Can playing video games improve your visual perception and attention span?

[atyy]

Some may find this interesting:
http://www.sfn.org/skins/main/pdf/neuromyth_busters/neuromyth_busters.pdf
Myth: You only use 10 percent of your brain.
Myth: Listening to classical music makes you smarter.
Myth: Vaccines cause autism.
Myth: Brain damage is always permanent.
Myth: Your brain can’t make new cells.
Myth: Drinking alcoholic drinks always kills brain cells.
Myth: Drug use makes holes in your brain.
Myth: Playing games keeps your brain young.

I personally found the last myth the most interesting. They say
"Truth: Crossword puzzles and similar games can help you learn words and improve specific skills, but they won’t enhance overall brain function. If you want to preserve your mental abilities, exercise your body. A healthy diet and regular exercise can help maintain memory and general cognition, particularly later in life. Starting habits that promote healthy cognitive aging early in life can preserve brain function during aging. Studies show that foods rich in nutrients and antioxidants appear to reduce the risks of age-related impairment. Aerobic exercise increases blood flow to the brain, and even lessens the rate of tissue loss during aging."

 

[Ryan_m_b]

None of those surprise me except the forth, that surely depends on the type of brain damage?

As for the last one I'm not even sure what "young" means in this context, senescence is senescence! Though the fad in recent years of brain training games always strikes me as both unethical and effective advertising. Stick a Doctor on the cover then give people gradually improving and flattering results for their scores and you'll sell millions.

 

[atyy]

I remember seeing something about a study of nuns some years back. I don't remember what the conclusions from that study was though.

Maybe this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nun_Study

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I remember seeing something about a study of nuns some years back. I don't remember what the conclusions from that study was though.

Interesting contribution :tongue2: You mean for "brain training" games?

 

[atyy]

Interesting contribution :tongue2: You mean for "brain training" games?

Actually, I'm not familiar with the detailed claims of those games, although I know they exist. I just know of pianists and mathematicians that continue well into old age, and wondered whether that had anything to do with their professions.

 

[thorium1010]

Some may find this interesting:

Myth: Listening to classical music makes you smarter.

Listening to classical music probably makes you calmer, similar to meditation .

Myth: Brain damage is always permanent.

Like ryan said, actually depends on the type and extent of damage. But recovery can be there.Take the recent example of senator who was shot in the head.

Myth: Drinking alcoholic drinks always kills brain cells.

Drinking definitely affects the brain and the liver and many more.Of course depends on the amount and the number of years as stated in the article.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Actually, I'm not familiar with the detailed claims of those games, although I know they exist. I just know of pianists and mathematicians that continue well into old age, and wondered whether that had anything to do with their professions.

Many of them claim to improve things such as memory, spatial awareness and the "age" of a brain. They do this by having games based around such things (for example remember the order of coloured flashes then type it back in). The user get's better at the game because they have played it over and over, each time the game tells them their brain age is decreasing and their IQ increasing. It's rubbish, there have never been any studies to show that playing such games boosts your intelligence and brain age isn't even a valid measure.

 

[atyy]

Many of them claim to improve things such as memory, spatial awareness and the "age" of a brain. They do this by having games based around such things (for example remember the order of coloured flashes then type it back in). The user get's better at the game because they have played it over and over, each time the game tells them their brain age is decreasing and their IQ increasing. It's rubbish, there have never been any studies to show that playing such games boosts your intelligence and brain age isn't even a valid measure.

Ok, I'm switching to Cenegenics (instead of stimulating my mind on PF;)

 

[Proton Soup]

Ok, I'm switching to Cenegenics (instead of stimulating my mind on PF;)

well, if your testosterone is low, supplementing might actually increase your spatial ability. and also be stimulating in other ways, such as alleviating depression. i really can't fault guys at all for going the HRT route when they hit manopause.

 

[bellagio]

There are many more myths available every person have it's own thinking behind the brain.

