Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Correlation Found Between Brain Structure and Video Game Success

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the correlation-does-not-equal-yadda-yadda dept.

Games 110

kghapa writes "Still want to argue that video games shrink your brain? While video games have been previously shown to stimulate brain activity and improve coordination skills, a recently published study has directly linked structures in the human brain with video game aptitude. And yes, apparently size does matter in this case. Quoting: '... each subject received 20 hours of training to play a video game specifically created for research purposes, called Space Fortress. It's basically an Asteroids-type arcade game, in which the object is to knock down and destroy an enemy fortress while dodging space mines. However, the game has lots of extra twists that require close attention. Some of the players were told to focus exclusively on running up a high score, while others were told to shift their priorities between several goals. The result? The subjects who had more volume in an area called the nucleus accumbens did significantly better in the early stages of training. Meanwhile, those who were well-endowed in different areas of the striatum, known as the caudate nucleus and putamen, handled the shifting strategies better.'"

cancel ×

110 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

More developed specialized area of the brain... (2, Insightful)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#30839250)

...contributing to statistically greater success in tasks which might benefit from its function.

News at 11.

Re:More developed specialized area of the brain... (5, Insightful)

Shadow of Eternity (795165) | more than 4 years ago | (#30839296)

Yes but knowing which specialised area does what is why this is so interesting, there's vast portions of the brain that we can look at and say "Basically responsible for this general area" and have to leave it at that. To be able to point right at a relatively small chunk and say "This does THAT" is a pretty big deal.

Re:More developed specialized area of the brain... (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#30839376)

Absolutely. It's just that I had an impression that the topic of TFS, and the summary itself to some degree, seem to focus too much on "link between brain structure and mental proficiency established" ;p

Re:More developed specialized area of the brain... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30839526)

To be able to point right at a relatively small chunk and say "This does THAT" is a pretty big deal.

So you're saying there's a specialized area of the brain dedicated to achievement in Space Fortress?

Re:More developed specialized area of the brain... (4, Funny)

nextekcarl (1402899) | more than 4 years ago | (#30839644)

Maybe that's my problem! Most of my brain is highly specialized for something that doesn't yet exist!

Re:More developed specialized area of the brain... (3, Funny)

baKanale (830108) | more than 4 years ago | (#30840490)

Perhaps that's why we use only 10% of our brain. The other 90% is waiting for us to make a video game it's good at.

Re:More developed specialized area of the brain... (1)

Dalambertian (963810) | more than 4 years ago | (#30841004)

This idea might actually turn out to be more informative than funny.

Re:More developed specialized area of the brain... (2, Insightful)

imakemusic (1164993) | more than 4 years ago | (#30843778)

Except that the 10% thing is a fallacy. As I understand it (IANAN), you only use 10% of your brain at any one time. Which makes sense. I mean, when I'm trying to get out of the way of a car - I want to be recalling how to run - I don't want to be recalling the cake I had at my 5th birthday party.

Re:More developed specialized area of the brain... (3, Insightful)

Ceriel Nosforit (682174) | more than 4 years ago | (#30844194)

It's not a fallacy. It's a plain falsehood.

Arguably fallacy is a really nice word to use, but it's still not appropriate in this case.

Re:More developed specialized area of the brain... (2, Funny)

imakemusic (1164993) | more than 4 years ago | (#30844450)

Well, I've just learnt something.

Re:More developed specialized area of the brain... (2, Insightful)

MrTree (188626) | more than 4 years ago | (#30844230)

Not quite - it's a complete fallacy:

http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percent.asp

Re:More developed specialized area of the brain... (1)

imakemusic (1164993) | more than 4 years ago | (#30844352)

You're right, it's not a fallacy, it's a fallacy. Wait, what?

Re:More developed specialized area of the brain... (1)

pitchaxistheory (844824) | more than 4 years ago | (#30843376)

Ahhh... I *always knew* Duke Nukem Forever had some role in this...

Re:More developed specialized area of the brain... (1)

Khyber (864651) | more than 4 years ago | (#30844044)

"The other 90% is waiting for us to make a video game it's good at."

Already made it for myself. It's called "Getting humankind into the space colonization age." Somewhat challenging, but once power requirements get solved it is a rather trivial game that just begs for new rules.

