Blog Post #17- Biofeedback Game Design

Reference

Authors:  
Lennart Erik Nacke     University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
Michael Kalyn     University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
Calvin Lough     University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
Regan Lee Mandryk     University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada

Published In:
CHI '11 Proceedings of the 2011 annual conference on Human factors in computing systems University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada

Summary

The authors of the paper, "Biofeedback Game Design" wish to approach the design of electronic games using "physiological" input methods. By physiological input methods, they are referring to things such as: heart rate (HR) monitors and galvanic skin response (GSR) monitors.  Traditional methods of combining video games with these forms of inputs, end up with simple games that use HR or GSR sensors as the primary form of input.  According to the authors, this is a faulty method of game design because these types of sensors are "passive;" the user cannot actively control these responses, thus leading to either boring game play, or simple relaxation based games.  In order to correct this discrepancy, the authors created a simple game that utilizes what they call direct physiological inputs.  Examples of these kinds of inputs are: muscle flexation, breathing patterns, eye gaze, change of temperature (a la blowing hot air).  These are all types of inputs that can be directly controlled by the user. The authors then spent about one to two pages explaining the game they created and how various physiological sensors interact with the game itself.  To test the use of physiological inputs the authors created three different games, two with different kinds of sensors and one without any to act as a control.  The study used ten subject (seven of which were male) who had varying degrees of experience with video games and novel forms of input (i.e. the Nintendo Wii or Rockband Guitar system).  The results of the study showed the users all preferred the two games with novel inputs rather than the control game.  Furthermore, when asked which novel inputs they enjoyed the most, the direct senors got much more votes than the passive sensors did all across the board.


Discussion

Right off the bat I can say the authors did not have nearly enough participants in their study.  Ten is such a low number, it cannot capture the general audience of video games or eliminate the outliers who for some reason or other dislike novel forms on input in video games.  Also, as mentioned later in the paper, all of the participants are "causal gamers" (aka, really, really bad players).  Four of the participants even admitted to only playing video games a few times per year.  Given the limited number of subjects I would think the authors would have stuck with at least players who play once a week rather than people who never game at all.  Other than this, I found the concepts in the paper agreeable.  When discussing the difference between direct and passive forms of physiological input, I  agreed that direct inputs seemed more natural and rewarding to the player (even without having played the game they developed).  I could definitely see the eye tracking make its way into future games, but the others I am not sure of.  I am sure someone will eventually try it, but whether it is successful remains to be seen.