Summary of evidence | 24 | Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers). | 12,13 |
| Limitations | 25 | Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias). | 13 |
| Conclusions | 26 | Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research. | 14 |
| Funding | 27 | Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review. | 14 |
For more information, visit: www.prisma-statement.org .
Author Contributions
D.B.T., R.N., and R.K. designed the systematic review. D.B.T. and R.N. searched and selected the papers. D.B.T. and R.N. wrote the manuscript with R.K. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. D.B.T. and R.N. contributed equally to this work.
Study is supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 17H06046 (Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research on Innovative Areas) and 16KT0002 (Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B)).
Conflicts of Interest
None of the other authors has any conflict of interest to declare. Funding sources are not involved in the study design, collection, analysis, interpretation of data, or writing of the study report.
Video Games Play May Provide Learning, Health, Social Benefits, Review Finds
Authors suggest balancing questions of harm with potential for positive impact
- The Benefits of Playing Video Games (PDF, 202KB)
WASHINGTON — Playing video games, including violent shooter games, may boost children’s learning, health and social skills, according to a review of research on the positive effects of video game play to be published by the American Psychological Association.
The study comes out as debate continues among psychologists and other health professionals regarding the effects of violent media on youth. An APA task force is conducting a comprehensive review of research on violence in video games and interactive media and will release its findings in 2014.
“Important research has already been conducted for decades on the negative effects of gaming, including addiction, depression and aggression, and we are certainly not suggesting that this should be ignored,” said lead author Isabela Granic, PhD, of Radboud University Nijmegen in The Netherlands. “However, to understand the impact of video games on children’s and adolescents’ development, a more balanced perspective is needed.”
The article will be published in APA’s flagship journal, American Psychologist .
While one widely held view maintains playing video games is intellectually lazy, such play actually may strengthen a range of cognitive skills such as spatial navigation, reasoning, memory and perception, according to several studies reviewed in the article. This is particularly true for shooter video games that are often violent, the authors said. A 2013 meta-analysis found that playing shooter video games improved a player’s capacity to think about objects in three dimensions, just as well as academic courses to enhance these same skills, according to the study. “This has critical implications for education and career development, as previous research has established the power of spatial skills for achievement in science, technology, engineering and mathematics,” Granic said. This enhanced thinking was not found with playing other types of video games, such as puzzles or role-playing games.
Playing video games may also help children develop problem-solving skills, the authors said. The more adolescents reported playing strategic video games, such as role-playing games, the more they improved in problem solving and school grades the following year, according to a long-term study published in 2013. Children’s creativity was also enhanced by playing any kind of video game, including violent games, but not when the children used other forms of technology, such as a computer or cell phone, other research revealed.
Simple games that are easy to access and can be played quickly, such as “Angry Birds,” can improve players’ moods, promote relaxation and ward off anxiety, the study said. “If playing video games simply makes people happier, this seems to be a fundamental emotional benefit to consider,” said Granic. The authors also highlighted the possibility that video games are effective tools to learn resilience in the face of failure. By learning to cope with ongoing failures in games, the authors suggest that children build emotional resilience they can rely upon in their everyday lives.
Another stereotype the research challenges is the socially isolated gamer. More than 70 percent of gamers play with a friend and millions of people worldwide participate in massive virtual worlds through video games such as “Farmville” and “World of Warcraft,” the article noted. Multiplayer games become virtual social communities, where decisions need to be made quickly about whom to trust or reject and how to lead a group, the authors said. People who play video games, even if they are violent, that encourage cooperation are more likely to be helpful to others while gaming than those who play the same games competitively, a 2011 study found.
The article emphasized that educators are currently redesigning classroom experiences, integrating video games that can shift the way the next generation of teachers and students approach learning. Likewise, physicians have begun to use video games to motivate patients to improve their health, the authors said. In the video game “Re-Mission,” child cancer patients can control a tiny robot that shoots cancer cells, overcomes bacterial infections and manages nausea and other barriers to adhering to treatments. A 2008 international study in 34 medical centers found significantly greater adherence to treatment and cancer-related knowledge among children who played “Re-Mission” compared to children who played a different computer game.
“It is this same kind of transformation, based on the foundational principle of play, that we suggest has the potential to transform the field of mental health,” Granic said. “This is especially true because engaging children and youth is one of the most challenging tasks clinicians face.”
The authors recommended that teams of psychologists, clinicians and game designers work together to develop approaches to mental health care that integrate video game playing with traditional therapy.
Article: “The Benefits of Playing Video Games,” Isabela Granic, PhD, Adam Lobel, PhD, and Rutger C.M.E. Engels, PhD, Radboud University Nijmegen; Nijmegen, The Netherlands; American Psychologist , Vol. 69, No. 1.
