神经科学与心理学2022nature.com
数字媒体使用对儿童智力的影响
The impact of digital media on children’s intelligence
入门 · 约 45 分钟读完前置知识：统计学基础、相关性分析
导读
这篇发表于 Nature 旗下 Scientific Reports 的研究利用大规模儿童追踪数据，考察看电视、社交媒体、玩游戏等数字媒体使用对儿童智力的影响。研究发现基线时看电视和社交与智力负相关，而玩游戏与智力无相关；两年后玩游戏对智力有正面影响，社交则无影响，作者认为这与视频游戏认知益处的实验研究一致。
HN 关注点：这一结论是否可信：游戏真的能提升智力吗？讨论焦点集中在研究方法（多基因评分控制、相关性 vs 因果性）和期刊质量上。
HN 评论精选
这几条评论里：质疑 2 补充 2
质疑从方法学上系统质疑该研究：多基因评分噪声大、期刊门槛低、相关性不等于因果性，更可能是聪明孩子玩游戏更多。
用多基因评分来"控制"遗传因素本身就是低质量研究的强烈信号。多基因评分虽然强大，但相比真实遗传效应包含大量噪声，用它控制遗传就像用"是否拥有保时捷"来控制收入。另外 Scientific Reports 即使不算掠夺性期刊，门槛也很低，每年发表数万篇文章并收取巨额费用。总的来说他们只有相关性而非因果性：儿童智商和游戏习惯都随年龄发展，仅控制基线智商不足以让相关变成因果。更可能的解释是更聪明的孩子玩游戏更多，比如因为家境更富裕（控制 SES 也不够，原因与遗传控制相同的测量误差问题）。想相信你在 COD 上的小时数让你成了天才就信吧，只是别以为这项研究证明了这一点。
dash2查看英文原文
The fact that they "controlled" for genetics using polygenic scores already is a strong sign of low quality research. Polygenic scores are powerful, but they contain very large amounts of noise compared to the true genetic effects. Controlling for genetics using them is like controlling for income by asking whether the respondents own a Porsche. Also, be aware that Scientific Reports is, if not quite a predatory journal, a very low bar. They publish tens of thousands of articles every year, while charging vast fees. In general, these guys have correlations, not causation. Children's IQ - and gaming habits etc. - develop as they age, so controlling for baseline IQ is not enough to make a correlation with later IQ and gaming causal. It seems much more likely that smarter kids game more, e.g. because they live in richer households. (No, controlling for SES isn't enough to rule this out, for much the same reasons of measurement error as for the genetics.) If you wanna believe that your hours on COD have made you a genius, go ahead, I won't stop you. Just don't imagine that this research proves it.
补充以家长亲历补充：比起消费型媒体，创作类软件（如 KidPix、Logo）可能是被研究忽略的重要类别。
我只允许孩子用 iPad 上的 KidPix——一个相当出色的绘画和动画软件。5 岁的孩子喜欢用自己录制的音效和动画创作场景，3 岁的孩子喜欢画复杂的画然后有条不紊地把一切涂成绿色。我想说的是，研究者漏掉了至少另一类重要的程序：创作类软件。我也用 GarageBand 和他们一起做简单的歌，但 UI 对他们来说还是太难。这个思路的灵感来自我第一次接触电脑是在 Apple IIe 上用 Logo，Seymour Papert 的杰作给我留下了持久的印象。
javajosh查看英文原文
The only program I let my kids use is KidPix on the iPad. It's a (rather remarkable) drawing and animation program and I'm constantly amazed at what they make with it. And sometimes horrified. But the 5 yo enjoys creating scenes with sound effects (that she recorded) and animation (that she also recorded), while the 3 yo enjoys making intricate drawings and then methodically coloring everything green. It's his favorite color, and he enjoys this. Not affiliated at all, but KidPix is a great piece of software, and I wouldn't have known about it except it was on a public library computer. My point is there is (at least) another important category of program that the researchers missed: creator software. I've also made simple songs with them with garage band, but the UI is still rather difficult for them to use it on their own. I was inspired to take this approach because my first introduction to computers was Logo on an Apple IIe, and Seymore Papert's beautiful work left a lasting impression.
