So, we've got good and bad news for you. First, the good news: A study conducted by the University of Rochester has found that "the very act of action video game playing enhances contrast sensitivity." Rather, playing lots of Call of Duty might actually help keep your eyes in shape and the contrasts in color sharp as you age. But now, the bad news: Those 100+ hours you sunk into Fallout 3 may not have helped.
The study explains that, of the "expert video game players" tested, the "VGP group" (group playing "action" games Unreal Tournament 2004 and Call of Duty 2) exhibited "enhanced contrast sensitivity" versus the "NVGP group" (the folks playing "non-action" game The Sims 2), especially in the light of the population differences' interactions with spatial frequencies. Wait, WHAT?!
In so many words, majority percentages of the "VGP group" were clustering together on the high end of the scale while "NVGP group" numbers were clustering on the other end. Professor Gary Rubin, of the University College London Institute of Ophthalmology, sums up these findings rather nicely, saying, "This is a small study, showing a small effect, but it was carefully done, and merits further investigation."
[Via BBC]
Reader Comments (34)
Posted: Mar 30th 2009 11:09PM TheyDidItFirst said
the better vision for for the "VGP group" makes some sense but I have no idea why other games would decrease the quality of vision
Aren't some monitor technologies supposed to be better or worse for vision though? I know I can't look at an LCD for more than a few hours without my eyes getting sore but I don't get the feeling from DLP or Plasma.
Reply
Aren't some monitor technologies supposed to be better or worse for vision though? I know I can't look at an LCD for more than a few hours without my eyes getting sore but I don't get the feeling from DLP or Plasma.
Posted: Mar 30th 2009 11:56PM (Unverified) said
The other games don't decrease the quality of vision, they simply didn't show the effect that the action games did. It is only by virtue of being compared to the VGP group that the NVGP group seems worse - the NVGP group didn't show differences from baseline. So the NVGP group showed no effect and the VGP group got better in detecting visual contrast.
Reply
Posted: Mar 31st 2009 12:11AM WiredKnight said
It's simple. Faster paced games need you to be very alert of your surroundings, and opponents are moving faster, so your eyes are going to be constantly moving. It's like exercise for your eyes.
Compared to a game like the Sims and even Fallout, you can take your time and focus on whatever you want to, for as long as you want.
It's like running on a treadmill vs. walking down to the shop. They're similar activities, but one is keeping you more active.
Reply
Compared to a game like the Sims and even Fallout, you can take your time and focus on whatever you want to, for as long as you want.
It's like running on a treadmill vs. walking down to the shop. They're similar activities, but one is keeping you more active.
Posted: Mar 30th 2009 11:20PM (Unverified) said
Psh, there is nothing wrong with the picture, I can see it clearly, its probably your eyes!
Reply
Posted: Mar 30th 2009 11:16PM (Unverified) said
The picture is clear... Does that mean I played too much fallout 3?
Reply
Posted: Mar 30th 2009 11:16PM MarkezJM said
Great, so according to the recent posts, we'll all end up as mangled troll handed goons with excellent vision. When the pirate apocalypse comes and everyone's traveling the globe in old school pirate ships we will all have sweet ass gigs, sitting our fatasses up in the crows nest on the lookout for enemy ships manned by other mangled troll handed goons.
We'll live like kings. Damned hell ass kings.
Reply
We'll live like kings. Damned hell ass kings.
Posted: Mar 30th 2009 11:18PM ChiTownRuler23 said
"The study explains that, of the "expert video game players" teste. blah blah blah blah" thats what i read.
Reply
Posted: Mar 30th 2009 11:34PM iFester said
I was born legally blind and my vision has slightly improved over the years. I actually think playing games helped as there's a lot to take in with the FPS' and action games I play. In the end I think it depends on the individual and how their body adapts. My ass didn't improve, that's for sure. lol
Reply
Posted: Mar 30th 2009 11:57PM (Unverified) said
This is a common fallacy when interpreting research findings - My experience doesn't follow the findings of the study, so it must not be true. This type of thinking made in the absence of the realization that an experiment is controlled while the real world is not. Many different variables influence each experience we have. Each individual variable either increases or decreases the probability of an outcome.
For example - your vision naturally degrades over the course of your life and there are many things you can do that will make your vision worse over time (e.g. sitting too close to the TV). Some things (and it seems that in this case games) can improve your vision. The end result will be a net effect of the positive and negative things as well as the natural degradation of your eyesight. Playing action video games will have only a small effect. So even if games have the effect improving vision better, you might not notice the effect and your vision can still get worse.