Isabela Granic can be contacted by email , cell: 011.31.6.19.50.00.99 or work: 011.31.24.361.2142
The American Psychological Association, in Washington, D.C., is the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States. APA's membership includes more than 134,000 researchers, educators, clinicians, consultants and students. Through its divisions in 54 subfields of psychology and affiliations with 60 state, territorial and Canadian provincial associations, APA works to advance the creation, communication and application of psychological knowledge to benefit society and improve people's lives.
Public Affairs
(202) 336-5700
Benefits of Video Games
Children and young adults love video games as they are fun and help to relax. At the same time, many adults claim that children spend too much time playing, which makes them violent and do not bring any benefit. However, facts indicate that video games are useful for the cognitive development of children and adults, while the myth of increased violence of players is not supported.
Video games are not a tool to solve all problems, but they have more advantages than many people think. First, games have a positive effect on cognitive and intellectual development (Etchells). For example, a player needs attentiveness, fast reaction, and often logical thinking to complete a mission in a shooter. Other games require attention and concentration, as well as ingenuity, to find a solution to a problem or task. Educational programs can also be built in the form of online games and bring more benefits than memorizing rules from books. Besides, games for adults also have such an advantage as they help developmental skills and memory. For example, Barr conducted a study and found that students playing video games improved their communication, resourcefulness, and adaptability significantly. At the same time, the idea that violent video games force people to be crueler has no convincing evidence, and scientists argue that the connection between the game process and increased aggression is very weak (Etchells). Consequently, video games cannot be called useless, harmful, or dangerous.
In conclusion, video games can be useful for a person’s development as they help to develop various cognitive and intellectual skills. In addition, since the myth that video games make people more violent still has not found cconfirmed it is difficult to talk about their harm. However, all these statements are correct with an average number of playing hours, since a strong passion for any activity, even useful, can harm the mental and physical health of a person.
Barr, Matthew. “ Video Games Can Turn University Graduates into Better Employees ” The Guardian , Guardian News and Media, 2019.
Etchells, Pete. “ Five Damaging Myths about Video Games – Let’s Shoot ‘Em Up .” The Guardian , 2019.
Cite this paper
- Chicago (N-B)
- Chicago (A-D)
StudyCorgi. (2022, January 12). Benefits of Video Games. https://studycorgi.com/benefits-of-video-games/
"Benefits of Video Games." StudyCorgi , 12 Jan. 2022, studycorgi.com/benefits-of-video-games/.
StudyCorgi . (2022) 'Benefits of Video Games'. 12 January.
1. StudyCorgi . "Benefits of Video Games." January 12, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/benefits-of-video-games/.
Bibliography
StudyCorgi . "Benefits of Video Games." January 12, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/benefits-of-video-games/.
StudyCorgi . 2022. "Benefits of Video Games." January 12, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/benefits-of-video-games/.
This paper, “Benefits of Video Games”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.
Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: November 9, 2023 .
If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.
Video Games Essay | Negative & Positive Effects
A brief essays and paragraph about video games are given below. These paragraphs briefly answers the queries: Are video games good or not?. Also read advantages and disadvantages.
There is no doubt that the video game industry is massive. Every year, billions of dollars are spent on video games, and the market is only growing. But what draws people to them? What is it about video games that entice people to keep playing them?
Table of Contents
Short Paragraph On Video Games
There are numerous theories, but one of the most widely accepted is the concept of escapism. People play video games to distract themselves from reality. They want to forget about their problems and simply have fun for a while. Video games provide a distinct form of entertainment that is difficult to find elsewhere.
Another reason people enjoy video games so much is that they are extremely immersive. When you’re playing a game, you completely immerse yourself in it. You lose track of time and become completely absorbed in the world on the screen. This is a sensation that is difficult to replicate through other forms of entertainment.
I’ve been thinking a lot about video games lately, and how they’ve changed my perspective on the world. Since I began playing them at the age of 11, they have brought me joy that few other things can match. I was hooked from the moment I got Mario Kart 64 to play with friends or try out all those new tracks. I began to play more and more, learning every trick in the game and eventually beating it with all of my friends. This was only the beginning of my fascination with video games.
Soon after, I obtained the Pokemon Blue version and began collecting fakemon to add to a new team, battling with them online on Game boys or trying out all of the new games like Pokémon.
Does that appear to be something to be taken lightly? Are gamer simply lazy kids who spend too much time playing video games and don’t get enough exercise to burn off those calories? I’m sure some people use it. How could you live with yourself if you were one of them?
I believe that many of the negative stereotypes about gamer stem from the fact that adults are less likely to play video games. It’s something you do as a child, not after you graduate from high school. This is most likely why we don’t hear much about adult gamer and instead concentrate on children.
The truth is that people who play video games are not slackers. They’re just people who have a different hobby than the rest of us. And there are numerous advantages to playing video games. For starters, they can assist you in improving your problem-solving abilities. Games like Portal and Super Meat Boy necessitate quick thinking and precise movements, which can be applied in real life.
