Print 43 comment(s) - last by MrBlastman.. on Jun 14 at 10:01 PM

Gamers outperformed non-gamers at every time interval in visual tests

Gamers who sit in front of their consoles all day may actually be gaining better visual and decision-making abilities over non-gamers. 

Duke University researchers, led by Greg Appelbaum (an assistant professor of psychiatry in the Duke School of Medicine), found that gamers were better at quick visual and decision-making tests than non-gamers. 

The study used 125 college participants who were either hardcore gamers or non-gamers. The participants were asked to play a certain game where eight letters were arranged in a circle. The letters only appeared for one-tenth of a second.

Once the letters vanished, an arrow would point to a certain area in the circle where a letter had been. It was up to the participants to remember which letter was in that position. 

According to the study's results, delays in decision-making ranged from 13 milliseconds to 2.5 seconds. Both gamers and non-gamers experienced a rapid decay in memory of where the letters had been, but one thing was for sure -- gamers were quicker to the draw than non-gamers at every time interval.

Appelbaum explained that our visual system analyzes and sifts information out from what the eyes are seeing. Data that isn't used decays quickly, and while gamers sift the unused data about as fast as anyone else, they seem to be starting with more information before they even begin.

Playing video games means paying close attention to the surroundings within the fictional world to either ward off enemies, find important items or travel to a certain destination. Appelbaum said that putting a lot of time into these kinds of games can increase experience, and allow the gamers to have a better sense of visual placement and decision-making. 

This led the researchers to conclude that gamers likely see better overall, and can make better decisions from the information they have. 

"Gamers see the world differently," said Appelbaum. "They are able to extract more information from a visual scene."

This study can be found in the June edition of Attention, Perception and Psychophysics.

Source: Science Daily

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Sure, but...
By Rukkian on 6/12/2013 3:54:42 PM , Rating: 3
So it is stupid to get a game for $20 less since I cant turn around and sell it for $5 when I am done with it and some other company can then sell it for $20 again.

I guess if I go by your math, I am stupid as well. I prefer digital copies, so I never have to worry about physical media. I love steam, and even and being able to redownload on new computers anytime I want if I reformat, upgrade, etc. I no longer need to worry about keeping cd keys.

If we could get away from the physical media completely, we would need less shipping (less polution), less packaging (manufacturing, trees) and could probably have lower prices. So gamestop goes out of business - I am not a stock holder, I couldnt care less.

RE: Sure, but...
By Digimonkey on 6/12/2013 4:39:01 PM , Rating: 2
Motoman is just paranoid that digital licensing will be carried over to physical objects, even though there is no evidence of anyone wanting to do such a thing.

RE: Sure, but...
By Motoman on 6/12/2013 4:52:58 PM , Rating: 2
Actually there's enormous evidence. XBO. Or did you miss those articles?

Americans lost digital rights before they had them. People in Europe have rights for their digital purchases. Sucks to be us.

RE: Sure, but...
By Motoman on 6/12/2013 4:54:04 PM , Rating: 3
So it is stupid to get a game for $20 less since I cant turn around and sell it for $5 when I am done with it and some other company can then sell it for $20 again.

Yes. Because you abdicated fundamental consumer rights to do so.

This is the problem with you children. The amount of money isn't the issue. The issue is that YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS.

Wake the f%ck up.

RE: Sure, but...
By Digimonkey on 6/12/2013 5:09:18 PM , Rating: 2
It's not about waking up, it's by interpreting. I can clearly see why digital rights should be a clearly separate category. You're talking about something that isn't physical so why should it have the same exact protection?

I believe in protecting these digital distribution rights in order to promote the creation of it.

Imagine if Steam was forced to allow customers to sale or trade games. You could just form a group online where you trade one game for the next. You could end up playing 20 games because you bought one. Meanwhile you enjoyed the works of 19 studios for the price of one. Someone is out of money here. What effect do you think that'll have on the game studios?

RE: Sure, but...
By Digimonkey on 6/12/2013 5:10:57 PM , Rating: 2
meant to say 19 other studios, but even then that's not the best wording as you could have some studio overlap. I think you get the point I'm trying to make though.

RE: Sure, but...
By Motoman on 6/13/2013 10:54:47 AM , Rating: 2
You're talking about something that isn't physical so why should it have the same exact protection?

Because you still spent money for it. Consumer rights is consumer rights - whether what you bought is an .mp3 or a microwave.

As for "what that would do to Steam" - it would do the same exact thing it did to physical CDs, DVDs, video games, so on and so forth. Nothing. This isn't some new cooked-up concept - this is part of the fabric of our economy, without which our economy unravels into chaos.

Maybe in the EU Steam already has to allow gamers to trade and sell their games. This is the ruling that explicitly grants digital purchases the same First-Sale rights as physical purchases. And note that the software company that lost was Oracle - one of the very largest software companies in the world. The company that won is a peanut compared to Oracle.

But this is the nature of consumer rights. It's horrifying to watch you people try to make excuses for how it's OK to let corporations take away the most fundamental rights you have.

You simply aren't thinking. And it's terrifying those of us with brains in our heads.

RE: Sure, but...
By althaz on 6/12/2013 7:54:15 PM , Rating: 1
Maybe YOU should wake the fuck up. For a lot of people (incuding me), the saving of $20 is MORE than worth it for giving up the right to do something I'll NEVER EVER DO. I've never sold a used game and I've never bought one. I like to keep my games (and it's a LOT easier to keep virtual copies than physical ones).

You are an idealistic moron if you think being able to recoup $10 after spending an extra $20 is a good thing. Spoiler alert: it's not. It's $10 worse.

RE: Sure, but...
By Motoman on 6/13/2013 10:56:42 AM , Rating: 2
You are the poster child for what is wrong with America.

There is never, ever, EVER a valid reason for abdicating a basic right as a citizen of the USA.

There is not one single thing you can say that will justify your assertion. All I can say at this point is please don't procreate, because your mere existence is making the world worse - we sure as f%ck don't need more of you running around. We are well beyond capacity of retards.

"Folks that want porn can buy an Android phone." -- Steve Jobs

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Laptop or Tablet - Which Do You Prefer?
September 20, 2016, 6:32 AM
Update: Samsung Exchange Program Now in Progress
September 20, 2016, 5:30 AM
Smartphone Screen Protectors – What To Look For
September 21, 2016, 9:33 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki