Disorder under construction
What the changes in both white and gray matter indicate are murky, but the research team has some ideas.
The abnormality in white matter in the right parahippocampal gyrus may make it harder for Internet addicts to temporarily store and retrieve information, if a recent study is correct. Meanwhile, the white matter reduction in the left posterior limb could impair decision-making abilities—including those to trump the desire to stay online and return to the real world. The long-term impacts of these physical brain changes are even less certain. Rebecca Goldin, a mathematician at George Mason University and director of research for STATS, says the recent study is a big improvement over similar work published in 2009. In this older study a different research group found changes in gray matter in brain regions of Internet addicts. According to Goldin, however, the study lacked reliable controls.
The sample sizes of both studies were small—fewer than 20 experimental subjects each. Yet Friston says the techniques used to analyze brain tissue density in the new study are extremely strict. "It goes against intuition, but you don't need a large sample size. That the results show anything significant at all is very telling," Friston notes.
In the end all of the researchers interviewed by Scientific American emphasized significance only goes so far in making a case for IAD as a true disorder with discrete effects on the brain. "It's very important that results are confirmed, rather than simply mining data for whatever can be found," Goldin says.
Correction (06/17/11): This story was updated throughout to correct the spelling of Karen von Deneen's last name.
See what we're tweeting about
17 Comments
Add CommentYeah, I mean great read but the entire article is a rehash of Nicolas Carr's "The Shallows." All anecdotes included.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for the comment, Mark. I haven't read The Shallows -- does Carr get into the physical changes that occur in the brains of alleged Internet addicts? Based on my thorough digging, this is one of the first somewhat conclusive reports (caveat: replication, replication, replication...).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, it isn't internet use per se, but is repetitive & thus non-stimulating activity which reduces health. Similarly, SA did a recent piece about religious activity shrinking the brain... people who comment on science pieces on the internet are probably safer... I recall a study linking Google searches & the like to increased brain health...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOutstanding article, Dave! I disagree with the statement where a previous reader compared your article to The Shallows. Your article brings to light new evidence of deep, physical changes to the human brain rather than the surficial behavioral anomalies Carr discusses.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRe: The sample sizes of both studies were small—fewer than 20 experimental subjects each. Yet Friston says the techniques used to analyze brain tissue density in the new study are extremely strict. "It goes against intuition, but you don't need a large sample size. That the results show anything significant at all is very telling," Friston notes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease state the significance in terms of 95% confidence level in (whatever hypothesis you want to state). 20 is not a very large number on which to base a "significant" difference in brain subsection size.
Very important to note that this actually has almost nothing to do with Internet use. This is about online gaming. It is extremely misleading to confuse the two. I would suspect that the reported effects would also apply to offline gaming addicts (Playstations to PCs), but there would be whole different and much more interesting effect on "real" internet users, such as knowledge workers, who tap into the internet for knowledge gain and thought enhancement. The potential effects of gaming are boring in comparison!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would like someone to please explain how having an improved capability to compare neural density in different regions of the brain between test subjects somehow offsets the non-random selection method utilized. I would also like to know how on earth this advanced ability to chart density allows for significance noteworthy enough to make conclusions about a population for a sample size of only 20 people all from the same country. Unless that isn't what is being implied by the article. I also think it is important to note that this study, even if it's sample size were larger, would not indicate causality but correlation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs the development of the brain is environmental it is inevitable that if a disproportionately large amount of time is spent within the internet environment there will be a corresponding change. If disproportionately large amount of internet usage is part of the modern environment, shouldn't those changes be described as part of the evolutionary process?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisApart from substance,alcohol, and nicotine abuse , which "might" be characterized as addictions (the concept of an addiction is intolerably vague even for these)the term "addiction" is so vague as to cover almost anything. I probably having a reading addiction, a learning addiction, a love addiction, etc.One can easily see that the term is being abused when it covers shopping, sex,food, Internet gaming, and a host of other things. Why not just call these things bad habits that are hard to break? The reason, of course, is that no one would get money for studying bad habits, whereas funding is always available to study addiction, which supposedly is a disease.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor many years I was also sceptical about the term addiction, especially as it was applied to so many behaviors that were often simply unregulated impulse gratification. But after seeing addicts of many varieties in clinical practice over many years, I am convinced addiction is a genuine medical disorder. A medical illness presents with a distinctive set of symptoms that are manifest in any sufferer, irrespective of the unique personal characteristics of the individual. A tumor is a tumor no matter who has one. Likewise with addictions, once individuals cross the threshold from over-indulgence to addiction they all engage in the same single-minded focus on need satisfaction. No matter whether it's an academic or a grade school dropout, they all sound the same in their verbal manipulations, use the same self-serving and deceitful behavior to get their "fix", are willing to give up anything and pay NO attention to the consequences of their actions. The fact they are all so consistent & predictable in their actions as addicts reflect the underlying presence of a disease state.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisbjdooley posts a critical observation. This article is about online gaming and nothing else. An appropriate control group would be "at-home" gamers. The phenomenon under study is very interesting but has little to do with internet use. This is not to say that there could be no such thing as "internet addiction". But such a thing would be so complex that perhaps researchers should simplify and stay away from attempting to study (or label) such a broad topic until a foundation is laid. Changes in brain/neural structure in game addicts seems to be a very interesting topic in itself. It is hardly disputable that addictive behavior can be clearly displayed in computer game playing, whether on-line or off.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow here is one study that points out that something useful. Good read. However, as you said, there are not quite empirical evidences to support any given hypothesis on either "addiction" or the extensive, "internet usage". True. Let us dig-out more holes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEverything affects something, only if, we open our minds towards it.
