Advertisement

Classification of Different Cognitive and Affective States in Computer Game Players Using Physiology, Performance and Intrinsic Factors

  • Ali Darzi
  • Trent Wondra
  • Sean McCrea
  • Domen Novak
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 903)

Abstract

Intelligent systems infer human psychological states using three types of data: physiology, performance, and intrinsic factors. To date, few studies have compared the performance of the data types in classification of psychological states. This study compares the accuracy of three data types in classification of four psychological states and two game difficulty-related parameters. Thirty subjects played nine scenarios (different difficulty levels) of a computer game, during which seven physiological measurements and two performance variables were recorded. Then, a short questionnaire was filled out to assess the perceived difficulty, enjoyment, valence and arousal, and the way the participant would like to change two game parameters. Furthermore, participants’ intrinsic factors were assessed using four questionnaires. All combinations of the three datasets were used to classify six aspects of the short questionnaire into either two or three classes using three types of classifiers. The highest accuracies for two-class and three-class classification were 98.4% and 81.5%, respectively.

Keywords

Affective computing Game difficulty adaptation Physiological measurements Task performance Intrinsic factors 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Research supported by the National Science Foundation under grant no. 1717705 as well as by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health under grant no. P20GM103432.

References

  1. 1.
    Tan, C.H., Tan, K.C., Tay, A.: Dynamic Game Difficulty Scaling Using Adaptive Behavior-Based AI. IEEE Trans. Comput. Intell. AI Games 3, 289–301 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zhang, X., Lyu, Y., Hu, X., Hu, Z., Shi, Y., Yin, H.: Evaluating Photoplethysmogram as a Real-Time Cognitive Load Assessment during Game Playing. Int. J. Human-Computer Interact. 34, 695–706 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Darzi, A., Gaweesh, S.M., Ahmed, M.M., Novak, D.: Identifying the Causes of Drivers’ Hazardous States Using Driver Characteristics, Vehicle Kinematics, and Physiological Measurements. Front. Neurosci. 12, (2018)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ma, J., Zhang, Y., Cichocki, A., Matsuno, F.: A Novel EOG/EEG Hybrid Human-Machine Interface Adopting Eye Movements and ERPs: Application to Robot Control. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 62, 876–889 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rodriguez-Guerrero, C., Knaepen, K., Fraile-Marinero, J.C., Perez-Turiel, J., Gonzalez-de-Garibay, V., Lefeber, D.: Improving Challenge/Skill Ratio in a Multimodal Interface by Simultaneously Adapting Game Difficulty and Haptic Assistance through Psychophysiological and Performance Feedback. Front. Neurosci. 11, (2017)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Picard, R.W., Vyzas, E., Healey, J.: Toward machine emotional intelligence: analysis of affective physiological state. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 23, 1175–1191 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goršič, M., Cikajlo, I., Novak, D.: Competitive and cooperative arm rehabilitation games played by a patient and unimpaired person: effects on motivation and exercise intensity. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 14, 23 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Reuderink, B., Mühl, C., Poel, M.: Valence, arousal and dominance in the EEG during game play. Int. J. Auton. Adapt. Commun. Syst. 6, 45 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kim, T.T., Lee, G.: Hospitality employee knowledge-sharing behaviors in the relationship between goal orientations and service innovative behavior. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 34, 324–337 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Carver, C.S., White, T.L.: Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS Scales. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 67, 319–333 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hsia, L.-H., Huang, I., Hwang, G.-J.: Effects of different online peer-feedback approaches on students’ performance skills, motivation and self-efficacy in a dance course. Comput. Educ. 96, 55–71 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gosling, S.D., Rentfrow, P.J., Swann, W.B.: A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. J. Res. Pers. 37, 504–528 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Darzi, A., Gorsic, M., Novak, D.: Difficulty adaptation in a competitive arm rehabilitation game using real-time control of arm electromyogram and respiration. In: 2017 International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR). pp. 857–862. IEEE (2017)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Klem, G.H., Lüders, H.O., Jasper, H.H., Elger, C.: The ten-twenty electrode system of the International Federation. The International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol, Suppl (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ali Darzi
    • 1
  • Trent Wondra
    • 2
  • Sean McCrea
    • 2
  • Domen Novak
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Electrical and Computer EngineeringUniversity of WyomingLaramieUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of WyomingLaramieUSA

Personalised recommendations