Re:More developed specialized area of the brain... (2, Funny)

syousef (465911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30842106)

Maybe that's my problem! Most of my brain is highly specialized for something that doesn't yet exist!

Hate to break it to you, but sex really does exist.

Re:More developed specialized area of the brain... (1)

ImprovOmega (744717) | more than 4 years ago | (#30839882)

Basically, they're saying that one area is involved in multitasking, whereas another area is responsible for more basic hand-eye coordination. You have to generalize the result a little bit, but it's very cool to have it broken down further that way.

Re:More developed specialized area of the brain... (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#30840448)

This does THAT

*points at crotch*

*points at women* ... ...

Wait, did I just call my member a small chunk?

Re:More developed specialized area of the brain... (1)

alexander m (567750) | more than 4 years ago | (#30843378)

"...and these are NOT the hammer"

Re:More developed specialized area of the brain... (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#30839998)

Extra extra!

Slashdotter hears scientific finding loosely related to previously known scientific finding, can't think of immediate practical use for this knowledge, cynically implies said finding is trivial!

Slashdotter then likely returns to reloading the slashdot main page to read try to get another first post after skimming summary!

Re:More developed specialized area of the brain... (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#30840044)

If anyone is wondering why the newsboy said "...to read try to get..." it's because he's too busy selling newspapers on a street corner to get a proper education or bother with proofreading his posts.

Re:More developed specialized area of the brain... (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 4 years ago | (#30840664)

After beating a dungeon boss in Final Fantasy...

"I just leveled up in my brain!"

Re:More developed specialized area of the brain... (1)

bjourne (1034822) | more than 4 years ago | (#30843998)

You may want to shove your sarcasm up your butt because it is uncalled for.

First(ish) Post (-1, Troll)

ignavus (213578) | more than 4 years ago | (#30839298)

New research finds "First Posting linked to genius".

Re:First(ish) Post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30839326)

Hey "genius" - You forgot to actually get first post. You also forgot to post Anon, so into Karma hell you go!

Re:First(ish) Post (-1, Troll)

ignavus (213578) | more than 4 years ago | (#30839858)

Hey "genius" - You forgot to actually get first post. You also forgot to post Anon, so into Karma hell you go!

Which part of "first-ish" didn't you get?

How can I have forgotten something that was explicitly acknowledged in my post?

So, theiy're saying -- (0, Troll)

dwiget001 (1073738) | more than 4 years ago | (#30839312)

-- people are different! OMFG!

Re:So, theiy're saying -- (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#30839632)

Yes, people are different. And, the insurance companies want to know which differences are most profitable for them, so that they can drop everyone else.

"Ohh, see the ratios in size of these two lobes in your brain? We can't insure you due to preexisting conditions!!"

Re:So, theiy're saying -- (1)

BobMcD (601576) | more than 4 years ago | (#30839712)

Not to worry. Insurance companies will be dead soon enough.

Re:So, theiy're saying -- (1)

skine (1524819) | more than 4 years ago | (#30840226)

Not to worry. Insurance companies will be dead soon enough.

Do you have news of the end of the human race?

Re:So, theiy're saying -- (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 4 years ago | (#30840188)

Yes, people are different. And, the insurance companies want to know which differences are most profitable for them, so that they can drop everyone else.

No, insurance companies would like to assign people to like risk pools, and charge accordingly. Anything which allows them to put me in a different pool than some idiot who takes lots of risks is fine by me. Why should I have to subsidize others?

Re:So, theiy're saying -- (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#30840628)

Yes, that sounds good in theory. But, wait til YOU find that you have a pre-existing condition. DNA profiling promises to give the insurance companies plenty of ammunition in that field.

Re:So, theiy're saying -- (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 4 years ago | (#30840646)

Yes, that sounds good in theory. But, wait til YOU find that you have a pre-existing condition. DNA profiling promises to give the insurance companies plenty of ammunition in that field.

So you're saying I should be able to make others pay for my health care?

Re:So, theiy're saying -- (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#30840834)

I'm saying that splitting hairs over risky behaviour and/or conditions is bullshit. You won't save money on the deal, it will only COST SOMEONE. The insurance company is out to make money, and like any good marketers, they'll use anything and everything to convince fools to part with their money.

Let's suppose that DNA profiling determines that one or two genes, or a pair of genes in combination, says that you are almost certain NOT to get cancer. Do you think that your rates will go DOWN? If so, you are very naive. Instead, they'll keep your rates the same (until the next regularly scheduled rate increase) but they'll charge everyone else MORE for being susceptible to cancer.

