Using Game-Based Environments to Measure Cognitive Decision Making

  • Laura A. WatersEmail author
  • Karen L. Blackmore
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11863)


Within the area of serious games research, there is significant potential for researchers and other stakeholders to use serious games to gain more fundamental understanding of the underlying cognitive processes of individual users or participants. In this research, we present the results of an experiment to benchmark a visual search task presented in a 3d game-like environment with a standard, controlled, lab based implementation. Our results show similar trends in performance measures across experimental conditions in the two environments, however, participants were faster and more accurate overall in the 3d game-like environment. There is significant potential for researchers and other stakeholders to utilise serious games platforms as a means of measuring human cognition within environments that are visually more closely related to ‘real-life’ than those used in cognitive psychology.


3D environment Cognition Visual search task Decision making 


  1. 1.
    Busch, M., et al.: Using player type models for personalized game design-an empirical investigation. Interact. Des. Archit. 28, 145–163 (2016)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Castel, A.D., Pratt, J., Drummond, E.: The effects of action video game experience on the time course of inhibition of return and the efficiency of visual search. Acta Psychologica 119(2), 217–230 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gunter, G., Kenny, R.F., Vick, E.H.: A case for a formal design paradigm for serious games. J. Int. Digit. Media Arts Assoc. 3(1), 93–105 (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bohemia Interactive. Virtual Battlespace 3. 2015. Accessed 2019
  5. 5.
    Ladouce, S., et al.: Understanding minds in real-world environments: toward a mobile cognition approach. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 10, 694 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lee, M.-S., et al.: Characteristics of internet use in relation to game genre in Korean adolescents. CyberPsychol. Behav. 10(2), 278–285 (2007). PMID: 17474846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mayer, I., et al.: The research and evaluation of serious games: toward a comprehensive methodology. BJET 45, 502–527 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Norman, G.: Generalization and the qualitative-quantitative debate. Adv. Health Sci. Educ. 22(5), 1051–1055 (2017). ISSN 1573-1677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Quinn, C.N.: Engaging Learning: Designing E-Learning Simulation Games. Wiley, Hoboken (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ritterfeld, U., Cody, M., Vorderer, P.: Serious Games: Mechanisms and Effects. Routledge, Abingdon (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shute, V.J.: Learning Processes and Learning Outcomes. English. Distributed by ERIC Clearinghouse, Washington, D.C., 38 p. (1992).
  12. 12.
    Smith, S.P., Blackmore, K., Nesbitt, K.: A meta-analysis of data collection in serious games research. In: Loh, C.S., Sheng, Y., Ifenthaler, D. (eds.) Serious Games Analytics. AGL, pp. 31–55. Springer, Cham (2015). ISBN 978-3-319-05834-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Townsend, J.T.: Serial vs. parallel processing: sometimes they look like tweedledum and tweedledee but they can (and should) be distinguished. Psychol. Sci. 1(1), 46–54 (1990). Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wolfe, J.M.: Visual attention. In: Seeing, pp. 335–386. Elsevier (2000)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yusoff, A., et al.: A conceptual framework for serious games. In: 2009 Ninth IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, pp. 21–23, July 2009.

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The University of NewcastleCallaghanAustralia

Personalised recommendations