Table 7.
Ref. | Year | N | Sample | Age | VG experience | VG genre | Technique | Design | Neural correlates |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Bartholow et al., 2006 | 2006 | 39 | Healthy young adults | 19.50 | Violent VGP Non-violent VGP | “Violent” VG “Non-violent” VG |
EEG (ERP) | Quasi experimental (with control group) | Violent vs. Non-violent: ▾ P300 amplitudes |
Mathiak and Weber, 2006* | 2006 | 13 | Healthy young adults, male | (18–26) | VGP (15.1 ± 9.0 h/week) | Action, First Person Shooter |
fMRI | Quasi-experimental | During violent scenes: ▴ dACC ▾ rACC ▾ Amygdala |
Weber et al., 2006* | 2006 | 13 | Healthy young adults | 23.00 (18–26) | VGP (15.1 h/week) | Action, First Person Shooter |
fMRI | Experimental (crossover) | During virtual violence exposure: ▾ Amygdala ▾ ACC |
Wang et al., 2009 | 2009 | 44 | Healthy adolescents | 14.8 ± 1.2 (Violent group) 15.0 ± 1.1 (Non-violent group) |
– | Sports, Racing Action, First person shooter | fMRI | Experimental (randomized) | Violent vs. Non-violent (Counting Stroop task): ▾ PFC Violent vs. Non-violent (Counting Stroop task, FC): ▾ dlPFC & ACC (left) Violent vs. Non-violent (Emotional Stroop task): ▴ Amygdala (right) ▾ Medial PFC Violent vs. Non-violent (Emotional Stroop task, FC): ▾ Amygdala & Medial PFC (non-violent group) = FC (violent group) |
Hummer et al., 2010 | 2010 | 45 | Healthy adolescents | 14.9 ± 0.3 (Non-violent) 14.5 ± 0.3 (Violent) |
– | Sports, Racing Action, First Person Shooter | fMRI | Experimental (randomized) | Violent vs. Non-violent (Go/No-go): ▾ dlPFC (right) Non-violent VG (FC): ▾ dlPFC & ▴ PCu |
Regenbogen et al., 2010* | 2010 | 22 | Healthy young adults, male | 25.9 ± 2.9 | VGP (131 h/year violent VG) Low or Non-VGP (6 h/year violent VG) |
Violent VG | fMRI | Quasi-experimental (with control group) | Real vs. Non-violent content (VGP): ▴ IFG (right) ▴ Lingual gyrus (left) ▴ STG Virtual vs. Non-violent content (VGP): ▴ IFG (bilateral) ▴ Occipital cortex ▴ PoCG ▴ MTG (right) ▴ FG (left) Real vs. Non-violent content (Control): ▴ Frontal regions (left) ▴ Insula ▴ SFG Virtual vs. Non-violent content (Control): ▴ Posterior regions |
Bailey et al., 2011* | 2011 | 48 | Healthy young adults, male | 19.73 ± 1.28 (low VGP) 19.87 ± 3.52 (high VGP) |
Low VGP (3 h/week) High VGP (33 h/week) |
“Violent” VG | EEG (ERP) | Quasi-experimental (with control group) | High vs. Low VGP: (Negative & violent) vs. (neutral and positive) stimuli: ▾ FCz (@125 ms) ▾ Oz (@280 ms) Early posterior negativity (EPN) ▴ PO4 & F9 (500-1000 ms) Late positive potential (LPP) High (positive & violent vs. neutral stimuli) vs. Low VGP (Positive vs. neutral stimuli): ▾ Fpz (@100 ms) ▴ C3, CP3 (400–900 ms) ▾ Iz (400–900 ms) Low vs. High VGP (negative vs. violent stimuli): ▴ F9 (sustained) ▴ TP8 (sustained) ▴ PO9 (@300 ms) |
Engelhardt et al., 2011 | 2011 | 70 | Healthy young adults | (18–22) | Violent VGP Non-violent VGP | Action, First Person Shooter, Adventure Action, Adventure, Sports, Platforms |
EEG (ERP) | Quasi-experimental (with control group) | Violent vs. Non-violent: ▾ P3 component at parietal (P3, Pz, and P4) regions |
