Therefore, the strong effect sizes in our sample of experienced game playersmay well be a consequence of repeated elicitation of neural activity associatedwith aggression and, thus, already reflect a long-term impact.
This study focused on short term impact but could have implications for long term impact
In sum, virtual and nonvirtual experiences may be identical in relevant mentaldimensions (such as aggressive states), but surely not in all aspects (such as pain).
Very interesting how the brain is able to interpret our surroundings (have we evolutionary adapted to be able to recognize the distinction between the real world and the virtual world??)
Without question, game players donot consider game play a real2 life event—ultimately, they are not shooting; theyare playing a game.
While the players can distinguish that, are the areas of the brain responsible for aggression able to make that distinction?
parallel neural patterns between highly immersivevirtual environments and real experiences
The virtual world impacting us, and therefore affecting our behaviors/selves in the non-virtual world
lternatively, the desensitization hypothesissuggests larger effects in novices if experts already have decreased sensitivity to-wards virtual violence.
Since younger people have more neuroplasticity, could video game use affect them more?
Thus, the resulting brain patterns serve as the best possiblemeasures for stimulus response, but they are not error free.
The best option we have
first, in applying neuroscience methodsto communication research, and second, using a novel analytical fMRI design forhypothesis testing rather than exploration
This is a novel use of the technology since it is difficult for fMRI to give concrete answers to hypotheses
fear free” environments, almost no BOLD changes inthe amygdala occur, but that the suppression of the rACC in particular is heavilypronounced.
Even when fear is removed, the rACC is greatly suppressed
neural activity observed does not reflect ag-gressiveness due to violent action, but rather fear elicited in a virtual environmentendangering the player’s virtual life
The neuroevidence is not easily interpretable (unable to say exactly what it is revealing)
ACC represent a mechanism to suppress positive emotions (such as empa-thy) so that the individual can play the game successfully.
Users ability to feel empathy decreases (makes them better at the game, but how does it impact them outside of the game?)
In accordance with previous findings on the neural correlates of aggression, wefound an active suppression of affective areas such as the rACC and the amygdala,as well as increased activity in the dACC
This is an expected result (reinforced by other studies) --> starting to see a trend in the neuroscience field regarding the impact of video games on the brain
Blood-oxygenation level dependent signal changes at dACC, rACC, and amyg-dala during violent behavior without need to score in percent (0.00 = 0%).
Appears to be less downregulation of the amygdala than the rACC
rACC and amygdala correlate negatively and dACC positively withthe violence construct, which indicates a down-regulation of rACC and amygdalaand an up-regulation of dACC after play phases involving violence
Suppression of rACC and amygdala, increased activity of the dACC
Overall, the participants felt more or less comfortable playingthe game in the scanner and could play the game like they do in their normal envi-ronment.
This is important since it indicates that the video game was not considered overly aggressive, but actually something the participants were used to playing (this is a typical representation of violent video games that millions are engaging with)
Changes (increases or de-creases) in blood flow indicate that certain neural regions are active or inactivewhile processing a specific mental task.
How fMRI works
(1) passive/dead, no interactions; (2) active/safe, no imminent danger/no violentinteractions; (3) active/potential danger occurs, violent interactions expected; (4)active/under attack, some violent interactions; and (5) active/fighting and killing,many violent interactions.
5 scenarios in which the individuals were exposed to (see if there was a difference in brain stimulation in different scenarios of violence)
Thirteen German male volunteers
Small sample size (difficult to establish a general trend)
Germany and in local video game and computer stores.
Not a diverse sample (possible sample bias since it is people already predisposed to video games)
Involvement in virtual violence during video game play causes activity vari-ation in the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, reduced activity in the rostralanterior cingulate cortex, and reduced activity in the amygdala.
HYPOTHESIS of study
Their findingsindicated that imagined scenarios involving aggressive behavior are associatedwith significant activity reductions in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex structure.
Evidence of violent scenarios affecting people's neural activity --> video games emerge people in violent scenarios and incorporate them into it
Their findings suggest that a circuit consisting of the or-bital frontal cortex (OFC), amygdala, and anterior cingulated cortex (ACC) dis-plays activation variations that Davidson et al. (ebd.) consider a neural correlate ofaggression.
Parts of the brain that could be associated with aggression or be impacted by violence
Our study is groundedVIOLENT VIDEO GAMES AND AGGRESSION 41on the propositions of the communibiology paradigm
Effect of your personal biology and your environment- violent video games have different effects on different people due to people's individual reception of them
ong-termstudies in the realm of TV could demonstrate a causal relation between TV viewingand aggressive behavior
Connection between television and video games?
Though some studies found no association between violent video game playand aggressive reactions
Neuroscience could provide more in depth insight/ a different perspective
iolent video games frequently have been criticized for enhancing aggressivereactions such as aggressive cognitions, aggressive affects, or aggressive behavior.
Many possible effects: causing v.s. enhancing. Enhancing by how much?
suppress affective areas of the anterior cingulate cortex(ACC) and the amygdala subsequent to activity variations at cognitive areas of theACC
Would this be temporarily or long-term? Could enforced temporary neural stimulation/suppression lead to a long-term effect? Could this lead to behavioral addiction?