In-session gaming as a tool in treating adolescent problematic gaming

For some adolescent gamers, playing online games may become problematic, impairing functioning in personal, family, and other life domains. Parental and family factors are known to influence the odds that adolescents may develop problematic gaming (PG), negative parenting and conflictual family dynamics increasing the risk, whereas positive parenting and developmentally supportive family dynamics protecting against PG. This suggests that a treatment for adolescent PG should not only address the gaming behaviors and personal characteristics of the youth, but also the parental and family domains. An established research-supported treatment meeting these requirements is multidimensional family therapy (MDFT), which we adapted for use as adolescent PG treatment. We report here on one adaptation, applying in-session gaming. In-session demonstration of the “problem behavior” is feasible and informative in PG. In the opening stage of therapy, we use in-session gaming to establish an alliance between the therapist and the youth. By inviting them to play games, the therapist demonstrates that they are taken seriously, thus boosting treatment motivation. Later in treatment, gaming is introduced in family sessions, offering useful opportunities to intervene in family members' perspectives and interactional patterns revealed in vivo as the youth plays the game. These sessions can trigger strong emotions and reactions from the parents and youth and give rise to maladaptive transactions between the family members, thus offering ways to facilitate new discussions and experiences of each other. The insights gained from the game demonstration sessions aid the therapeutic process, more so than mere discussion about gaming.     

Some differences among figural aftereffects,apparent motion,and paracontrast*

It has been suggested that figural aftereffects, apparent motion, and paracontrast may be produced by very similar or equivalent processes. The empirical functions relating figural aftereffect to the duration of the inspection figure and the interfigural distance are significantly different from the corresponding apparent motion and paracontrast functions. The functions relating paracontrast to the interstimulus interval are significantly different from the corresponding figural-aftereffect and apparent-motion functions. Thus, it is unlikely that the processes underlying the three phenomena are the same. Researchers who attempt to study feature analyzers in the human visual system should consider using more than one dependent variable, since none of the three phenomena contains all of the available information. Within-Ss designs should be avoided because a strong response bias exists between figural-aftereffect and apparent-motion tasks.     

Differential specialization of the cerebral hemispheres for the perception of sameness and difference

The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218 Pairs of letters were presented 4 deg left or right of fixation, and Ss were asked to indicate as quickly as possible whether the letters in a pair were the same or different. Reaction times for “different” responses were faster when stimuli were in the left visual field than in the right, but reaction times for “same” responses were faster when stimuli were in the right visual field than in the left. These results may indicate that the right hemisphere is better specialized for difference detection, while the left hemisphere is better specialized for sameness detection.     

Successive vs simultaneous processing of superimposed visual stimuli

A visual analogue of Savin’s (1967) auditory task was used to examine preferred order of recall and order of recall accuracy for two pairs of visually superimposed digits. Savin (1967) and Rollins, Everson, and Schurman (1972) found that Ss preferred to recall simultaneous auditory information in successive order, even though the information was presented over a single channel. In the present experiments, Ss were found to prefer strongly to recall visual information in simultaneous order. On the other hand, the results of Rollins et al (1972), that Ss are equally accurate when forced to recall simultaneous auditory information in either the preferred or nonpreferred mode, were replicated for this visual task. The results of these experiments, together with the experiment reported by Rollins et al (1972), indicate that verbal information is processed differently by these two sensory systems.     

An experimental test of Jameson and Hurvich’s theory of brightness contrast1

Two hundred and fifty-two brightness functions for seven simultaneously presented black, gray, and white squares on black, gray, and white backgrounds approximated power curves with positive exponents when illuminance was varied in seven steps over 1.9 log fL. Mean exponents were significantly larger for whiter vs blacker squares and for squares on the white vs the gray background. Mean exponents also increased more for squares on white than on black or gray backgrounds. Finally, a white replacing a black background elicited increasingly larger décrémentai responses as the squares varied from black to white. Jameson and Hurvich’s opponent-process theory, tested by the experiment, was not predictive.     

Verbal interference in a perceptual comparison task

When Ss had to indicate if the colors of pairs of items from the Stroop test were the same or different, the usual interference effect was completely eliminated. However, when the verbal information consisted of SAME and DIFF rather than color names, interference was reestablished. This indicates that the perceptual comparison task does not eliminate interference simply by rendering Ss insensitive to the meanings of words.