Conference - CHI 2011 Conference on Human Factors in Computer Systems
Location - Vancouver, BC, Canada
Date - May 7-12, 2011
Authors:
Lennart Erik Nacke - An assistant professor for HCI and Game Science at the Faculty of Business and Information Technology in the University of Ontario Institute of Technology. He has interest in game design and player psychology. Did this research under University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.
Michael Kalyn - A student under Dr. Mandryk. He graduated in Computer Engineering and is currently still under Computer Science course. He is researching Affective Computing. Did this research under University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.
Calvin Lough - He is researching Affective Computing. Did this research under University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.
Regan Lee Mandryk - An assistant professor in the Department of Computer Science at the University of Saskatchewan. Her primary research areas are Affective Computing, Ubiquitous and Mobile Gaming, and Interaction Techniques. Did this research under University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.
Summary:
Hypothesis -
Can physiological controls be used to augment and enhance a user's experience in games? If so, which type of physiological control is preferred as input, direct or indirect?
Methods -
This study was conducted by testing several direct and indirect physiological controls as inputs to a 2D side-scrolling shooter that was developed for this test. The researchers selected 6 physiological controls. Gaze Location, Temperature, Muscle Activity, Skin Conductance, Respiratory and Heart Rate. Out of these, Gaze Location, Temperature, Respiratory and Muscle Activity were considered as direct physiological input. Skin Conductance and Heart Rate were classified as indirect input.
The researchers gathered a group of 10 users and asked them to play the game with physiological sensors, in addition to the traditional game controller. The game was designed with several game-play mechanics that require physiological input. These mechanics were Enemy Target Size, Speed/Jump Height, Flamethrower Length, Final Boss Conditions, and Medusa Gaze Skill. This was tested under two different conditions of various indirect and direct input combinations and one control test without any physiological inputs.
Each user played under each condition and the control for 10 minutes or until they complete the level. After each play-through, the players were asked to answer a survey relating to their experiences. They also answered a final survey, after completing all game runs, about their opinions about physiological controls.
Results -
From the experiment, researchers concluded several things.
- Additional physiological controls added more fun than only using traditional gaming controls.
- Physiological control was a fun game-play mechanic in itself, as it added a new challenging dimension to the game.
- Players preferred the use of direct physiological controls because of better responses.
- Physiological controls were effective when mapped to appropriate and coherent game mechanics.
- Indirect physiological controls were not effective for direct control of a character or actions but may find use in altering the passive game environment.
Additional Details -
The study was conducted with 10 people, 7 male and 3 female. All are relatively familiar with games and are casual gamers, with most having around average level of skill for the tested gametype. In addition, most of the participants are familiar with novel forms of controller input such as with the Nintendo Wii, Nintendo DS, and Rock Band controllers.
The game mechanics that were tested with physiological controls were Enemy Target Size, Speed/Jump Height, Flamethrower Length, Final Boss Conditions, and Medusa Gaze Skill. Enemy Target Size was tested first with Respiratory control, then with Skin Conductance. Speed/Jump Height was controlled Heart Rate and Muscle Activity. Flamethrower Length was determined by Skin Conductance and Respiratory. Final Boss Conditions were controlled with Temperature, then Heart Rate. The Medusa Gaze skill only used Gaze Detection. Finally, character movement and actions were controlled by traditional controller in all test cases.
After the tests, the participants said that the gaming experience was more fun with the additional physiological controls than without. Also, the users stated that they preferred the direct methods of physiological control over indirect. This is because the direct methods have a better response and easier manipulation than the indirect. Most of the participants found indirect controls react slowly or hard to determine if they are active at all. Also, some participants found that some of the controls may cause additional controls to activate, such as increasing breathing leading to increased heart rate.
For the experience, the users expressed that they enjoyed the level of immersion that the physiological controls. They especially enjoyed the experience more if they did not notice the sensors. Many were aware that they had the respiratory control strapped to them, but for the gaze and muscle contraction controls, they did not notice them and their actions felt intuitive. They also noted that indirect controls could be of better use for manipulation of the game environment than actual character control.
The researchers noted that there are some limitations. The physiological controls worked well when tested, but may be harder to keep consistent with longer game-play times. They knew that naturally mapping the physiological controls allowed for better performance, however, not all game types and genres can use the same type of mapping. The researchers also find that integrating more physiological controls in modern gaming may be difficult but not impossible. This is because most of the sensors are already available and relatively low in cost. They said it would be up to the game developers to design games with these types of controls in mind.
Discussion:
I found this paper to be very interesting. I believe that they tested their hypothesis effectively and with believable results. They mentioned that research into physiological controls for video games has been around for many years. However, these physiological controls were the primary input devices that replaced the traditional controller. They chose to use these controls to augment game-play with the traditional controller.
One thing, I found neat was that all the multiple sensors were deployed all at once and target different parts of the body. This allows users to get their entire body reactions to control the game instead of just button pressing, which would lead to an immersive experience. If better integration and hiding of these sensors can be done in the near future, I believe it would be a viable mode of play in future games. With the addition of more 3D enabled games in the market, as well as games that require direct movement controls (Nintendo Wii, Microsoft Kinect, Playstation Move), I think the game industry may be close to achieving Augmented Reality or Virtual Reality in games.
I believe that this technology can also be used outside of games. The researchers mentioned that indirect physiological control can eventually turn into direct physiological control when users get adjusted to the environment. This is part of the biofeedback design. The game gives them reinforcement for their actions. This means that these games can be used for therapy, like controlling heart rate or stress levels. In addition, I think this can be used for more military training. Video games have already been in use in the military to train soldiers. With this technology, they can train under various conditions and simulate things that happen on the field than soldiers just testing through a screen and controller.
Video: http://vimeo.com/18807782