 

[fuzzy steel]

Myth: Playing games keeps your brain young.

I happened across a game called Dual N Back a while ago that was said to increase fluid intelligence in test subjects who played for 20 days. The title describes the game: dual for 2 stimuli, N back is the number of rounds beofre the current one.

The game is set up like a memory game where participants need to memorize the location of a square in a griid as well as a random [audio] letter each round. the next round they are given new stimuli and must decide whether they match their prievious audio or visual cues.

game link:
http://brainworkshop.sourceforge.net/

link to the relevant study:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/04/25/0801268105.abstract

 

[Pythagorean]

Marijuana kills brain cells. Especially if you don't let the monkey get any oxygen!

 

[CJames]

How about this:

Myth 9: The brain is a blank slate and all human behavior is learned.

Thoughts?

 

[Pythagorean]

CJames, that was Skinner's view, a predominately behavioral view.

The new view that replaces it is ethology. That we can influence a biological system by stimulus somewhat, but it will always be confined within the scope of it's internal dynamics (i.e. genetics/biology).

One thing that's largely glossed over Skinner's view that's not missed in ethological pursuits is the developmental picture. Two fetal biological systems that share exactly the same state in the beginning (say, twins, ignoring random mutations) can develop into very different newborns based simply on the way each twin is connected to their mother's placenta, and how nutrition is distributed between the two twins. We are not starting with two blank slates when they are born.

Of course, this isn't meant to trivialize the role of society in shaping human behavior. Society has a lot of influence... it's just not always an intended result.

 

[CJames]

CJames, that was Skinner's view, a predominately behavioral view.

The new view that replaces it is ethology. That we can influence a biological system by stimulus somewhat, but it will always be confined within the scope of it's internal dynamics (i.e. genetics/biology).

One thing that's largely glossed over Skinner's view that's not missed in ethological pursuits is the developmental picture. Two fetal biological systems that share exactly the same state in the beginning (say, twins, ignoring random mutations) can develop into very different newborns based simply on the way each twin is connected to their mother's placenta, and how nutrition is distributed between the two twins. We are not starting with two blank slates when they are born.

Of course, this isn't meant to trivialize the role of society in shaping human behavior. Society has a lot of influence... it's just not always an intended result.

Yes, this is what I was getting at, although that's interesting about what's happening in the placenta and how much of an effect it has.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Yes, this is what I was getting at, although that's interesting about what's happening in the placenta and how much of an effect it has.

It will be a long time before we can characterise things like how the developmental processes affect the connectome and how this maps to personality.

 

[Pythagorean]

Yeah, so far all they measure is the degree of difference between monochoriotic and dichoriotic monozygotic twins with personality and intellectual ability tests. Some tests measure a higher degree of difference in the dichoriotic tests.

Intrapair differences in personality and cognitive ability among young monozygotic twins distinguished by chroion type

http://www.springerlink.com/content/yh27747jkx347w64/

Heritability Estimates of Intelligence in Twins:
Effect of Chorion Type

http://www.springerlink.com/content/qq4w6r4883533065/

 

[ViewsofMars]

Since the discussion is about the brain, here’s three snippets from ZERO TO THREE from the National Center for Infants, Toddlers and Families:

1. The human brain begins forming very early in prenatal life (just three weeks after conception), but in many ways, brain development is a lifelong project. That is because the same events that shape the brain during development are also responsible for storing information—new skills and memories—throughout life. The major difference between brain development in a child versus learning an adult is a matter of degree: the brain is far more impressionable (neuroscientists use the term plastic) in early life than in maturity. This plasticity has both a positive and a negative side. On the positive side, it means that young children's brains are more open to learning and enriching influences. On the negative side, it also means that young children's brains are more vulnerable to developmental problems should their environment prove especially impoverished or un-nurturing.

