Abstract
This study aims to bridge the gap between the discrepant views of existing studies in different modalities on the cognitive effect of video game play. To this end, we conducted a set of tests with different modalities within each participant: (1) Self-Reports Analyses (SRA) consisting of five popular self-report surveys, and (2) a standard Behavioral Experiment (BE) using pro- and antisaccade paradigms, and analyzed how their results vary between Video Game Player (VGP) and Non-Video Game Player (NVGP) participant groups. Our result showed that (1) VGP scored significantly lower in Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS) than NVGP (p = 0.023), and (2) VGP showed significantly higher antisaccade error rate than NVGP (p = 0.005), suggesting that results of both SRA and BE support the existing view that video game play has a maleficent impact on the cognition by increasing impulsivity. However, the following correlation analysis on the results across individual participants found no significant correlation between SRA and BE, indicating a complex nature of the cognitive effect of video game play.
Highlights
On 24 May 2019, the committee of the World Health Organization (WHO) unanimously agreed to include video game addiction in the 11th edition of the International Classification Diseases (ICD-11) as a disease
Participants were divided into two groups based on their video gaming frequencies [37]. Those who have been playing video games for more than one hour per week over a year were categorized as Video Game Player (VGP, n = 18, 1 female) group and the rest were categorized as Non-Video Game Players (NVGP, n = 12, 9 females)
To understand and reconcile the prominent discrepancies in evaluating the cognitive effect of video game playing, the present study directly compared the results of two representative frameworks (BE and Self-Reports Analyses (SRA)) that are widely used in the literature
Summary
On 24 May 2019, the committee of the World Health Organization (WHO) unanimously agreed to include video game addiction in the 11th edition of the International Classification Diseases (ICD-11) as a disease. Opponents of WHO’s decision argue that there is a significant lack of scientific evidence or clear consensus defining symptoms of gaming addiction [10,11,12,13,14,15] and that this seemingly hasty decision could result in major social problems caused by faulty diagnoses and treatments, or by devastating impacts on the video game and related industries.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
