| Literature DB >> 35360144 |
Shuai Wang1, Jialing Li1, Siyu Wang1, Can Mi1, Wei Wang1, Zhengjia Xu2, Wenjing Xiong1, Longxing Tang1, Yanzhang Li1.
Abstract
Background: Escapism-based motivation (EBM) is considered as one of the diagnostic criteria for internet gaming disorder (IGD). However, how EBM affects the high risk of IGD (HIGD) population remains unclear.Entities:
Keywords: addiction – computational neuroscience; escapism-based motivation; eye-tracking test; high risk of internet gaming disorder; psychological assessment
Year: 2022 PMID: 35360144 PMCID: PMC8963934 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2022.855631
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychiatry ISSN: 1664-0640 Impact factor: 4.157
FIGURE 1Participants’ flow.
FIGURE 2Design of anti-saccade task.
FIGURE 3Design of mental rotation task.
Association of the general characteristics with gaming experiences and motivations.
| Characteristics | GE ( | GO ( | NG ( |
| |
| Age | 20.55 ± 4.29 | 20.81 ± 3.51 | 20.77 ± 3.68 | 0.319 | 0.652 |
| Gender (Male/Female, | 27/19 | 154/161 | 95/333 | 68.921 |
|
| Academic performance (Excellent/Fair/Poor, | 6/32/8 | 40/247/28 | 57/342/29 | 6.575 | 0.160 |
| Upbringing (Parents/Grandparents/Other, | 39/6/1 | 301/11/3 | 386/29/13 | 12.222 |
|
| Residence (Urban/Rural, | 21/25 | 167/148 | 182/246 | 8.052 |
|
| Love experience (Yes/No, | 24/22 | 174/141 | 204/224 | 4.195 | 0.123 |
| Main gaming type (Role play/Other, | 24/22 | 160/155 | – | 0.031 | 0.861 |
| Gaming history (<2y/ ≥2y, | 16/30 | 115/200 | – | 0.052 | 0.820 |
| Gaming equipment (Phone/Computer/Pad, | 34/11/1 | 241/63/11 | – | 0.545 | 0.761 |
*Participants of daily gaming time ≥ 2 h.
Bold values mean P < 0.05.
FIGURE 4Psychological assessment results of 108 participants. ∗P < 0.05 and ∗∗P < 0.001.
The results of eye-tracking tests.
| Indicators | H-EBM ( | H-nEBM ( | CONTR ( |
|
|
| Anti-saccade task | |||||
| Correct rate (%) | 0.37 ± 0.22 | 0.31 ± 0.17 | 0.43 ± 0.23246 | 3.525 |
|
| Reaction time (ms) | 2044.27 ± 271.32 | 2231.28 ± 315.14 | 2054.88 ± 274.12246 | 4.459 |
|
| Fixation count (times) | 4.52 ± 2.08 | 5.62 ± 6.38 | 3.84 ± 0.67246 | 2.347 | 0.101 |
| Saccade count (times) | 3.59 ± 2.11 | 4.73 ± 6.37 | 2.90 ± 0.70246 | 2.480 | 0.089 |
|
| |||||
| Correct rate (%) | 0.80 ± 0.19 | 0.81 ± 0.16 | 0.76 ± 0.17 | 0.910 | 0.406 |
| Reaction time (ms) | 4431.76 ± 121.20 | 5110.43 ± 159.60 | 4804.66 ± 139.07 | 1.609 | 0.205 |
| Fixation count (times) | 17.07 ± 5.00 | 18.94 ± 5.36 | 18.02 ± 4.36 | 1.054 | 0.352 |
| Saccade count (times) | 16.35 ± 5.02 | 18.24 ± 5.40 | 17.27 ± 4.37 | 1.080 | 0.343 |
FIGURE 5Differences in correct rates in anti-saccade task between H-EBM, H-nEBM, and CONTR groups in (A) pro-saccade and anti-saccade trials; (B) left and right directions; (C) 5 and 10 cm amplitudes.
FIGURE 6Differences in reaction times in anti-saccade task between H-EBM, H-nEBM, and CONTR groups in (A) pro-saccade and anti-saccade trials; (B) left and right directions; (C) 5 cm and 10 cm amplitudes.
Logistic regression of occurring HIGD with EBM.
| Variables |
|
|
| |
| Age | 0.305 | 1.908 | 0.167 | 0.657 (0.361∼1.193) |
| TMT | 0.019 | 1.814 | 0.178 | 1.026 (0.988∼1.066) |
| DST | 0.138 | 2.273 | 0.132 | 1.231 (0.940∼1.612) |
| AFP | 0.074 | 0.923 | 0.337 | 0.931 (0.805∼1.077) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| BIS | 0.066 | 2.418 | 0.120 | 1.107 (0.974∼1.259) |
| WLEIS | 0.062 | 2.558 | 0.110 | 1.105 (0.978∼1.248) |
|
| ||||
| Female | Ref. | |||
| Male | 0.758 | 0.287 | 0.592 | 0.666 (0.151∼2.941) |
|
| ||||
| Poor | Ref. | |||
| Excellent | 9214.551 | 0.000 | 0.998 | 0.000 (0.000∼0.000) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
| Other | Ref. | |||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
| Rural | Ref. | |||
| Urban | 0.777 | 0.018 | 0.892 | 1.111 (0.243∼5.091) |
|
| ||||
| Yes | Ref. | |||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bold values mean P < 0.05.