For older adults, playing video games isn't just a way to stay in touch with the younger generation — it might also be a way to stay in touch with perception itself.
A new study published in the journal PLOS ONE showed that regularly playing Super Mario 64 for six months seemed to improve memory and increase the amount of grey matter in the brains of older adults, ages 55 to 75. The findings could someday improve treatment options for cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease.
In the study, researchers divided 33 participants into three groups: one played Super Mario 64, one took online piano lessons, and one served as a control group that did neither activity. The video game and music lesson groups completed at least 30 minutes of training for five days per week. Some participants completed more training than was required. In fact, two participants in the video game group beat Super Mario 64 in its entirety and went on to play Super Mario Galaxy, a similar game.
In the paper, the researchers hypothesized that 3D-platform games can boost cognition and memory by serving as something like a mental workout. They referenced past research on young adults that showed how playing Super Mario 64 increased grey matter in the cerebellum. This new study, however, is the first to explore whether 3D-platform games can have similar effects on the neural structures of older adults.
But why Mario instead of, say, a racing game?
In 3D-platform games like Mario, players must familiarize themselves with a virtual world to succeed. They must build “cognitive maps” of the world as they play, memorizing landmarks and other salient features. These kinds of spatial learning processes take place in the hippocampus, one of several regions of the brain examined in the study.
The researchers proposed that playing Super Mario 64 for 6 months would increase the grey matter in several parts of the brain:
Hippocampus — “The relationship between the hippocampus and 3D-platform games is thought to be driven by the fact that 3D-platform games require the use of spatial memory processes to build a cognitive map of in-game environments and therefore requires learning that depends on the hippocampus.”
Cerebellum — “Because of Super Mario 64’s requirement for fine motor coordination, we also expected 3D-platform training to increase grey matter in the cerebellum.”
Dorsolateral prefrontal cortex — “Super Mario 64 requires ample planning and the internal storage and manipulation of in-game information. We therefore predicted that training would increase grey matter in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC).” The researchers also suggested video game training would boost cognitive performance among the older adults.
The results showed that participants who spent the six months playing Mario experienced improved short-term memory and showed increased grey matter in the cerebellum and hippocampus. Participants who took music lessons showed increased grey matter in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and cerebellum.
However, the control group, composed of adults who did neither video game or music training, showed atrophy in the three regions of the brain researchers examined.
Increased grey matter seen here in MRI scan of video game group adult after six months
The researchers can't yet say for sure whether it's 3D-platform video games or simply learning something new that staves off the degradation of grey matter and memory. One reason is because the size of the study was relatively small, which limits the conclusions that can be reasonably drawn from it. Still, study author Gregory West, an assistant psychology professor at the University of Montreal, thinks the results are promising for the treatment of cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease.
"The good news is that we can reverse those effects and increase volume by learning something new, and games like Super Mario 64, which activate the hippocampus, seem to hold some potential in that respect," West said.
- The jaw bones of an 8-million-year-old ape were discovered at Nikiti, Greece, in the '90s.
- Researchers speculate it could be a previously unknown species and one of humanity's earliest evolutionary ancestors.
- These fossils may change how we view the evolution of our species.
Homo sapiens have been on earth for 200,000 years — give or take a few ten-thousand-year stretches. Much of that time is shrouded in the fog of prehistory. What we do know has been pieced together by deciphering the fossil record through the principles of evolutionary theory. Yet new discoveries contain the potential to refashion that knowledge and lead scientists to new, previously unconsidered conclusions.
A set of 8-million-year-old teeth may have done just that. Researchers recently inspected the upper and lower jaw of an ancient European ape. Their conclusions suggest that humanity's forebearers may have arisen in Europe before migrating to Africa, potentially upending a scientific consensus that has stood since Darwin's day.
Rethinking humanity's origin story
The frontispiece of Thomas Huxley's Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature (1863) sketched by natural history artist Benjamin Waterhouse Hawkins. (Photo: Wikimedia Commons)
As reported in New Scientist, the 8- to 9-million-year-old hominin jaw bones were found at Nikiti, northern Greece, in the '90s. Scientists originally pegged the chompers as belonging to a member of Ouranopithecus, an genus of extinct Eurasian ape.
David Begun, an anthropologist at the University of Toronto, and his team recently reexamined the jaw bones. They argue that the original identification was incorrect. Based on the fossil's hominin-like canines and premolar roots, they identify that the ape belongs to a previously unknown proto-hominin.
The researchers hypothesize that these proto-hominins were the evolutionary ancestors of another European great ape Graecopithecus, which the same team tentatively identified as an early hominin in 2017. Graecopithecus lived in south-east Europe 7.2 million years ago. If the premise is correct, these hominins would have migrated to Africa 7 million years ago, after undergoing much of their evolutionary development in Europe.
Begun points out that south-east Europe was once occupied by the ancestors of animals like the giraffe and rhino, too. "It's widely agreed that this was the found fauna of most of what we see in Africa today," he told New Scientists. "If the antelopes and giraffes could get into Africa 7 million years ago, why not the apes?"
He recently outlined this idea at a conference of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists.
It's worth noting that Begun has made similar hypotheses before. Writing for the Journal of Human Evolution in 2002, Begun and Elmar Heizmann of the Natural history Museum of Stuttgart discussed a great ape fossil found in Germany that they argued could be the ancestor (broadly speaking) of all living great apes and humans.
"Found in Germany 20 years ago, this specimen is about 16.5 million years old, some 1.5 million years older than similar species from East Africa," Begun said in a statement then. "It suggests that the great ape and human lineage first appeared in Eurasia and not Africa."
Migrating out of Africa
In the Descent of Man, Charles Darwin proposed that hominins descended out of Africa. Considering the relatively few fossils available at the time, it is a testament to Darwin's astuteness that his hypothesis remains the leading theory.
Since Darwin's time, we have unearthed many more fossils and discovered new evidence in genetics. As such, our African-origin story has undergone many updates and revisions since 1871. Today, it has splintered into two theories: the "out of Africa" theory and the "multi-regional" theory.
The out of Africa theory suggests that the cradle of all humanity was Africa. Homo sapiens evolved exclusively and recently on that continent. At some point in prehistory, our ancestors migrated from Africa to Eurasia and replaced other subspecies of the genus Homo, such as Neanderthals. This is the dominant theory among scientists, and current evidence seems to support it best — though, say that in some circles and be prepared for a late-night debate that goes well past last call.
The multi-regional theory suggests that humans evolved in parallel across various regions. According to this model, the hominins Homo erectus left Africa to settle across Eurasia and (maybe) Australia. These disparate populations eventually evolved into modern humans thanks to a helping dollop of gene flow.
Of course, there are the broad strokes of very nuanced models, and we're leaving a lot of discussion out. There is, for example, a debate as to whether African Homo erectus fossils should be considered alongside Asian ones or should be labeled as a different subspecies, Homo ergaster.
Proponents of the out-of-Africa model aren't sure whether non-African humans descended from a single migration out of Africa or at least two major waves of migration followed by a lot of interbreeding.
Did we head east or south of Eden?
Not all anthropologists agree with Begun and his team's conclusions. As noted by New Scientist, it is possible that the Nikiti ape is not related to hominins at all. It may have evolved similar features independently, developing teeth to eat similar foods or chew in a similar manner as early hominins.
Ultimately, Nikiti ape alone doesn't offer enough evidence to upend the out of Africa model, which is supported by a more robust fossil record and DNA evidence. But additional evidence may be uncovered to lend further credence to Begun's hypothesis or lead us to yet unconsidered ideas about humanity's evolution.
