Towards Cognitive Adaptive Serious Games: A Conceptual Framework

  • Andrew J. A. SeyderhelmEmail author
  • Karen L. Blackmore
  • Keith Nesbitt
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11863)


Games and immersive training environments frequently rely on user performance measures to adapt the difficulty of tasks and behaviors, responding dynamically to changes in performance. However, users may maintain task performance while experiencing increasing levels of cognitive load. These high levels of load mean the user has no spare capacity and may fail to get the maximum benefit from the training task. While other adaptive mechanisms exist, they do not account well for cognitive load and thus may not be optimal for training tasks. In this paper we outline a conceptual framework for using real-time measures of cognitive load to dynamically adapt immersive environments. We argue that these measures have the benefit of providing a richer mix of data to base adaption on beyond simple performance metrics, and additionally provide further metrics to assess both the learner and the training material. To this end, a Cognitive Adaptive Serious Game Framework (CASG-F) is presented that draws on frameworks and theories of cognitive load and serious games. We additionally outline the range of potential mechanics and environment parameters that could potentially be adjusted to modify difficulty.


Serious games Conceptual model Cognitive load Adaptive 


  1. 1.
    Kapp, K.M.: The Gamification of Learning and Instruction: Game-Based Methods and Strategies for Training and Education. Wiley, San Francisco (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Connolly, T.M., Boyle, E.A., MacArthur, E., Hainey, T., Boyle, J.M.: A systematic literature review of empirical evidence on computer games and serious games. Comput. Educ. 59(2), 661–686 (2012). Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hamari, J., Shernoff, D.J., Rowe, E., Coller, B., Asbell-Clarke, J., Edwards, T.: Challenging games help students learn: an empirical study on engagement, flow and immersion in game-based learning. Comput. Hum. Behav. 54, 170–179 (2016). Scholar
  4. 4.
    Loh, C.S., Sheng, Y., Ifenthaler, D.: Serious games analytics: theoretical framework. In: Loh, C.S., Sheng, Y., Ifenthaler, D. (eds.) Serious Games Analytics. AGL, pp. 3–29. Springer, Cham (2015). Scholar
  5. 5.
    Crookall, D.: Serious games, debriefing, and simulation/gaming as a discipline. Simul. Gaming 41(6), 898–920 (2010). Scholar
  6. 6.
    Landsberg, C.R., Astwood, R.S., Van Buskirk, W.L., Townsend, L.N., Steinhauser, N.B., Mercado, A.D.: Review of adaptive training system techniques. Mil. Psychol. 24(2), 96–113 (2012). Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hunicke, R.: The case for dynamic difficulty adjustment in games. In: Proceedings of the 2005 ACM SIGCHI International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology, pp. 429–433. ACM (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Xue, S., Wu, M., Kolen, J., Aghdaie, N., Zaman, K.A.: Dynamic difficulty adjustment for maximized engagement in digital games. In: Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web Companion, pp. 465–471. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee (2017)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Moreno, R., Mayer, R.: Interactive multimodal learning environments. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 19(3), 309–326 (2007). Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zohaib, M.: Dynamic difficulty adjustment (DDA) in computer games: a review. Adv. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 2018, 1–12 (2018). Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dziedzic, D., Włodarczyk, W.: Approaches to measuring the difficulty of games in dynamic difficulty adjustment systems. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 34(8), 707–715 (2018). Scholar
  12. 12.
    Alexander, J.T., Sear, J., Oikonomou, A.: An investigation of the effects of game difficulty on player enjoyment. Entertain. Comput. 4(1), 53–62 (2013). Scholar
  13. 13.
    Burns, A., Tulip, J.: Detecting flow in games using facial expressions. In: 2017 IEEE Conference on Computational Intelligence and Games (CIG), pp. 45–52. IEEE (2017)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hookham, G., Nesbitt, K.: A systematic review of the definition and measurement of engagement in serious games. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Australasian Computer Science Week Multiconference on - ACSW 2019 (2019)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Greitzer, F.L., Kuchar, O.A., Huston, K.: Cognitive science implications for enhancing training effectiveness in a serious gaming context. J. Educ. Resour. Comput. (JERIC) 7(3), 2 (2007). Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mayer, R.E., Moreno, R.: Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educ. Psychol. 38(1), 43–52 (2003). Scholar
  17. 17.
    Paas, F., Van Gog, T., Sweller, J.: Cognitive load theory: new conceptualizations, specifications, and integrated research perspectives. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 22(2), 115–121 (2010). Scholar
  18. 18.
    Paas, F., Renkl, A., Sweller, J.: Cognitive load theory and instructional design: recent developments. Educ. Psychol. 38(1), 1–4 (2003). Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hart, S.G., Staveland, L.E.: Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): results of empirical and theoretical research. In: Advances in Psychology, vol. 52, pp. 139–183. Elsevier (1988)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hart, S.G.: NASA-task load index (NASA-TLX); 20 years later. In: 2006 Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, vol. 9, pp. 904–908. Sage publications Sage CA, Los Angeles (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Harbluk, J.L., Burns, P.C., Tam, J., Glazduri, V.: Detection response tasks: using remote, headmounted and Tactile signals to assess cognitive demand while driving (2013).
  22. 22.
    Stojmenova, K., Sodnik, J.: Detection-response task-uses and limitations. Sensors (Basel) 18(2) (2018). Scholar
  23. 23.
    Liu, P., Li, Z.: Task complexity: a review and conceptualization framework. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 42(6), 553–568 (2012). Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yusoff, A., Crowder, R., Gilbert, L., Wills, G.: A conceptual framework for serious games. In: 2009 Ninth IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, pp. 21–23. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Annetta, L.A.: The “I’s” have it: a framework for serious educational game design. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 14(2), 105–113 (2010). Scholar
  26. 26.
    Keller, J.M.: Development and use of the ARCS model of instructional design. J. Instr. Dev. 10(3), 2 (1987). Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rooney, P.: A theoretical framework for serious game design: exploring pedagogy, play and fidelity and their implications for the design process. Int. J. Game-Based Learn. (IJGBL) 2(4), 41–60 (2012). Scholar
  28. 28.
    Conti, A., Dlugosch, C., Vilimek, R., Keinath, A., Bengler, K.: An assessment of cognitive workload using detection response tasks. In: Advances in Human Factors and Ergonomics Series. Advances in Human Aspects of Road and Rail Transportation, pp. 735–743 (2012).

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Electrical Engineering and ComputingUniversity of NewcastleCallaghanAustralia

Personalised recommendations