2. Genes and environment interact at every step of brain development, but they play very different roles. Generally speaking, genes are responsible for the basic wiring plan—for forming all of the cells (neurons) and general connections between different brain regions--while experience is responsible for fine-tuning those connections, helping each child adapt to the particular environment (geographical, cultural, family, school, peer-group) to which he belongs. An analogy that is often used is wiring a phone network: genes would specify the number of phones and the major trunk lines that connect one relay station to the next. Experience would specify the finer branches of this network-the connections between the relay station and each person's home or office.

For example, each of us is born with the potential to learn language. Our brains are programmed to recognize human speech, to discriminate subtle differences between individual speech sounds, to put words and meaning together, and to pick up the grammatical rules for ordering words in sentences. However, the particular language each child masters, the size of his vocabulary, and the exact dialect and accent with which he speaks are determined by the social environment in which he is raised--that is, the thousands of hours he has spent (beginning even before birth) listening and speaking to others. Genetic potential is necessary, but DNA alone cannot teach a child to talk.

3. While babies come into the world with some very useful survival reflexes, they are still strikingly helpless, in large part because the cerebral cortex is still quite immature. As the highest, most recently evolved part of the brain, the cerebral cortex is responsible for all of our conscious thoughts, feelings, memories, and voluntary actions.

Although all of the neurons in the cortex are produced before birth, they are poorly connected. In contrast to the brain stem and spinal cord, the cerebral cortex produces most of its synaptic connections after birth, in a massive burst of synapse formation known as the exuberant period. At its peak, the cerebral cortex creates an astonishing two million new synapses every second. With these new connections come a baby's many mental milestones, such as color vision, a pincer grasp, or a strong attachment to his parents.http://main.zerotothree.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ter_key_brainFAQ

 

[Pythagorean]

it's crazy watching a newborn go from a bundle of reflexes to a half-cogniscient being.

 

[ViewsofMars]

Cell Biology on June 9, 2011 had a great article:

Early Specialization for Voice and Emotion Processing in the Infant Brain

Anna Blasi1, 9, , , Evelyne Mercure2, 9, , , Sarah Lloyd-Fox3, Alex Thomson1, Michael Brammer4, Disa Sauter5, Quinton Deeley1, Gareth J. Barker4, Ville Renvall6, Sean Deoni4, 7, David Gasston4, Steven C.R. Williams4, 8, Mark H. Johnson3, Andrew Simmons4, 8 and Declan G.M. Murphy1, 8

1 Department of Forensic and Neurodevelopmental Science, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, London SE5 8AF, UK

2 Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, London WC1N 3AR, UK

3 Centre for Brain and Cognitive Development, Birkbeck College, London WC1E 7HX, UK

4 Department of Neuroimaging, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, King's Health Partners, De Crespigny Park, London SE5 8AF, UK

5 Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, 6500 AH Nijmegen, The Netherlands

6 Brain Research Unit, Low Temperature Laboratory, Aalto University School of Science, FI-00076 Aalto, Espoo, Finland

7 Advanced Baby Imaging Lab, School of Engineering, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912, USA

8 NIHR Biomedical Research Centre for Mental Health at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, London, SE5 8AZ, UK

Received 11 February 2011; revised 9 May 2011; accepted 6 June 2011. Published online: June 30, 2011. Available online 30 June 2011.

Summary
Human voices play a fundamental role in social communication, and areas of the adult “social brain” show specialization for processing voices and their emotional content (superior temporal sulcus, inferior prefrontal cortex, premotor cortical regions, amygdala, and insula) [[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] and [8]]. However, it is unclear when this specialization develops. Functional magnetic resonance (fMRI) studies suggest that the infant temporal cortex does not differentiate speech from music or backward speech [[9] and [10]], but a prior study with functional near-infrared spectroscopy revealed preferential activation for human voices in 7-month-olds, in a more posterior location of the temporal cortex than in adults [11]. However, the brain networks involved in processing nonspeech human vocalizations in early development are still unknown. To address this issue, in the present fMRI study, 3- to 7-month-olds were presented with adult nonspeech vocalizations (emotionally neutral, emotionally positive, and emotionally negative) and nonvocal environmental sounds. Infants displayed significant differential activation in the anterior portion of the temporal cortex, similarly to adults [1]. Moreover, sad vocalizations modulated the activity of brain regions involved in processing affective stimuli such as the orbitofrontal cortex [12] and insula [[7] and [8]]. These results suggest remarkably early functional specialization for processing human voice and negative emotions.

