↓ Skip to main content

Just watching the game ain't enough: striatal fMRI reward responses to successes and failures in a video game during active and vicarious playing

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
55 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
181 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Just watching the game ain't enough: striatal fMRI reward responses to successes and failures in a video game during active and vicarious playing
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00278
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jari Kätsyri, Riitta Hari, Niklas Ravaja, Lauri Nummenmaa

Abstract

Although the multimodal stimulation provided by modern audiovisual video games is pleasing by itself, the rewarding nature of video game playing depends critically also on the players' active engagement in the gameplay. The extent to which active engagement influences dopaminergic brain reward circuit responses remains unsettled. Here we show that striatal reward circuit responses elicited by successes (wins) and failures (losses) in a video game are stronger during active than vicarious gameplay. Eleven healthy males both played a competitive first-person tank shooter game (active playing) and watched a pre-recorded gameplay video (vicarious playing) while their hemodynamic brain activation was measured with 3-tesla functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Wins and losses were paired with symmetrical monetary rewards and punishments during active and vicarious playing so that the external reward context remained identical during both conditions. Brain activation was stronger in the orbitomedial prefrontal cortex (omPFC) during winning than losing, both during active and vicarious playing. In contrast, both wins and losses suppressed activations in the midbrain and striatum during active playing; however, the striatal suppression, particularly in the anterior putamen, was more pronounced during loss than win events. Sensorimotor confounds related to joystick movements did not account for the results. Self-ratings indicated losing to be more unpleasant during active than vicarious playing. Our findings demonstrate striatum to be selectively sensitive to self-acquired rewards, in contrast to frontal components of the reward circuit that process both self-acquired and passively received rewards. We propose that the striatal responses to repeated acquisition of rewards that are contingent on game related successes contribute to the motivational pull of video-game playing.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 181 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
Germany 2 1%
United Kingdom 2 1%
Sweden 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Unknown 170 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 38 21%
Researcher 30 17%
Student > Master 29 16%
Student > Bachelor 16 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 8 4%
Other 35 19%
Unknown 25 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 67 37%
Neuroscience 13 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 7%
Social Sciences 10 6%
Other 35 19%
Unknown 31 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 July 2021.
All research outputs
#6,209,585
of 22,711,242 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#2,579
of 7,128 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,629
of 280,736 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#372
of 862 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,711,242 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,128 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 280,736 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 862 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.