Study finds gaming too long before bed is a bad idea
"Less than one hour seems okay."
A new study by Flinders University in Australia has found playing games for too long before bedtime is detrimental to a good night's rest.
The study included 17 teenage boys who played violent games for 50 or 150 minutes before sleeping on two different nights. Sleep and heart rates were monitored, the results of which for those who played 150 minutes showed a 27 minute loss in sleep time and 39 minute delay in actually getting to sleep. For those who played 150 minutes, a 12 minute reduction in REM sleep aka "dreaming sleep" was observed.
"This may not seem like a significant reduction," says child sleep psychologist Dr. Michael Gradisar, "But REM plays an important part in helping us remember content we [learned] that day so for adolescents in their final years of school who are revising for exams, winding down at night with a video game might not be the best idea."
For those who played 50 minutes, no negative effect was observed.
Source: Eurogamer
Sections: Microsoft Consoles, Console Games, PC Games, Sony Consoles, Handheld Games, Mobile Games
Latest Comments
- No self-published indie titles on Xbox One, indie devs must find a publisher first [21]
- Xbox One lacks backwards compatibility, Microsoft will continue selling Xbox 360 games and console [75]
- Call of Duty: Ghosts video compares graphical improvements between Modern Warfare 3 and Ghosts [7]
- Rhode Island set to sell Kingdoms of Amalur assets in order to try and recover part of $130 million debt [7]
- Remedy's Sam Lake apologizes to Alan Wake fans, launches Humble Bundle and Xbox LIVE sale [2]
- Company of Heroes 2 cinematic tells the story of war from a soldier's perspective, previews the campaign [3]
- Xbox One officially announced, here are the facts [59]
- Metro: Last Light DLC summer lineup brings serveral content packs, Season Pass also announced [3]
Most Comments
- Xbox One lacks backwards compatibility, Microsoft will continue selling Xbox 360 games and console [75]
- Several Pokemon revealed in latest CoroCoro Pokemon X and Y feature, also trainer customization [73]
- Pokemon X and Y welcomes us to Kalos, trailer showcases quartet of recently announced Pokemon [63]
- Xbox One officially announced, here are the facts [59]
- Next-gen Xbox officially set to be revealed on May 21, press invited to event on Microsoft's Redmond campus [53]
- Rockstar introduces three very different Grand Theft Auto V psychopaths in three very exciting trailers [45]
Latest News
- Wed, May 22
- Call of Duty: Ghosts video compares graphical improvements between Modern Warfare 3 and Ghosts
- Metro: Last Light DLC summer lineup brings serveral content packs, Season Pass also announced
- No self-published indie titles on Xbox One, indie devs must find a publisher first
- Remedy's Sam Lake apologizes to Alan Wake fans, launches Humble Bundle and Xbox LIVE sale
- Company of Heroes 2 cinematic tells the story of war from a soldier's perspective, previews the campaign
- Best of PlayStation Network Vol. 1 packages four titles including Sound Shapes, Fat Princess, available June
- Mortal Kombat coming to PC on July 3, Komplete Edition packages up all characters and skins
- Crytek's gladiator epic Ryse confirmed as an Xbox One exclusive, more information at E3
- Tue, May 21
- Microsoft's Next-Generation Xbox Reveal: Liveblog and Discussion
- Xbox One officially announced, here are the facts
- EA teasing a new Need for Speed with image of a police supercar
- Check out the Call of Duty: Ghosts reveal trailer and Infinity Ward's behind-the-scenes tech video
- Xbox One games confirmed thus far, major publishers like EA, Square Enix and Ubisoft on board
- High quality pictures of the Xbox One console, its controller and the next Kinect
- Xbox One lacks backwards compatibility, Microsoft will continue selling Xbox 360 games and console
- Call of Duty: Ghosts first look, Infinity Ward talks graphical improvements and the new engine
- Rumor Roundup: What to expect from today's next-gen Xbox reveal
- Panopticon becomes Freedom Wars, launching in 2014 as a PlayStation Vita exclusive
- Mon, May 20
- Forzavista trademarked ahead of tomorrow's Xbox event, likely a feature of Forza 5
- Splinter Cell: Blacklist video introduces co-op and Sam Fisher's partner, Isaac Briggs
- Rhode Island set to sell Kingdoms of Amalur assets in order to try and recover part of $130 million debt