Highlights
► Specialization for the human voice was found in the anterior STS in human infants ► This voice-sensitive area is right lateralized and in a similar location to adults ► Orbitofrontal cortex and insula activate when infants process sad vocal emotions

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982211006543#FCANote

Also found here: http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(11)00654-3

Mentioned here too:

Babies are specially attuned to our voices and emotions

Young babies' brains are already specially attuned to the sounds of human voices and emotions, according to a report published online on June 30 in Current Biology, a Cell Press publication.

Three- to seven-month-old infants showed more activation in a part of the brain when they heard emotionally neutral human sounds, such as coughing, sneezing, or yawning, than when they heard the familiar sounds of toys or water. That activity appeared in an area of the temporal lobe known in adults for its role in processing human vocalizations. The babies also showed greater response to sad sounds versus neutral ones in another part of the brain involved in emotion processing in adults.

The researchers say the discoveries fundamentally advance our understanding of infant development.

"Our results suggest that the infant temporal cortex is more mature than previously reported," said Evelyne Mercure of University College London. "It is a rare demonstration that specialized areas exist in the brain very early in development."

"It is probably because the human voice is such an important social cue that the brain shows an early specialization for its processing," added Anna Blasi of King's College London. "This may represent the very first step in social interactions and language learning."

The findings are consistent with earlier evidence that infants can extract subtle information from human speech. Newborns prefer to listen to their mother's voice and their mother tongue. Young infants also differentiate between the voices of men and women, children and adults.

In the new study, the researchers used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to record brain responses in sleeping babies while they were presented with emotionally neutral, positive, or negative human vocalizations or nonvocal environmental sounds.

Please read on . . .
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-06/cp-bas062811.php

 

[Galteeth]

The things about most of these "claims" is that they are so vague as to be meaningless.Video games can improve certain skills. How that translates to "keeping the brain young" or "improving overall brain function" I have no idea, since those are such vague descriptions.http://discovermagazine.com/2007/brain/video-games/article_view?b_start:int=1&-C=

"Even if Gee is right and video games are learning machines, one question remains: Do the skills learned in the virtual world translate into the real one?
the answer comes from a slew of recent studies, one of which began when then cognitive sciences research assistant and ardent gamer Shawn Green worked with University of Rochester cognitive sciences professor Daphne Bavelier on a project investigating visual perception in video game players. On standard tests that measure attention span and information-processing time, Green found that gamers consistently outperformed nongamers. When Green tweaked the tests to make them challenging enough so the gamers wouldn’t have perfect scores, the nongamers sometimes performed so poorly that their answers might as well have been random guesses. The researchers addressed an admitted weakness of the study—that visually intelligent people were more likely to be attracted to video games in the first place—by immersing a group of nonplayers for a week in the World War II game Medal of Honor. They found that the group’s skills on the standard visual tests improved as well.
Green did the initial research as part of his honors thesis, and after graduation, he and Bavelier continued the study. Nature published the results in May 2003. Since then the pair has also found that gamers can visually track more objects simultaneously than nongamers and that playing video games improves this ability. Their latest research on the visual precision of gamers is forthcoming in Psychological Science and the Journal of Experimental Psychology. Green says his main interest is the brain’s plasticity, but cautiously concedes there may be practical applications to playing video games. “Strong peripheral vision is useful to law enforcement, firefighters, and the military. They need those enhanced skills,” he adds."