Journal of Cognitive Enhancement

, Volume 3, Issue 1, pp 52–63 | Cite as

Design and Evaluation of the Interactive Mindfulness Program and Virtual Evaluation (IMProVE) Game

  • Jacek SliwinskiEmail author
  • Mary Katsikitis
  • Christian Martyn Jones
Original Article


This paper evaluated a novel digital game for mindfulness training and assessment. The Interactive Mindfulness Program and Virtual Evaluation (IMProVE) was built as part of a systematic research-based process that investigated how technology can be used to cultivate mindfulness. Developed as an infinite runner game, IMProVE targets eight mindfulness factors, as defined by the Comprehensive Inventory of Mindfulness Experiences, by means of embedded game design elements. Embedded metrics measure the player’s objective level of mindfulness as deduced by play style and performance. Ninety-four participants tested IMProVE for its efficacy on state mindfulness and user experience. Mixed results were obtained, with a significant learning effect on state mindfulness on one of the two instruments only, which did not correspond with the embedded metrics. Effects on individual mindfulness factors reached significance in two cases. IMProVE’s user experience was rated overall as very positive, supporting its potential for mindfulness training and assessment. The limitations of the game and its evaluation study are discussed in detail.


Mindfulness Game design Training Measurement Evaluation 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. Ahmed, M. M. H., Silpasuwanchai, C., Niksirat, K. S., & Ren, X. (2017). Understanding the role of human senses in interactive meditation Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 4960–4965): ACM.Google Scholar
  2. Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J., & Toney, L. (2006). Using self-report assessment methods to explore facets of mindfulness. Assessment, 13(1), 27–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 57(1), 289–300.Google Scholar
  4. Bergomi, C., Tschacher, W., & Kupper, Z. (2013). Measuring mindfulness: First steps towards the development of a comprehensive mindfulness scale. Mindfulness, 4(1), 18–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bergomi, C., Tschacher, W., & Kupper, Z. (2014). Construction and first validation of the comprehensive inventory of mindfulness experiences. Diagnostica, 60(3), 111–125. Scholar
  6. Bishop, S. R., Lau, M., Shapiro, S., Carlson, L., Anderson, N. D., Carmody, J., Segal, Z. V., Abbey, S., Speca, M., & Velting, D. (2004). Mindfulness: A proposed operational definition. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 11(3), 230–241.Google Scholar
  7. Boettcher, J., Åström, V., Påhlsson, D., Schenström, O., Andersson, G., & Carlbring, P. (2014). Internet-based mindfulness treatment for anxiety disorders: A randomized controlled trial. Behavior Therapy, 45(2), 241–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cayoun, B. (2011). Mindfulness-integrated CBT: Principles and practice. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chiesa, A. (2013). The difficulty of defining mindfulness: Current thought and critical issues. Mindfulness, 4(3), 255–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chittaro, L., & Vianello, A. (2014). Computer-supported mindfulness: Evaluation of a mobile thought distancing application on naive meditators. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 72(3), 337–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dreyfus, G. (2011). Is mindfulness present-centred and non-judgmental? A discussion of the cognitive dimensions of mindfulness. Contemporary Buddhism, 12(01), 41–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Farias, M., & Wikholm, C. (2016). Has the science of mindfulness lost its mind? BJPsych Bull, 40(6), 329–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hunicke, R., LeBlanc, M., & Zubek, R. (2004). MDA: A formal approach to game design and game research. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop on Challenges in Game AI.Google Scholar
  14. Lappalainen, P., Granlund, A., Siltanen, S., Ahonen, S., Vitikainen, M., Tolvanen, A., & Lappalainen, R. (2014). ACT internet-based vs face-to-face? A randomized controlled trial of two ways to deliver acceptance and commitment therapy for depressive symptoms: An 18-month follow-up. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 61, 43–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lau, M. A., Bishop, S. R., Segal, Z. V., Buis, T., Anderson, N. D., Carlson, L., Shapiro, S., Carmody, J., Abbey, S., & Devins, G. (2006). The Toronto Mindfulness Scale: Development and validation. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62(12), 1445–1467. Scholar
  16. Laugwitz, B., Held, T., & Schrepp, M. (2008). Construction and evaluation of a user experience questionnaire. Symposium of the Austrian HCI and Usability Engineering Group (pp. 63–76): Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Levinson, D. B., Stoll, E. L., Kindy, S. D., Merry, H. L., & Davidson, R. J. (2014). A mind you can count on: Validating breath counting as a behavioral measure of mindfulness. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(1202).
  18. Lomas, T., Cartwright, T., Edginton, T., & Ridge, D. (2015). A qualitative analysis of experiential challenges associated with meditation practice. Mindfulness, 6(5), 848–860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Malinowski, P. (2008). Mindfulness as psychological dimension: Concepts and applications. The Irish Journal of Psychology, 29(1–2), 155–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Park, T., Reilly-spong, M., & Gross, C. R. (2013). Mindfulness: A systematic review of instruments to measure an emergent patient-reported outcome (PRO). Quality of Life Research, 22(10), 2639–2659. Scholar
  21. Plaza, I., Demarzo, M. M. P., Herrera-Mercadal, P., & García-Campayo, J. (2013). Mindfulness-based mobile applications: Literature review and analysis of current features. JMIR mhealth and uhealth, 1(2), e24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sedlmeier, P., Eberth, J., Schwarz, M., Zimmermann, D., Haarig, F., Jaeger, S., & Kunze, S. (2012). The psychological effects of meditation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138(6), 1139–1171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sliwinski, J., Katsikitis, M., & Jones, C. M. (2015). Mindful gaming: How digital games can improve mindfulness. Human-Computer Interaction–INTERACT 2015 (pp. 167–184): Springer.Google Scholar
  24. Sliwinski, J., Katsikitis, M., & Jones, C. M. (2018a). Designing and Evaluating Games for Mindfulness. Computers in Entertainment (CIE), 16(3), 1-15. Google Scholar
  25. Sliwinski, J., Katsikitis, M., & Jones, C. M. (2018b). Design and Evaluation of Smartphone-based Training for Mindfulness and Openness to Experience. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Game and Entertainment Technologies (pp. 177-184): IADIS.Google Scholar
  26. Tanay, G., & Bernstein, A. (2013). State Mindfulness Scale (SMS): Development and initial validation. Psychological Assessment, 25(4), 1286–1299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Vacca, R. (2016). Designing for interactive loving and kindness meditation on mobile. Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1772–1778): ACM.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of the Sunshine CoastSippy DownsAustralia

Personalised recommendations