- Watch Dogs pre-order incentives detailed, including some locked gameplay content and other perks
- Shadow Warrior announced, reimagining of 3D Realms' classic FPS from the Hard Reset developers
- Batman: Arkham Origins debut trailer adds Deadshot to the mix, odd Queen Industries reference
- PlayStation 4 teaser features a blurry black box, "See it First on 6/10/2013"
Latest Net Reviews
| · | Sparkle Calibre X660 DF (German) |
| · | Roccat Kone Pure |
| · | eVGA GeForce GTX 680 Classified (French) |
| · | Wavemaster Dakota |
| · | Sapphire Radeon HD 7990 QuadFireX |
| · | Cooler Master V1000 |


prev next
1 2 3
You walk into a research grant office and tell them you want some money to do a study on the effect of playing violent video games on sleep. You tell them you want $100k so that you can recruit (how many? Is there a magical number before you guys will be happy it's enough?) participants. They ask you what other studies have been done in the field. You tell them none. They laugh you out of the office. Why? Because no-one's going to fund a large-scale study without expecting some interesting results out of sheer scientific curiosity. If they recruited 500 gamers over three years and found nothing interesting, it would have been a colossal waste of time and money that they'll never get back.
The solution? Do a small-scale exploratory study (*cough cough like this one*) to see if there's anything worthy of investigation. Lo and behold they found an effect with just 17 people, which if you multiply it out to the population at large might be indicative of a serious problem. So now when they go into the research grant office, they can say hey! We found something interesting but want to test gender effects, violent versus non-violent games, etc. and the funders actually have something concrete for a precident.
Did you read the original article?
So actually, this has been taken completely out of context and if anything it's fairly positive news for gamers since you can seemingly play for up to 50 minutes will no ill-effects. The only difference is that now there's some evidence in favour of the idea that playing games for more than 50 minutes before you go to bed isn't the best idea if you want to sleep soundly. No shit, I hear you say. Well at least this is proof which can (a) justify future research and (b) serve as a reference point for all those naysayers who want to bury their heads in the sand and pretend there's nothing wrong with their behaviour.
17 participants for a study like this is about right, don't confuse experiments with non-experiments (there are actually very few of the former in any field). Non-experimental studies aren't about controlling every single variable, they're about taking as many relevant ones into account as you can so that when it comes to analysis or reporting you can say exactly how and why your findings are limited. If the conclusion was something like 'Therefore, violent video games before bed cause you to lose sleep' then yeah, you've got a point - but I guarantee you it was something more like 'Therefore, an effect was found for Australian teenage boys which is unsurprising but potentially worrying, and warrants further investigation'. Which is spot on.
Uh, no, people who try to read what isn't there into studies are stupid. I'm offering 10/1 odds that you haven't read the study. You can not publish almost anything, it's actually notoriously difficult to get published in a reputable journal, and the peer-review process exists for a very good reason. It is entirely the news' fault. This was posted on eurogamer for Christ's sake, you don't think they had an agenda in picking this one study out from the soup that is scientific literature?
Too true, as for falling asleep instantly I only managed to do it during high school. I guess it was from my active schedule.
Like many have said there are too many factors, like what they did all day.
Well save some pennies and undertake a more comprehensive test at a later date. Cost is no excuse for executing such a limited test. Just dont do the test then.
Thats fine depending what they want to prove. But it would have been much more interesting to see the differences between sexes. Infact it would have been the most interesting thing about this seemingly half arsed study for me. And it would also rule out any unforeseen male specific physiological reasons for the results. The simple fact for me is that the more information which is gathered then the more accurate and telling the results will be.