You don't win - you just lose a wee bit less than the other guy.

Re:So, theiy're saying -- (1)

pengin9 (1595865) | more than 4 years ago | (#30843178)

The best thing about insurance is you don't have to get it. If you feel you'd save money by investing in an HSA, or just plain paying bills as you go, you have the right to do that. Likewise insurance companies will compete with each other to keep rates low. If you don't like one carrier move to another who can give you a better coverage. that's what we like to call economics. the only time this fails is when an outside source, (enter government) comes in and imposed regulations and standards that the insurance company has to abide by. suddenly your primium won't go down, because you have to have drug rehab insurance and pregnancy insurance, just ignore the fact that you're a male who is smart enough not to do smack. or worse yet if the government forces you to have insurance. that's when you'll see the prices skyrocket, and the coverage and quality shrink. because when demand is forced supply can do whatever it wants to control the price.

Re:So, theiy're saying -- (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30841356)

Yes, that sounds good in theory. But, wait til YOU find that you have a pre-existing condition. DNA profiling promises to give the insurance companies plenty of ammunition in that field.

So you're saying I should be able to make others pay for my health care?

You know, I really don't understand this attitude when dealing with insurance. The whole point of insurance is to "insure" yourself against unexpected costs by having others pay for it if you happen to be the one that gets dealt the bad hand. If everyone is just going to pay for what they need, there really isn't much point in having insurance at all is there?

Re:So, theiy're saying -- (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 4 years ago | (#30841432)

With normal insurance that's not hampered by government regulation, a person pays into a pool and is guaranteed to have unexpected costly care covered. The amount he pays each month is based on the risk each member of the pool poses. Each member IS paying for the benefit he receives.

When you prevent accurate determination of risk, you force sub-optimal pooling. You get high-risk people in a pool that contains many low-risk people, such that the low-risk people pay for risks they don't bring.

Re:So, theiy're saying -- (1)

xmundt (415364) | more than 4 years ago | (#30843360)

Greetings and Salutations....

No, insurance companies would like to assign people to like risk pools, and charge accordingly. Anything which allows them to put me in a different pool than some idiot who takes lots of risks is fine by me. Why should I have to subsidize others?

You seem to have a slight misunderstanding of the Insurance industry. It does NOT exist to help you, or to make sure that you have lower premiums. It is a "for profit" industry, therefore exists to suck as much cash out of our pockets as is possible and put it into the investors and workers in the industry.
          Any time they have to pay out on a claim, it is an expense that cuts profits, and, therefore, they will do all they can to either deny that claim, or, either cancel the policy ASAP, or, move the claimant to a much more expensive pool. They make their money back, and then some.
            I realize this is the darkest face of the insurance industry that I am presenting here, and, it is not universally true. However, more and more, this is the model that the industry is moving towards, in that unending struggle to make more money this quarter than they did last quarter.
            pleasant dreams
            dave mundt

Re:So, theiy're saying -- (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30840868)

You could say that about any study, including very important ones that have probably caused you to live as long as you have. Sure, this one doesn't seem as important but that's no way to dismiss it.

Re:So, theiy're saying -- (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30840936)

Yes they are, take yourself for instance, the part of your brain dedicated to trolling is much larger than the average.

Correlation (-1, Offtopic)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 4 years ago | (#30839324)

I'm waiting for the correlation between video game success and getting laid.

Re:Correlation (1)

PSandusky (740962) | more than 4 years ago | (#30839382)

That might have less to do with video games than it does with robotics. (I imagine Mr. Universe would agree.)

Re:Correlation (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30839416)

"I'm waiting for the correlation between video game success and getting laid."

Gamers who aren't getting laid are simply playing games too much, or as a substitute for their lack of effort even if that lack of effort is a result of a distorted view of themelves which creates anxiety, it isn't hard to get laid there are enormous amounts of resources now. Anyone who isn't getting laid has few excuses.

http://www.fastseduction.com/
http://www.charismaarts.com/

Re:Correlation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30839752)

I guess.. if one drops expectations low enough..tbh though, I think fucking cows shouldn't count.

Re:Correlation (1)

skine (1524819) | more than 4 years ago | (#30840268)

Yes, but if you don't count sheep or cows, you rule out 95% of Americans!

