Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 15 submissions in the queue.
posted by CoolHand on Monday April 27 2015, @07:27PM   Printer-friendly
from the we-told-our-mommas-gaming-would-help-us dept.

A researcher at University of California San Francisco has created an adaptive game with inputs from EEGs and fMRIs to enhance cognition in study participants:

The first step is to identify the target—the different facets of our cognitive capabilities and the underlying neural systems that drive them. These include attention, working memory and goal management. Gazzaley and his team measure these functions using fMRI and EEG. "We can gather biomarkers so we can see if we're having the impact we're looking for."

The second step focuses on taking advantage of the neuroplasticity of the brain to try and modify its functions. The chosen tool for achieving this is video games—"they are an immersive engaging interactive way of changing behaviour. Something happens in the brain when playing. The video game records in real time and adapts itself as well as giving feedback," explains Gazzaley. That goes back to your brain and creates the desired closed loop.

Finally, the team focuses on enhancing the effects by using high-resolution neural feedback to modify the game going forward. The team is using the Unity gaming engine to collate the data garnered from this.

One game the team has already created, Neuroracer, has already shown that 12 hours of gaming a week among 60- to 80-year-olds dramatically improves their ability to multitask, beyond the abilities of a 20-year-old playing the game for the first time. They are now carrying out a three-year study, to see how the game can be used as a diagnostics tool.

Gamification has been trying to devise ways to mimic the immersive quality of gaming in more training- and productive settings. Is biofeedback the missing link?

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Monday April 27 2015, @07:36PM

    by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 27 2015, @07:36PM (#175828) Journal

    I'm wary about reports of this sort, that make broad inferences about X or Y being good for your brain because it increases neural response to certain classes of stimuli. Cognition is nothing if not complicated, and training your brain to do one thing well isn't necessarily an "improvement" if it inhibits other healthy mental behavior.

    Multi-tasking, in particular is one of those skills I'm not sure is without cost. Singular methodical focus is necessary a lot of day-to-day tasks, and the vast majority of these studies make little-to-no effort to measure the extent of changes on multiple distinct mental performance metrics.

    That said, I also am not claiming special knowledge of specific harm. Just that I think studies of this kind need to catalog more dependent variables.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 4, Funny) by frojack on Monday April 27 2015, @07:44PM

    by frojack (1554) on Monday April 27 2015, @07:44PM (#175836) Journal

    I tend to respond in single words when gaming, such as huh, what, no, yes, and dammitwomanyougotmekilled.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday April 27 2015, @08:14PM

      by Freeman (732) on Monday April 27 2015, @08:14PM (#175846) Journal

      I would mod you +1 Insightful, but I'm out of mod points. Games tend to take alot of my concentration. Though, those terms are usually left for the games I can't pause. Usually, because they are online games.

      --
      Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
    • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 27 2015, @09:10PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 27 2015, @09:10PM (#175866)

      check da privilege

      think of single men in nepal

    • (Score: 2, Funny) by Darth Turbogeek on Tuesday April 28 2015, @01:34AM

      by Darth Turbogeek (1073) on Tuesday April 28 2015, @01:34AM (#175923)

      You mean you don't come up with flowery words about how you will romance your opponent's mother?

  • (Score: 2) by rts008 on Monday April 27 2015, @08:20PM

    by rts008 (3001) on Monday April 27 2015, @08:20PM (#175850)

    I share your doubts.

    This looks like yet another 'one hammer for all nails' approach. That would work great if all nails were the same, but that is not the case.

    As for multitasking, well it does not work for everything, and it does have an inescapable downside: each task takes a little longer to complete, but the batch of tasks are completed sooner overall.
    This works great for a lot of things, but not every one. Not everything benefits from multitasking. example:Would you want your heart transplant surgeon multitasking in the surgery room with say, two other surgeries at the same time? Not me!

    I say if you want to learn better multitasking, get a job as a short-order cook in a busy eatery. You will learn to multitask, or be out of a job in short order!

    I don't doubt that this may bring about benefical therapies and treatments for some, but it would be a mistake to use it for every disorder/problem.

    The key is recognising when/if the treatment does more harm than the 'disease'.

  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday April 27 2015, @08:50PM

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 27 2015, @08:50PM (#175860) Journal

    I'm wary about reports of this sort, that make broad inferences about X or Y being good for your brain because it increases neural response to certain classes of stimuli. Cognition is nothing if not complicated, and training your brain to do one thing well isn't necessarily an "improvement" if it inhibits other healthy mental behavior.

    These games don't develop your cognition, but may enhance the brain functions that support cognition. Like gym session for a, say, football player.
    I guess it's up to you to choose a mean over a goal (i.e. take gym sessions only and hope you'll be inducted in the Football Hall of Fame), but don't tell me gym session are not useful

    Extra info (maybe some of us need it) on NYTimes [nytimes.com]:

    As I maneuvered the surfboard down winding river pathways, I was supposed to avoid hitting the sides, which required what Gazzaley said was “visual-motor tracking.” But I also had to watch out for targets: I was tasked with tapping the screen whenever a red fish jumped out of the water. The game increased in difficulty as I improved, making the river twistier and obliging me to remember turns I’d taken. (These were “working-memory challenges.”) Soon the targets became more confusing — I was trying to tap blue birds and green fish, but the game faked me out by mixing in green birds and blue fish. This was testing my “selective attention,” or how quickly I could assess a situation and react to it.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @04:01AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @04:01AM (#175956)

      but don't tell me gym session are not useful

      Any benefits they may have are lost on the sorts of people who choose to participate in those activities in the first place (i.e. mostly morons). Furthermore, there are better, more fun ways of training your brain. Learning mathematics, logic, doing logic puzzles, programming, etc.

      Rote memorization 'geniuses' love their working-memory challenges, though.

      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday April 28 2015, @05:03AM

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday April 28 2015, @05:03AM (#175965) Journal

        Rote memorization 'geniuses' love their working-memory challenges, though.

        Why do you think I provided the context by quoting from the NYTimes article?
        Did you find any "rote memorization" references there?

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @06:11PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @06:11PM (#176183)

          Working-memory challenges are basically made for rote memorization 'geniuses'. I would much rather focus on critical thinking skills than memory, as they seem to be something most are lacking.

          • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday April 28 2015, @08:01PM

            by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday April 28 2015, @08:01PM (#176228) Journal
            Wrong: it's not about rote memorization.
            Working memory [wikipedia.org] is short term memory - your CPU cache. You won't be a good thinker (critical or not) if your cache is small.
            --
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
  • (Score: 2) by VLM on Monday April 27 2015, @09:06PM

    by VLM (445) on Monday April 27 2015, @09:06PM (#175864)

    Could it just be a summarization issue? The SN story lists "attention, working memory and goal management" even if admittedly the second half is solely about measured gains in multitasking.

    Like the "going to the gym" analogy and then exclusively focusing on measured bench press gains as a specific example although the participants also did cardio bunny stuff and synchronized swimming and whatnot.