Safer Shooting and Brain Training
While an “itchy trigger finger” is thought to be the cause of unjustified shootings, scientists say that the problem may indicate an “itchy brain” instead.
The finding, by researchers from Duke University, was published in the journal Psychological Science.
The sudden decision to not shoot, called “response inhibition,” is critical when someone innocent comes into the line of fire, according to a news release from the university. But the opposite – the tendency to squeeze the trigger in error – can be predicted with cognitive tests and can be overcome by training in response inhibition.
“Shooting a firearm is a complex activity, and when you couple that action with the conditions encountered by military and law enforcement personnel, firearms training can be even more complicated,” said Adam Biggs, a visiting scholar at Duke’s Center for Cognitive Neuroscience.
“Cognitive tests and training offer some exciting new methods for enhancing shooting abilities, and thereby avoiding some of the most critical shooting errors, such as civilian casualties,” Biggs added.
In the new study, 88 young adults played a simulated shooting game on Nintendo Wii called “Reload: Target Down.” The objective is to shoot armed people as quickly and as accurately as possible, while avoiding unarmed civilians.
After playing, the participants took surveys that assessed their ability to pay attention, signs of motor impulsivity such as finger tapping or restless behaviors, features of autism spectrum disorders and other characteristics. Individuals also took baseline computerized tests of their ability to withhold responses and to do visual search.
The scientists found that the more attention problems a person had, the more likely he or she was to shoot civilians in the simulation. Motor impulsivity, in contrast, did not predict the number of civilian casualties.
The study also included some cognitive training to see what might make a difference.
One group underwent training designed to prevent civilian casualties by enhancing response inhibition through a series of computer-based exercises. The other group underwent cognitive training unrelated to the shooting task to show whether any kind of training sessions would make a difference. Each training group completed three hour-long sessions over the course of three days.
On the last day of the study, all of the participants played the shooting game again. The scientists found that people who had completed response inhibition training shot fewer civilians than they did before training. In contrast, the control group’s performance was unchanged.
One potential concern about response inhibition training was that participants were simply trained to shoot less. But, “that answer is a definite ‘no,'” Biggs added. “The people in response inhibition training shot more of the right targets and fewer of the wrong ones during their post-training simulations.”