Re:Correlation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30841332)

more true than you realize. I assume you're not from the US? When I was 14 back in the early 90s I'd see the occasional fat person on the street or in a mall. Today every other person is obese. It's gross.

Re:Correlation (1)

skine (1524819) | more than 4 years ago | (#30842506)

No, I am from the US.

I'm just a pessimist.

Re:Correlation (1)

BigSlowTarget (325940) | more than 4 years ago | (#30839444)

Expect a long wait

Re:Correlation (3, Funny)

swanzilla (1458281) | more than 4 years ago | (#30839492)

up up down down left right left right b a start

Re:Correlation (2, Interesting)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 4 years ago | (#30839648)

up up down down left right left right b a start

That's what *she* said!

There was a Murphy Brown episode where Murphy was barking instructions at a person running a video editing machine.
Murphy: "Faster... slower... go back!"
Guy: "You sound just like my wife."
Murphy: "Oh, just hurry up and get it over with!"
Guy: "Uncanny..."

Re:Correlation (1)

skine (1524819) | more than 4 years ago | (#30840234)

It's like the Alphabet Game for nerds.

Re:Correlation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30839502)

I'm waiting for the correlation between video game success and getting laid.

Sadly the correlation is an inverse one. It's why jocks get laid more.

Re:Correlation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30839716)

It's 2010, jocks play games too. Sports and FPS games in particular.

Re:Correlation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30842570)

Yeah, seriously. It was probably about the year 2000, maybe a bit before, when *not* playing video games became uncool and nerdy (at least for males, this particular stereotype lags for females but it's getting there).

Re:Correlation (1)

jimbolauski (882977) | more than 4 years ago | (#30844822)

They started to scratch the surface on that study all ready

FTA

Meanwhile, those who were well-endowed in different areas...

Re:Correlation (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30839634)

I'm waiting for a correlation between those who 'get laid' with the implication that that means "sex is all I care about" to those who actually have dynamic lives above the reptilian brain stem...

Re:Correlation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30842842)

dynamic lives above the reptilian brain stem...

There is not much dynamism in a life without hormones, breathing, regulated heart beat and consciousness.

Re:Correlation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30843006)

true, but irrelevant. I was saying that there's MORE to life than that... most people are too busy thinking with their genitals rather than their brains to realize this.

Re:Correlation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30843612)

Lack of impulse control do tend cause some reckless and criminal behaviours, but then again, it might help an artist to create "in the stream" or "by divine assistance". Viewing brains and behaviour by extension as interdependent systems helps to deal with the sometimes painful reality of taking "good" with the "bad" and the problem of suffering in general. I'm not saying people shouldn't be kept accountable for their choices, quite the opposite, in fact.

Re:Correlation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30844384)

I'm waiting for a correlation between those who 'get laid' with the implication that that means "sex is all I care about" to those who actually have dynamic lives above the reptilian brain stem...

This is slashdot, nobody here have dynamic lives above or below the reptilian brain stem assuming that by dynamic you mean (or include) some sort of social interaction not involving a keyboard.

Re:Correlation (1)

S77IM (1371931) | more than 4 years ago | (#30839898)

Correlation is not causation!!!!!

Wait, that doesn't even make sense here.

  -- 77IM

I think I read this story... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30839334)

When it was called Ender's Game. Did he destroy the buggers?

Re:I think I read this story... (1)

GargamelSpaceman (992546) | more than 4 years ago | (#30845386)

Destroying the buggars. Sheesh! What a homophobe.

What this study proves is... (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 4 years ago | (#30839340)

That corporate video game companies will hire monkeys to test video games and pay them in peanuts to save the money for their annual bonuses. Most gamers won't notice the quality difference.

Re:What this study proves is... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30839474)

So EA conducted this study?

I have a new pickup line (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30839384)

"Hey baby, let me show you how well endowed my caudate nucleus is."

Oblig. PvP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30839386)

Obligatory PvP reference: "My brain is hung like a horse!" [pvponline.com]

(Posting anonymously...)

Asteroids Type? (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 4 years ago | (#30839530)

Asteroids-type arcade game, in which the object is to knock down and destroy an enemy fortress while dodging space mines.

It sounds more like Star Castle, which *is* an Asteroids type game, but why not just come out and say Star Castle?