Well put bluntly like that no. They need to breathe, drink eat and consume oxygen. But again the study would have been far more comprehensive and interesting had they compared games to other media. Was the test mainly focussed on sleeping? Because then it would have yielded interesting results for a much wider audience. Was the test more directed towards and focussed on the gaming aspect? Because if so the test was completely bias by not including referance to other media. In this case a comparative study would lend the results much more credability in either case.
I also agree with your comment on violence hiigaran. If they did not properly isolate this as a potential direct cause fr the sleep loss by comparison with other genres then that does somewhat invalidate the process for me. Imagine they had repeated the test with Viva Piniata and had the complete opposite result... That changes the whole result and indeed direction for future study.
And BTW i do not come at this with an Agenda. I literally dont care what the results show. It doesnt really affect my life and i can think of much better reasons to shoot down gaming. It was just simply a half arsed test IMO.
And Short Circuit i hear ya on stupid studies. My dad and I often slag them off when we see them in newspapers. Usually tabloids. "Study finds Men are more aesthetically attracted to cars than women"
... DUUUUURR !!! F**king hell. People get paid for this. This study is just as bad. If you scramble your mind for 30 mins before sleep it doesnt affect you as badly as if you do it for an hour... really? WOW! !ith this breakthrough we can now reach Alpha Centauri !!!
as for posting how it affects me, i wasnt implying that was supposed to be true for all. that was just my single, individual story, plain and simple.
Studies are stupid. You can publish almost anything and call it a study, and people will think that it's all professional and expertly carried out by "scientists."
It's partly the news's fault. They treat studies like they're amazing scientific breakthroughs (Studies show that... According to a new study...) and controversial news.
Oh my god that sounds amazing. I've never been able to drift off instantly like that.
I used to be able to fall asleep almost as soon as I hit the pillow, to the point I hardly remembered laying down. That was after playing my DS until bedtime too.
I never trust studies like this. Too many variables and always use too small a sample size.
Having said that, it is worse to have like sugar or caffeine than to play video games.
- Getting more than 17 subjects to do a study like this is often prohibitively expensive and time-consuming
- Their conclusions would be limited to males, but most gamers are male (and so are you, so I don't see why this is a criticism)
- See above
- Do they need to? I haven't read the article but it's less likely that the researchers will try to make sweeping generalisations about it than the Jack Thompsons of the world. Maybe it isn't any better or worse than TV or other games, but that's hardly a defense of the behaviour.
I'm not trying to have a go at you specifically, just the general trend of disagreeing with a conclusion on principle and then thinking of reasons why. Case-in-point: you criticise it for only having 17 subjects, and then use yourself as a single, biased case study as to why it's bogus?
Let's be honest people, this isn't a surprising finding. It's amazing how many people will come crawling out the woodwork to attack something they disagree with, pretend they know diddly shit about the scientific method, etc. based on their reading of a news article rather than the actual study. If people use this information to start legislating against video games or something then yeah, they're out of their goddamned minds, but the scientists themselves haven't done anything other than share what they've found as far as I'm aware? Apologies if I'm wrong, but otherwise give them a break, goddamn.
I've played games up to the point to where I just hit the pillow and it took me an average of one hour 20 minutes to get to sleep up to the age 19.
Still takes me a little while though and I've also done a head on table, controller in hand with drool and snores like the guy up there a few times. (I'm secretly proud of that... oh snap)
Certain video games do cause certain people to become sluggish. I've fallen asleep playing a couple of turn-based RPG's before, so it's definitely possible for someone to fall asleep at the video game console (or handheld).
What in the name of Odin where they doing? That's not anywhere near a proper number of subjects! Not to mention, it's an odd number! There are two *bleep*ing groups! THIS IS A DISGRACE TO THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD!
Oh well, Borderlands > Sleep anyway.
prev next
1 2 3