玩游戏上瘾者大脑或存在生理差异

　　一个国际研究小组的研究表明，人的大脑中因为游戏上瘾而变大的灰色物质的大小与打游戏的频率存在某种关联。我们来花几分钟时间来看看这段话。这项研究成果发表在今天出版的自然转移精神病学杂志上，对154名14岁的打游戏少年的核磁共振扫描图像进行了分析。研究人员发现，腹侧纹状体的多巴胺系统的一部分，与以前打游戏成瘾存在一定不想，打游戏频率高的人这一部分比常人朋，尽管这些数据是严格相关的，但不应当作为证据。

　　我们需要考虑一下这个问题，因这类引人发笑的、仅仅是猜测的新闻，在网上出现一两天后就会消失了。暴力的视频游戏会使用我们孩的大脑发生变化吗？看一看这篇文章，你就会有所了解。

　　实际上，在网上进行快速的搜索显示，路透社的这篇报道（我应该说，这篇报道并不带煽动性）已经上传到几个网络上和美联社的网站上了。虽然它可以在这儿看到，其实并没有印刷版。

　　实际上，这项研究非常简单，它只是把经常打游戏的人和不经常打游戏的大脑结构和行为差异进行了对比。结果表明，经常打游戏人的左侧腹侧纹状皮质较大，这表明他们在打游戏时处于紧张状态，大脑始终在关注着游戏的胜负。

　　用通俗的语言来讲，打游戏已经影响了人的大脑，虽然没有证据说明这件事情。实际上，从反面来讲，这一点更具逻辑性：打游戏易成瘾的人更喜欢打游戏。这使得视频游戏成瘾同其它游戏一样，使人很容易上瘾。这属于社会与焦虑症的合并症状。

　　此类研究是对网络技术和服务的一种攻击。可以肯定地推断推客（Twitter）的使用者也是如此。它们之间存在必然关系吗？仍未确定，但很容易地使用人认为，使用推客（Twitter）的人注意力非常短。这项研究预示着这些人应做一些需要短时间专注的事情，但它忽略了其它因素（总的接触时间，社会趋势，多任务处理能力的提高），这项研究只是从单方面进行推测。

　　随着游戏市场的不断增大和成为主流，早期人们对游戏厄运说的提法被证明是错误的。但关于这个话题，尽管有一个多亿美元的市场，包括世界上最有趣和最有实力的公司，这项研究仍具煽动性。从平常的角度来看一看这类研究的意义：向行为与生理之间的关系研究迈出了一小步，但请不要用于任何人反对或支持游戏。

　　译文：

　　A study by an international research team has shown a correlation between frequent gaming and a greater volume of grey matter in a part of the brain linked to an internal reward system associated with addiction. Take a few minutes to parse that sentence, I’ll wait. The study, published today in Nature’s Translational Psychiatry journal, describes the analysis of fMRI scans of 154 14-year-old gamers. They found that the ventral striatum, part of the dopamine system and implicated previously in addiction studies, was larger in gamers who played more frequently, though the data was strictly correlative and should not be taken as evidence of causality.

　　It’s worth considering for a moment because studies like this always end up hitting network news after a day or two, with ridiculous simplifications and ominous speculations. Are Violent Video Games Literally Warping Our Children’s Brains? Find out — after this message!

　　In fact, a quick search shows that the Reuters report （which, I should say, is not actually inflammatory） has already propagated to a number of networks and AP outlets. None of them link to the actual paper, though, which can be found here.

　　The study is really quite straightforward, comparing the structural and behavioral differences between two groups: frequent and infrequent gamers. The results show that frequent gamers have a larger volume of cortex in their left ventral striatal cortex, that they showed less deliberation in making choices in the gambling game they played, and that there was more brain activity corresponding to wins and losses.

　　The natural way to spin the story is to say that playing games has affected the brain, though there is no evidence this is the case. In fact, the reverse is more logical: people predisposed to addiction are more likely to participate in potentially addictive activities. This puts video game addiction in the same category as other, more widely-recognized addictions. Comorbidity with social and anxiety disorders.

　　Studies like this are a great way to attack technology and services. Twitter use, for example, almost certainly correlates to people with shorter attention spans. Causality? Undetermined, but it’s convenient to argue that Twitter use enables that short attention span. The implication is that these people should be doing things that combat that short attention span, but this ignores so many other variables （total engagement, social trends, improvement in multitasking ability, etc） that it’s easily recognizable as wishful thinking.

　　With games the market is getting large and mainstream enough that the doomsaying of early days has been conclusively proven wrong, but the topic, despite being a multi-billion dollar market comprising some of the most interesting and powerful companies in the world, remains incendiary. Be on the lookout for FUD, and value research like this for what they are: small steps towards understanding the relationship between behavior and physiology, not to be used as planks in anyone’s anti- or pro-gaming platform.