Re:Asteroids Type? (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 4 years ago | (#30839646)

Because, going by my completely subjective metric, Asteroids is a billion times better known than Star Castle so "asteroids-type game" gets the point across quicker and easier?

Re:Asteroids Type? (1)

MindlessAutomata (1282944) | more than 4 years ago | (#30840132)

How many people have heard of Asteroids versus "Star Castle?"

Re:Asteroids Type? (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 4 years ago | (#30840218)

I have never heard of Star Castle. I know exactly what Asteroids.

Freud (3, Funny)

JustOK (667959) | more than 4 years ago | (#30839566)

Somehow, the motherboard is a significant factor. And sometimes a joystick is just a joystick.

Download? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30839604)

Sounds good - where is the download?

Graphics? (1)

Froboz23 (690392) | more than 4 years ago | (#30839654)

The study is interesting enough, but they need to work on their visuals. The game's graphics barely compete with Stellar Fortress for the Atari 2600... [atariage.com]

I want to play! (2, Informative)

nilbog (732352) | more than 4 years ago | (#30839720)

I thought the game sounded like fun so I looked it up. You can find it here: http://cogworks.cogsci.rpi.edu/?view=modules.research.spec&id=74 [rpi.edu] The page is down, so you may need to check the Google Cache. It does not appear to be available to the general public.

Re:I want to play! (2, Informative)

Zerth (26112) | more than 4 years ago | (#30839948)

I was actually in a study using this game, and it didn't seem very asteroids like to me, other than having vector style graphics.

The controls involved both a joystick in one hand, a mouse in the other, and car-style pedals. One phase had you alternately pumping the foot switches at a specific tempo for long stretches of time(as a measure of concentration) and I had just done a long distance bike trip that morning. God, my legs hurt just thinking about it.

It was OK for a few days, but after I overflowed the score, it got a bit boring except for the challenge of using a joystick and mouse at the same time.

Re:I want to play! (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 4 years ago | (#30843052)

Sounds like a good drummer would excell at the game.

Re:I want to play! (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 4 years ago | (#30843898)

From the stub, it sounds like that would have been only one part of the game.

By your reasoning, a skilled pilot would be good at the game because it has a joystick. But that would leave him at a disadvantage regarding the pedal mechanic... I guess this would be the reason for the study.

Re:I want to play! (3, Informative)

gwern (1017754) | more than 4 years ago | (#30840116)

Re:I want to play! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30841782)

Mod this up. Contains a link to download the actual game.

Err... phallic? (1)

olingern (1119857) | more than 4 years ago | (#30839760)

size does matter
those who were well-endowed

What an incredibly phallic story.

Re:Err... phallic? (2, Funny)

Abstrackt (609015) | more than 4 years ago | (#30839866)

size does matter those who were well-endowed What an incredibly phallic story.

Yeah, the researchers were dicks.

Re:Err... phallic? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30841020)

Indeed, the whole study sounds like a cock-up.

Re:Err... phallic? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30842636)

To be honest when I saw 'size' and 'gamers' my first thought was BMI.

The Story on Fox News: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30839782)

In other news, the area of the brain linked to violent behavior found. Subjects with larger brain structures more successful at violence, more prone to murder.

That can't be it... (1)

Eberlin (570874) | more than 4 years ago | (#30839796)

And here I thought my fast reflexes and hand-eye coordination were due to my abnormally large midi-chlorian count. With this article, I'll never convince my brother that I'm a jedi knight! Buzzkilled by science once again. "This is not the article you're looking for."

Meh (-1, Troll)

PPH (736903) | more than 4 years ago | (#30839892)

Everyone has the same hormones. If some guys want to waste theirs growing big brains, that's their business.

Useful (0, Troll)

Amorymeltzer (1213818) | more than 4 years ago | (#30840160)

This is fantastic information to have. You know, because of all the times in everyday life where you need to either gets lots of points or do different things rapidly. Let's see, there's sports and... sports? People good at video games are good at sports?

Uh huh. *rolls eyes*

The Pinball Wizard. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30840888)

What are the implications for that deaf, dumb and blind kid then?

Re:The Pinball Wizard. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30841802)

There's got to be a twist

Man... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30841040)

I read that as Dwarf Fortress, not Space Fortress. Just when I thought all those hours of DF might actually mean something...