Mathiak et al., 2011* | 2011 | 13 | Healthy young adults, male | 22.7 ± 2.0 | VGP (15.1 ± 9.0 h/week) | Action, First Person Shooter | fMRI | Quasi-experimental | (Failure & success events) vs. Baseline: ▴ Visual cortex Failure vs. Success events: ▾ OFC ▾ CN Negative vs. Positive affect (only failure events): ▾ Temporal pole (right) |
Montag et al., 2012* | 2012 | 40 | Healthy young adults, male | 23.33 ± 4.45 | Experienced VGP in First person Shooters (18.83 ± 9.12 h/week) Low or Non-VGP (2.00 ± 3.82 h/week) |
Action, First Person Shooter | fMRI | Quasi-experimental (with control group) | VGP vs. Control (during negative emotional stimuli): ▾ Lateral medial frontal lobe (left) VGP vs. Control (during VG cues): ▴ Frontal regions ▴ Temporal regions |
Chou et al., 2013* | 2013 | 30 | Healthy young adults | 24.67 ± 4.7 | VGP (3.1 h/week) | Action, Fighting Action, 3D platforms | SPECT | Experimental (crossover) | Post vs. Pre-training: ▾ PFC ▴ Temporal cortex ▴ Occipital cortex Violent vs. Non-violent VG: ▾ dACC (in males) |
Lianekhammy and Werner-Wilson, 2015* | 2015 | 45 | Healthy adolescents | 14.3 ± 1.5 | Brain training VG group (4.8 ± 10.6 h/week) Violent VG group (17.7 ± 17.4 h/week) Non-violent VG (9.3 ± 8.4 h/week) |
Puzzle Action, First Person Shooter Action, 3D platforms |
EEG | Experimental (randomized) | High empathy vs. Low empathy: ▴ Right hemisphere frontal EEG asymmetry scores (violent and non-violent) ▴ Right hemisphere High vs. Low helpfulness: ▴ Left hemisphere (non-violent group) |
Liu Y. et al., 2015 | 2015 | 49 | Healthy young adults | 20.76 ± 1.76 | – | Strategy Sports, Racing |
EEG (ERP) | Experimental (randomized) | Prosocial vs. Neutral VG: ▾ P300 amplitudes |
Petras et al., 2015 | 2015 | 30 | Healthy adults | 25.96 (18–44) | 21 Non habitual VGP (< once a week) 9 Habitual VGP (= once a week) |
Action, Shooter | EEG (ERP) | Experimental (randomized, factorial) | Egocentric vs. Bird-view perspective: ▴ N1 amplitudes (shoot task) ▾ Pre-stimulus alpha power (shoot task) |
Zvyagintsev et al., 2016* | 2016 | 18 | Healthy young adults, male | 25.1 ± 2.7 | VGP (>5 h/week) | Sports, Racing (Violent) | fMRI | Experimental (crossover) | Violent vs. Non-violent (FC): ▾ Sensory-motor networks ▾ Reward network ▾ DMN ▾ FPN (right) |
3D, Three-dimensional; ACC, Anterior cingulate cortex; CN, Caudate nucleus; dACC, Dorsal anterior cingulate cortex; dlPFC, Dorsolateral prefrontal cortex; DMN, Default mode network; EEG, Electroencephalography; ERP, Event-related potentials; FC, Functional connectivity; FG, Fusiform gyrus; fMRI, Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging; FPN, Frontoparietal network; IFG, Inferior frontal gyrus; MTG, Middle temporal gyrus; OFC, Orbitofrontal cortex; Pcu, Precuneus; PFC, Prefrontal cortex; PoCG, Post-central gyrus; rACC, Rostral anterior cingulate cortex; SFG, Superior frontal gyrus; SPECT, Single-photon emission computed tomography; STG, Superior temporal gyrus; VG, Video game; VGP, Video game player. Articles marked with an asterisk
discuss cognitive implications without directly assessing this dimension. Articles marked with a double asterisk
(**) did not provide either empirical cognitive data nor discuss cognitive implications. The rest of the articles (non-marked) have measured cognitive correlates with specific tasks.