Brain scans from nearly 200 adolescent boys provide evidence that the brains of compulsive video game players are wired differently. Chronic video game play is associated with hyperconnectivity between several pairs of brain networks. Some of the changes are predicted to help game players respond to new information. Other changes are associated with distractibility and poor impulse control. The research, a collaboration between the University of Utah School of Medicine, and Chung-Ang University in South Korea, was published online in Addiction Biology on Dec. 21, 2015.

Source
Study: Brains of compulsive video game players wired differently

Can I take a guess and say that they tried to traduce any sort of waves when they were in active communication? I would laugh if they did record someone's reaction on "git gud fggt" and showing the brain scan.

It might be interesting to compare the results to the brains of people who are:

1. Airplane pilots (or similar professions)
2. Musicians
3. Game developers

and perhaps other similarly demanding professions as well, to see how they compare.

Interesting. I like they compare different gamers. For example, a hardcore FPS gamer with a player who is professional in strategy games. Their similarities and differences. Poor brain scanners... =)

I think this study could be pretty skewed depending on the types of games usually played. For example, I imagine that somebody who plays FPS twitch shooters all day long would naturally have much better reaction times than a Puzzlemaster like myself who's more used to slower-paced thinking games.

Aren't the brains of all types of addicts wired 'differently'?

Shush, they need the grants for their research...

''Compulsive''? Where they studying teenage MOBA players then? And ''chronic videogame players''? Which preceding study ascertained games have enough of an addictive nature to warrant use of words normally associated with drug abuse, alcohol abuse and gambling?
I'd also be interested to see a comparative study of SKorean or Chinese or Japanese with players from other regions since excessive and obsessive playtime seem to be commonest among people of those countries.

I'd guess they're wired very differently based on which genre they play. I expect FPS players to be much more quicker in reaction time and for RTS players to have excellent multitasking abilities.

I thought it was common knowledge to call it compulsive and not addictive as the latter implies chemical reactions changes to the brain that creates a "new" need to be satisfied (like nicotin, alcohol and drugs will do). I have never heard of a study that proved video gaming can cause addiction as of yet.

Chronic, in this game, likely means that they play a lot regularly.

They did the study on teenagers "who were seeking treatment for Internet gaming disorder" in South Korea. Far as I can understand it's self diagnosis.

Compulsive players?

Why not enthused hobbyists?

They make us out ot be addicts.

I'd be more interested to see if they accounted for the fact that they compared 300 different combinations in their statistics. It's one thing to find so-called significant correlation in a single combination when studying one combination, but when one essentially is running 300 studies side-by-side, what is significant is skewed by the number of simultaneous studies. With so many, if one has not "moved the bar" (or accounted for the number of side-by-side studies), one will undoubtedly find a result.

This is exactly how that guy fooled the media with chocolate causing weight loss in his hoax study...
http://io9.gizmodo.com/i-fooled-millions-into-thinking-chocolate-helps-weight-1707251800

Chocolate correlated to weight loss was a legitimate result of the study, yet, by the use of many combinations, he was sure he would get some result to publish...

Makes me wonder about the brains of compulsive forum readers...

This just stinks of being a "splash" study meant to be consumed by the media. A result of the "publish or perish" school of research. Additional questions that seem unanswered...
These admitted addicts, how many resorted to the use/over-use of stimulants to stay awake? How ironic would it be that the differences observed could be explained by actual drug abuse and have nothing directly to do with video games.

This is why my eyes get crossed every time I read one of these splash initial research studies. The results mean very little until they are confirmed by a larger, more focused follow-up study where they make sure the demographic data between groups agree, they account for age variations, etc. And by repeating the study in a different setting, the results gain meaning.

The real problem is this...
Most standard statistical models call something a positive correlation when it is 95% certain not to be purely random, some go as high as 99%. Leaving a 1-5% error rate. So by using 300 different "checks" or "tests", is it really that surprising they found 5 areas of significant difference?

At 99% confidence, one would expect to find 3 areas of random false positives and at 95% confidence, 15.

From the abstract: So it's 150 subjects, not "almost 200" and from the looks of it there's quite a bit of variables involved.