Even so, this is important information. It informs our knowledge of vision and also suggests that video games can serve as a potentially cheap therapy for those with moderately impaired vision. So don't be so quick to cast the idea out just because your are the "exception" to the rule.
I don't know why gamers are so skeptical of research. This is a pretty solid and well conducted study and the theory behind it is sound.
Reply
For example - your vision naturally degrades over the course of your life and there are many things you can do that will make your vision worse over time (e.g. sitting too close to the TV). Some things (and it seems that in this case games) can improve your vision. The end result will be a net effect of the positive and negative things as well as the natural degradation of your eyesight. Playing action video games will have only a small effect. So even if games have the effect improving vision better, you might not notice the effect and your vision can still get worse.
Even so, this is important information. It informs our knowledge of vision and also suggests that video games can serve as a potentially cheap therapy for those with moderately impaired vision. So don't be so quick to cast the idea out just because your are the "exception" to the rule.
I don't know why gamers are so skeptical of research. This is a pretty solid and well conducted study and the theory behind it is sound.
Posted: Mar 31st 2009 12:18AM WiredKnight said
But how long are we talking here?
You were playing since you were a kid and are now...how old?
If you're 40, it sounds pretty normal.
If you're 15, yea, something's wrong with you.
Reply
You were playing since you were a kid and are now...how old?
If you're 40, it sounds pretty normal.
If you're 15, yea, something's wrong with you.
Posted: Mar 30th 2009 11:38PM Anticrawl said
Hrm, I would imagine intense strain on ocular muscles from sitting close to an LCD for extended amounts of time would damage vision, because you are focusing in at the same distance for several hours not giving a chance for your eyes to relax, that and the tendency for gamers and pc users not to blink. I wear Gunnar glasses to keep from damaging my eyes because not only is my favorite hobby infront of a monitor/tv but my job is as well.
Reply
Posted: Mar 31st 2009 12:16AM WiredKnight said
I almost feel like the opposite is true. Like many strenuous activities, your body gets stronger and more used to it over time. Eyes are made to focus on things for long periods of time. As long as you aren't pulling 18+ hours a day in front of a monitor, you'll probably be okay.
Reply
Posted: Mar 31st 2009 1:55AM (Unverified) said
Ya sure............ that's why I have contacts now thanks to countless hours of video games.
Reply
Posted: Mar 31st 2009 1:16AM (Unverified) said
Isn't this old news? I swear I read about this 10-15 years ago.
Reply
Posted: Mar 31st 2009 1:30AM Salain said
I'm a gamer/neuroscientist who studies vision...saddened by the fact that nature neuroscience published this. I'm not a big fan of psychophysical experiments (which this is, since they rely on the user's feedback), so that definitely biases me a bit... But they really need to separate their pop culture from their science.
If you want to prove that neural plasticity can improve your performance on this task, train people on this task. On the other hand, if you want to prove that video games help vision don't try and sell it as foveal map fine tuning by cortical plasticity. This is actually a place where fMRI of V1 would've come in handy.
Reply
If you want to prove that neural plasticity can improve your performance on this task, train people on this task. On the other hand, if you want to prove that video games help vision don't try and sell it as foveal map fine tuning by cortical plasticity. This is actually a place where fMRI of V1 would've come in handy.
Posted: Mar 31st 2009 7:37AM LaughingTarget said
If you suck at a game, you won't play it. People with poor vision suck at action games. Maybe it is more to do with good vision people preferring action games, not them improving vision.
Reply
Posted: Mar 31st 2009 10:10AM (Unverified) said
That would be a perfectly reasonable argument if they hadn't then gone and run an experiment - which can show causation.
Reply
Posted: Mar 31st 2009 10:35AM (Unverified) said
If you read the article they actually conducted two studies. The first was a cross-sectional comparision, the second was an experimental study in which they did have participants from the NVGP group train on either an action or non-action game for 50 hours. They showed the effect in both studies. So they did do a training paradigm and can establish causality.
As for the dependent variable - yes it did rely on self-report, but this type of measure is not highly susceptible to demand characteristics, etc.
Reply
As for the dependent variable - yes it did rely on self-report, but this type of measure is not highly susceptible to demand characteristics, etc.
Sorry, you must be logged in to leave a comment.
Featured Stories
The most popular posts
in the last 7 days
- Vita 'UMD Passport' won't be offered in US 220 comments
- Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning review: A tempting fate 153 comments
- David Jaffe leaves Eat Sleep Play, layoffs hit developer [Update] 108 comments
- Don't call it a remake: Final Fantasy X is a 'remaster,' to be clear 95 comments
- Battleship movie adapted into FPS by Double Helix 93 comments