补充推荐延伸阅读《Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television》，提供批判数字媒体的经典视角。
如果这项研究让你对数字媒体的影响感到困惑，不妨读读 Jerry Mander 的《Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television》。书中的论点与这些新研究并无不同。如果你是钥匙儿童长大、看过不少电视和游戏，它可能会给你一些从未想过的视角。
thenerdhead查看英文原文
If this study has you scratching your head about the impact of digital media, do have a read of "Four arguments for the elimination of television" by Jerry Mander. The arguments included in it are no different than many of these new studies coming out. If you grew up to be a latchkey kid and had your fair share of TV/video games/etc, it might give you perspective into things you never thought about. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3NBEurnIqY
质疑以反讽方式引用论文核心结论，调侃"游戏比社交更聪明"的解读。
"基线时看电视和社交与智力负相关，玩游戏不相关。两年后，游戏对智力有正面影响，社交无影响。这与视频游戏实验研究中记录的认知益处一致。"所以实锤了？游戏 > 社交？/s
mdrzn查看英文原文
"At baseline, time watching and socializing were negatively correlated with intelligence, while gaming did not correlate. After two years, gaming positively impacted intelligence, but socializing had no effect. This is consistent with cognitive benefits documented in experimental studies on video gaming." So it's confirmed? Gaming > Socializing? /s
相关资源
从这篇论文所有 HN 讨论帖的全部评论里整理出来的链接。
历次讨论
- 2022Hacker News 讨论帖309 分 · 252 评
同领域还值得读
神经科学家能理解微处理器吗？（2017）
Could a Neuroscientist Understand a Microprocessor? (2017)
提出一个思想实验：把神经科学常用的分析方法（损伤实验、电生理、功能定位等）应用到一个我们完全了解其原理的工程系统——6502 微处理器（运行游戏）上，检验这些方法能否真正“理解”…
神经科学与心理学2017 · 411 分 · 135 评进阶 · 约 60 分钟编辑精选大脑衰老呈现非线性转变，提示中年“关键窗口”
Brain aging shows nonlinear transitions, suggesting a midlife "critical window"
这篇 PNAS 论文研究大脑衰老的非线性变化，发现大脑老化并非匀速进行，而是在中年（约 40-60 岁）存在一个关键的"临界窗口期"，此时干预可能有效。
神经科学与心理学2025 · 295 分 · 159 评进阶 · 约 75 分钟编辑精选社交网络中大规模情绪传染的证据（2014）
Evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks (2014)
这篇 2014 年发表于 PNAS 的论文研究了 Facebook 上约 70 万用户的信息流中，减少正面或负面内容是否会传染性地影响用户自己发布内容的情绪。
神经科学与心理学2020 · 285 分 · 72 评入门 · 约 45 分钟编辑精选裸盖菇素使人类大脑去同步化
Psilocybin desynchronizes the human brain
这篇 Nature 研究用个体化的 fMRI 精密成像追踪受试者服用裸盖菇素（psilocybin）前后的脑功能连接变化，发现药物会造成大范围的脑网络「去同步化」，尤其是默认模式…
神经科学与心理学2024 · 273 分 · 259 评进阶 · 约 60 分钟编辑精选对智力的赞扬会削弱儿童的动机与表现（1998）
Praise for Intelligence Can Undermine Children's Motivation (1998)
这篇 1998 年的经典论文（Dweck 等人）通过实验研究表扬方式对儿童动机的影响：夸孩子“聪明”（表扬智力）会让他们回避挑战、害怕失败，而表扬努力则更能培养坚持性。
神经科学与心理学2016 · 253 分 · 155 评入门 · 约 45 分钟编辑精选