You know something that really gets me about how both the popular media and the researchers conducting these kinds of studies describe their work. Words like "shrunk", "increased", "decreased", "atrophy", etc all really tick me off. For example, I've emphasized one word in the following phrase from the above article:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"researchers discovered several small regions in online addicts' brains *shrunk*"
This is NOT what the study found. Nothing "shrunk". This word is a verb. Here's the definition:
1. Become or make smaller in size or amount; contract or cause to contract.
It is quite evident that this word implies that the brains of internet addicts changed in size as a result of addiction. However, this study did not look at the change in anything! The authors of this paper selected subjects at one time point only, and separated them based upon their scores on something called the YDQ (a questionnaire to see if they were addicted to the internet). They then estimated the duration of "internet addiction" for each participant using a *retrospective analysis*: this means they asked them questions to estimate when they first became addicted to the internet. Then the authors measured the participants' grey matter volume using VBM (as well as white matter fractional anisotropy... basically this is something thought to measure how well connected brain regions are). They correlated estimated duration of addiction with these two measures.
In other words: at no time did the authors ever check to see if anything "shrunk", or "atrophied". What they did show was that there were differences in specific measures of "stuff" in the brain (it's not really all that well defined what VBM measurements of volume or FA measurements of connectivity actually mean for brain function) as a function of how long it was *estimated* that participants were addicted to the internet. But this is far different from demonstrating that "internet addiction" affects brain structure or function.
The majority of us mill about like cattle - at the mall, at NASCAR events, or at any one of a hundred different conventions or meetings or concerts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOur fodder? We are either "making a living" or we are trying to entertain ourselves.
Few of us feel we are happy.
Our moments of happiness are fleeting, at best.
My niece recently told me the charter school her 8-year-old daughter attends announced this month (last minute) that all students in grades 3-10 would be REQUIRED to obtain a laptop with considerable speed and capability(absolute minimum cost about $500 each) and that ALL homework would be done on the computer. Further, these computers would have to be compatible with software purchased by the school, since some classes would be taught via video.
That means 8 and 9-year-olds would have to haul around and be responsible for a pretty expensive piece of equipment.
When I was in 3rd grade, I was anxious that I might break my glasses (I did) or lose my tennis shoes (did that too) or a school book (yep--more than 1).
I thought THAT was a lot to worry about.
I can't imagine that tying our children to computers at in grade school, by decree or forced excess, will increase the likelihood that they will be happy or find fulfillment. Quite the opposite, most likely.
It will force them to look in one direction to the exclusion of others--literally.
Regimented conditioning.
Sameness. Sounds ...bleak.
Another thing: I accidentally tuned in to an NPR show about the decision to stop teaching cursive handwriting in many public schools. Not so in private schools. Public schools will teach a bastardized cursive/print version of writing-- Self-proclaimed experts much in favor. "Communication is evolving".
That's absurd. Taking away a skill is "evolving" ?
For such modifications to be MANDATED seemed completely out of left field.
Genius and creative thinking are neither encouraged by nor appreciated in such an environment. Nor is self-realization much of a possibility for all the students if we continue to let their lives--and ours-- be governed by external forces.
Moreover, unknown affects of staring at a LED screen, small hands having to learn --and no doubt suffer from--repetitive movements that can result in carpal tunnel, or developmental changes in eyes that stare for hours at computer screens - these seem to be untested, importune things to subject children to arbitrarily.