Games can also aid in the development of your hand-eye coordination. This is especially critical for athletes and surgeons. Sports like Street Fighter and Dance Dance Revolution have helped people improve their skills in sports and surgery.
Furthermore, video games can help you improve your social skills. Playing online games with people from all over the world can teach you how to communicate with strangers and make new friends through online chat. Also, because they will most likely be talking about something they enjoy rather than forcing conversation, playing video games is a great way for shy people to feel more comfortable around others.
While some gamer do not get out as much as they should, the majority of negative stereotypes about gamer are simply false. There are numerous advantages to playing video games that can help you improve your life in some way. Don’t pass judgment on someone who is playing a video game the next time you see them. Simply think to yourself, “that person must be having fun because there’s no way they’d be playing a game if they didn’t enjoy it.”
Finally, there are numerous reasons why people enjoy video games. Some enjoy the challenge, while others enjoy the escapism and immersion they provide. Whatever the reason, it is obvious that video games are here to stay.
Argumentative Essay On Video Games | Positive And Negative Effects
1. Introduction
Video games have become a ubiquitous part of modern society, with people of all ages and backgrounds engaging with them on a daily basis. From console games to mobile games, the video game industry has grown significantly in recent years, and shows no signs of slowing down.
2. Positive Effects Of Video Games
Video games can have a number of positive effects on players. For example, they can improve hand-eye coordination and reaction time, as well as cognitive skills such as problem-solving and critical thinking. Additionally, video games can serve as a form of stress relief, allowing players to relax and unwind after a long day.
3. Negative Effects Of Video Games
However, there can also be negative effects associated with playing video games. Excessive gaming can lead to addiction, and can also negatively impact social relationships and physical health. Furthermore, some video games can contain violent or inappropriate content that may not be suitable for all players.
4. Conclusion
Overall, while video games can have both positive and negative effects, it is important for players to be aware of these potential effects and to use moderation when playing. Parents should also monitor the games that their children are playing and ensure that they are appropriate.
Essay on Video Games and Violence
The relationship between video games and violence has been the subject of ongoing debate and research for many years. Some studies have suggested that playing violent video games can lead to an increase in aggressive behavior, while others have found no significant link between the two.
One argument for a link between video games and violence is that playing violent games can desensitize individuals to real-world violence and make them more likely to engage in aggressive behavior. This theory is based on the idea that repeated exposure to violent imagery can lead to a decrease in the emotional response to violence, making it easier for individuals to commit acts of aggression.
On the other hand, other studies have found no significant correlation between playing violent video games and increased aggression. Some researchers argue that other factors, such as a person’s overall level of aggression or their environment, may play a greater role in determining their behavior. Additionally, it has also been suggested that playing violent video games can actually serve as a outlet for aggression and help to reduce the likelihood of real-world violence.
It is important to note that the majority of research in this area has found that video games are not the sole or even primary cause of violence. Rather, a complex interplay of genetic, psychological, and environmental factors are typically at play in determining an individual’s likelihood of committing acts of aggression.
In conclusion, while some studies have suggested a link between video games and violence, the evidence is not conclusive. Further research is needed to fully understand the relationship between the two, and it is important not to jump to conclusions about the effects of video games on behavior without considering other potential factors.
Frequently Asked Questions:
Q: Can video games be addictive?
A: Yes, excessive gaming can lead to addiction, and it is important for players to use moderation when playing.
Q: Are video games bad for children?
A: Not necessarily, but it is important for parents to monitor the games that their children are playing and ensure that they are appropriate.
Q: Can video games improve cognitive skills?
A: Yes, video games can improve cognitive skills such as problem-solving and critical thinking.
Hello! Welcome to my Blog StudyParagraphs.co. My name is Angelina. I am a college professor. I love reading writing for kids students. This blog is full with valuable knowledge for all class students. Thank you for reading my articles.
Related Posts:
Home / Essay Samples / Entertainment / Video Games / Positive And Negative Effects Of Video Games
Positive And Negative Effects Of Video Games
- Category: Entertainment
- Topic: Video Games
Pages: 4 (1903 words)
- Downloads: -->
--> ⚠️ Remember: This essay was written and uploaded by an--> click here.
Found a great essay sample but want a unique one?
are ready to help you with your essay
You won’t be charged yet!
Hotel Rwanda Essays
Game of Thrones Essays
Freedom Writers Essays
The Matrix Essays
Monster Essays
Related Essays
We are glad that you like it, but you cannot copy from our website. Just insert your email and this sample will be sent to you.
By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.
Your essay sample has been sent.
In fact, there is a way to get an original essay! Turn to our writers and order a plagiarism-free paper.
samplius.com uses cookies to offer you the best service possible.By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .--> -->