Paper Reading #18 :Biofeedback Game Design: Using Direct and Indirect Physiological Control to Enhance Game Interaction

Reference

Authors: Lennart E. Nacke, Michael Kalyn, Calvin Lough, Regan L. Mandryk

Affiliation :Department of Computer Science,University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada

Presentation: CHI 2011, May 7–12, 2011, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

Summary

Hypothesis

Taking into consideration that prior work on physiological game interaction has focused only on dynamically adapting games using physiological sensors, the authors in this paper hypothesize a classification of direct and indirect physiological sensor input to augment traditional game control.

Contents

The paper starts with the challenge of integrating the physiological interaction in gaming environment where traditional controls provide better functionality and interface. They came with idea of augmenting the traditional controls rather than replacing them. To investigate direct and indirect physiological control, they developed a single-player 2D side-scrolling shooter game that used standard controller mappings in Xbox360 shooter games. People were rather excited about using the direct physiological controls compared to the traditional ones.

Methods

To evaluate the relative appeal of direct and indirect physiological control, participants(Ten participants (7 male), aged 21 to 40 (M=25.8, SD=5.5))played three versions of a game, two augmented with physiological input and one with in traditional controls condition. . Each participant played through an initial training level to get accustomed to the game controls before the trial started. EMG, RESP, and gaze tracking were recalibrated before each game condition.Participants played each game condition for 10 minutes or until they completed the level (10-35 min.).After each game, players completed a survey, rating their game-play experience and physiological controls.

Results

Fun Ratings: players found both physiological control conditions to be more fun than the non physiological control condition (both Z=2.1, both p=.033), but no difference was found between the two physiological control conditions (Z=0, p=1.0). 9 of 10 players preferred to use physiological control while playing.

Novelty Ratings: Asked to rank the novelty of the controls, participants agreed that the physiological control was novel (M=4.2, SD=0.79).Some players mentioned that there was a learning curve involved in learning to use the sensor, but once they learned to use it, the experience was more rewarding.

Sensor Preference: Over the course of the two games, 12/20 votes were for gaze input, 5 were for RESP, and one for each of TEMP, EMG and GSR. They as well preferred direct control to indirect control.

Discussion

The research provides a novel way of interaction and control in games. The most important aspect for me was that the new design was not replacing the traditional controls but was instead supplementing them to provide better results. As was the case that the users were not pro gamers , we can definitely find more pros and as well as cons of this technology as we go through more rigorous and versatile user testing. This application surely can have a huge impact on how games will be played in coming years, but I am not sure how it can affect gaming on mobile computing devices like phones and tablets given their popularity now.