Perhaps it's time to refuse some of these "mandates" in order to regain common sense control. And then...maybe
Rinse. Repeat.
SUBJECTIVELY SPEAKING -
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe majority of us mill about like cattle every day - at any one of thousands of different conventions or meetings or concerts or malls.
Our fodder? We are either "making a living" or we are trying to entertain ourselves.
Few of us feel we are happy.
Our moments of happiness are fleeting, at best.
My niece recently told me the charter school her 8-year-old daughter attends announced this month (last minute) that all students in grades 3-10 would be REQUIRED to obtain a laptop with considerable speed and capability(absolute minimum cost about $500 each) and ALL homework be done on the computer. Further, these computers would have to be compatible with software purchased by the school, since some classes would be taught via video.
That means 8 and 9-year-olds would have to haul around and be responsible for a pretty expensive piece of equipment.
When I was in 3rd grade, I was anxious that I might break my glasses (I did) or lose my tennis shoes (did that too) or a school book (yep--more than 1).
I thought THAT was a lot to worry about.
I can't imagine that tying our children to computers at in grade school, by decree or forced excess, will increase the likelihood that they will be happy or find fulfillment. Quite the opposite, most likely.
It will force them to look in one direction to the exclusion of others--literally.
Regimented conditioning.
Sameness. Sounds ...bleak.
Another thing: I tuned in to an NPR show about the decision to stop teaching cursive handwriting in many public schools. Not so in private schools. Public schools will teach a bastardized cursive/print version of writing-- Self-proclaimed experts much in favor. "Communication is evolving".
That's absurd. Taking away a skill is "evolving" ?
For such modifications to be MANDATED seems completely out of left field.
Genius and creative thinking are neither encouraged by nor appreciated in such an environment. Nor is self-realization much of a possibility for these poor kids if we continue to let their lives--and ours-- be governed by external forces.
Moreover, the unknown affects of staring at a LED screen might well result in developmental changes in eyes or damaged visual acuity, while small (or all) hands having to learn repetitive movements that can result in carpal tunnel - these seem to be untested, importune things to subject children to arbitrarily.
Perhaps it's time to refuse some of these "mandates" in order to regain common sense control over our lives.
Rinse. Repeat the process elsewhere.
I'm confused. How do you present a study without more info?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. Was the overall brain mass "shrunk"?
2. Was there a statistical difference in overall IQ of addicts vs non-adicts?
3. The type of game addicted to compared to the region of the brain studied/affected probably matters. Spatially oriented games and memory games probably have slightly different effects on different portions of the brain when compared to MMORPG where you just repetitively kill computer creeps, or also player vs player games which are generally much harder since human oponents are less predictable and require a player to have advanced plans and thoughts on the game in progress.
4. A comparison needs to be made to non-computer-gamer "addicts". Like card games, risk, yugio, magic, etc (might be hard to find people who play these games 10+ hrs a day, but is necessary for a study like this.)
5. And finally non-gamer PC addicts. Porn, news, science info, etc.
6. TV addicts and finally book reading addicts all should be compared too.
And finally:
"and allow just about anyone to check out of reality"
Maybe it is reality/society that is broken, the addicts see that and want to escape. Perhaps it is society that needs fixing, not gamers.
All addictions are Pavlovian. So are their cure, all Pavlovian.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe brain is a progeny of culture, of the natural selection process:
On Brain And Natural Selection
A.
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/07/bad-news-for-big-brains.html?ref=em
“experimentally manipulate brain size, you get cleverer fish".
“Experimentally manipulate” is Pavlov. Pavlov experimentally manipulated dogs’ genes.
Manipulating creatures is manipulating their genes by manipulating their culture, which modifies their genes’ expressions since genetics is the progeny of culture. Genes themselves are organisms, life’s primal organisms, evolved from modified RNA nucleotides in a cultural-natural selection-reaction to energetic circumstances. THIS IS DARWINIAN EVOLUTION. NATURAL SELECTION IS UBIQUITOUS TO ALL MASS FORMATS. LIFE IS JUST ANOTHER MASS FORMAT.
B.
I grow various fruits. Fruit trees are brainless, mindless, of low intelligence i.e. low capacity to learn from experience.
A fruit tree sprouts, starts producing, a great number of fruits, of which only a small fraction complete their growth, of which in nature only few if any at all evolve into a fruit tree to reproduce the fruit-tree genes. This is the genes reproduction mode of the mindless creatures…
Look around you at other creatures including humans and draw your own conclusion…
Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)
http://universe-life.com/