HOLY SHIT!!! (1)

SeNtM (965176) | more than 4 years ago | (#30841126)

A study which actually states its correlation and not causation! With the gross misinterpretation of studies and statistics, I am surprised the headline didn't read "Study Finds Brain Structure is the Cause of Video Game Success!"

Re:HOLY SHIT!!! (1)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 4 years ago | (#30843124)

A study which actually states its correlation and not causation!

Any decent study will state the correlation and then describe what steps were taken to isolate causative factors. This is not new. The reporting is a little better than usual, though.

With the gross misinterpretation of studies and statistics, I am surprised the headline didn't read "Study Finds Brain Structure is the Cause of Video Game Success!"

The "gross misinterpretation of studies and statistics" is almost always the fault of (a) reporters trying to read more into the study than is usually there, and (b) on Slashdot, people quoting half-remembered maxims from the one stats class they took, ten years ago, to fulfill a requirement for their CS degree.

Where can I... (1)

v(*_*)vvvv (233078) | more than 4 years ago | (#30841132)

Where can I get my brain size measured, and what can I take to make it bigger! Coming soon. Enzyte for gamers.

Watch me stroll through the arcades, as I intimidate you with my BIG head!!

Re:Where can I... (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 4 years ago | (#30843078)

Where can I get my brain size measured...

Same place you buy your hats.

...and what can I take to make it bigger!

A blow to the head with a blunt instrument.

Space Fortress? Neh. (1)

ub3r n3u7r4l1st (1388939) | more than 4 years ago | (#30842046)

Team Fortress will work much better.

Re:Space Fortress? Neh. (1)

Velodra (1443121) | more than 4 years ago | (#30843324)

Not as good as Dwarf Fortress.

Bigger How? (1)

DynaSoar (714234) | more than 4 years ago | (#30842542)

It's not clear from TFA or the abstract whether the volumes measured were absolute or in proportion to overall brain volume. A bigger brain will have bigger parts usually, but it may need them all bigger to run the thing. A smaller brain with a larger part might have more of that function than it requires, lending to greater ability. Anyone got access to the PDF to see how they define volume?

Size itself can be a contributor to greater or lesser processing according to what and where. We found that the larger the cross section of the foremost part of the corpus callosum (larger taken as a fraction of overall volume) had greater attentional abilities, particularly disattention. We also found that the smaller the portion of Broca's area that became engaged, the greater the ability to read something cold and make themselves sound natural rather than stilted as though they were reading aloud. They both make sense in different ways -- the former is a collection connections between hemispheres, essentially a cable trunk, so greater volume = more neurons or bigger/more efficient/effective neurons, or something similar. In the latter, the smaller area is likely a function of greater interconnection allowing for more processing, more complex processing, faster processing due to less distance, or something like these.

In any case, all the parts examined in TFA are controlled in large part by the dopamine system, meaning they're involved in reward. That's reward in the Skinnerian sense -- reinforcement -- not in the sense of causing a good feeling. They're all involved in learning. The tasks measured were scored according to how well/fast someone learned the task or strategies/tactics that worked. So it all makes good plain old sense, as does much of the more nuts and bolts stuff in neuroscience.

A point of clarification vs. the Cosmic Log write up: they failed to find an interaction with the hippocampus, as opposed to finding none. Absence of evidence, etc. That doesn't mean it's not there, just that they failed to detect it if it was.

Please do not forget (1)

Aceticon (140883) | more than 4 years ago | (#30844924)

With regards to the article title ("Correlation Found Between Brain Structure and Video Game Success"), after seeing that this article seems to be missing posts with the adequate meme, in the interest of completness and as per Slashdot tradition I would like to remind everybody that:

Correlation is not Causation

Thank you for your time.

Re:Please do not forget (1)

GargamelSpaceman (992546) | more than 4 years ago | (#30845650)

I don't have a problem, when the title of the article specifies Correlation found. The problem is when people start conflating that with causation and then continue arguing as if causation has been shown.

Correlation is useful knowledge. Correlation tells you the way things are. If X is correlated with Y, and I want to find X, I should look where there is Y and vice versa. Like a map, correlation tells you *where/when* to look for things.

Causation is about WHY things are the way they are. I.E. X is so beCAUSE of Y. Knowledge of causation tells you *how* to change/produce things. If X is caused by Y, then if I want X I could produce X by producing Y.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>