This article is biased and has several flaws with its methodology. One of the issues about this article is the actual experiment performed. First of all, participants played video games for a mere 30 minutes and researchers only look at the short term effects of playing rather than the long-term effects on memory and such.
In addition, the study's positive benefits mainly stemmed from playing AVG (active video-games):
While both the AVG and SVG groups achieved continued maximal performance in sustained attention, only the AVG group that induced moderate-intensity exercise was the primary factor for overall working memory enhancement.
Let's be honest here; physically demanding video games aren't what comes to mind when one thinks about playing video games. Sure, they do exist and people play them, but they aren't very popular. The main game that comes to mind when thinking of games that promote physical activity is Pokémon GO, but its audience is fairly niche compared to the games people actually play: the ones that make players sit in front of a screen for hours playing for a sweet, sweet dopamine rush.
In addition, the so called control group isn't really a control group. Because the only benefits of playing SVGs (sedentary video games) were improved reaction times, I'd hope it'd be better than
A recent study using the same task showed that only a control group (passive rest) had worse performance as indicated by a longer reaction time, compared to the other treatment groups (i.e., aerobic exercise, transcranial laser stimulation)
Basically, the research claims video games improve reaction times as compared to passive rest - a.k.a literally doing nothing. Of course people will have better reaction times! To make matters worse, the last sentence basically claims doing anything stimulating is better than resting for reaction times. While I'm not claiming anything negative or positive about video games, the article and research are flawed and examines people who play video games in a way that 99% of gamers never play (seriously, who has an xbox just to spend 30 minutes playing Kinect Adventures?)
This article is biased and has several flaws with its methodology. One of the issues about this article is the actual experiment performed. First of all, participants played video games for a mere 30 minutes and researchers only look at the short term effects of playing rather than the long-term effects on memory and such.
In addition, the study's positive benefits mainly stemmed from playing AVG (active video-games):
> While both the AVG and SVG groups achieved continued maximal performance in sustained attention, only the AVG group that induced moderate-intensity exercise was the primary factor for overall working memory enhancement.
Let's be honest here; physically demanding video games aren't what comes to mind when one thinks about playing video games. Sure, they *do* exist and people play them, but they aren't very popular. The main game that comes to mind when thinking of games that promote physical activity is *Pokémon GO*, but its audience is fairly niche compared to the games people actually play: the ones that make players sit in front of a screen for hours playing for a sweet, sweet dopamine rush.
In addition, the so called *control group* isn't really a control group. Because the only benefits of playing SVGs (sedentary video games) were improved reaction times, I'd hope it'd be better than
> A recent study using the same task showed that only a control group (passive rest) had worse performance as indicated by a longer reaction time, compared to the other treatment groups (i.e., aerobic exercise, transcranial laser stimulation)
Basically, the research claims video games improve reaction times as compared to passive rest - a.k.a literally doing nothing. Of course people will have better reaction times! To make matters worse, the last sentence basically claims doing *anything* stimulating is better than resting for reaction times. While I'm not claiming anything negative or positive about video games, the article and research are flawed and examines people who play video games in a way that 99% of gamers never play (seriously, who has an xbox just to spend 30 minutes playing Kinect Adventures?)
This article is biased and has several flaws with its methodology. One of the issues about this article is the actual experiment performed. First of all, participants played video games for a mere 30 minutes and researchers only look at the short term effects of playing rather than the long-term effects on memory and such.
In addition, the study's positive benefits mainly stemmed from playing AVG (active video-games):
Let's be honest here; physically demanding video games aren't what comes to mind when one thinks about playing video games. Sure, they do exist and people play them, but they aren't very popular. The main game that comes to mind when thinking of games that promote physical activity is Pokémon GO, but its audience is fairly niche compared to the games people actually play: the ones that make players sit in front of a screen for hours playing for a sweet, sweet dopamine rush.
In addition, the so called control group isn't really a control group. Because the only benefits of playing SVGs (sedentary video games) were improved reaction times, I'd hope it'd be better than
Basically, the research claims video games improve reaction times as compared to passive rest - a.k.a literally doing nothing. Of course people will have better reaction times! To make matters worse, the last sentence basically claims doing anything stimulating is better than resting for reaction times. While I'm not claiming anything negative or positive about video games, the article and research are flawed and examines people who play video games in a way that 99% of gamers never play (seriously, who has an xbox just to spend 30 minutes playing Kinect Adventures?)