Predictability and Plausibility in Interactive Narrative Constructs: A Case for an ERP Study

  • Bjørn Anker GjølEmail author
  • Niels Valentin Jørgensen
  • Mathias Ramsø Thomsen
  • Luis Emilio BruniEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11318)


It is a common assumption that subjects unconsciously construct storyworlds in their minds when experiencing a narrative. In this article we suggest that this construction includes imagined rules and constraints that if violated may affect the subjects’ suspension of disbelief. In this direction, we examine whether the cognitive processing of people experiencing interactive narratives varies based on whether the outcomes of their actions are perceived to be predictable and plausible, according to the narrative context. In order to explore this hypothesis, we devised an event-related-potential experiment and created a video game featuring a number of player-instigated narrative events within three different categories: (a) predictable-plausible, (b) unpredictable-plausible, and (c) unpredictable-implausible. Based on the analysis of the N400 and P600 ERP components, our results show that there is a significant detectable difference between the three categories. Additionally, the results strongly indicate that experiencers of interactive narratives do indeed create storyworlds’ rules and constraints in their minds, and that the imagined rules of these worlds can be felt to be broken by implausible events.


Predictability Plausibility Narrative cognition Interactive narratives Psychophysiology EEG ERP N400 P600 



We would like to thank Morten Porsing and Philip Andreas Kingo for their help in the early stages of this project, and in particular their help in creating the game Quality Control, and Andreas Wulff-Jensen for his help in setting up the experiment at the Augmented Cognition Lab at Aalborg University.


  1. 1.
    Ryan, M.L.: Avatars of Story, New edn. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Herman, D.: Storytelling and the sciences of mind: cognitive narratology, discursive psychology, and narratives in face-to-face interaction. Narrative 15, 306–334 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bruni, L.E., Baceviciute, S., Arief, M.: Narrative cognition in interactive systems: suspense-surprise and the P300 ERP component. In: Mitchell, A., Fernández-Vara, C., Thue, D. (eds.) ICIDS 2014. LNCS, vol. 8832, pp. 164–175. Springer, Cham (2014). Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sanford, A.J., Emmott, C.: Mind, Brain and Narrative. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ryan, M.L.: Narratology and cognitive science: a problematic relation. Style 44(4), 469–495 (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kivikangas, J.M., et al.: Review on psychophysiological methods in game research. In: Nordic DiGRA Conference, Stockholm, Sweden, 16–17 August 2010, Nordic Digra (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lee, Y.: Narrative cognition and modeling in new media communication from peirce’s semiotic perspective. Semiotica 2012, 181–195 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bruni, L.E., Baceviciute, S.: On the embedded cognition of non-verbal narratives. Sign Syst. Stud. 42, 359–375 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rouse III, R.: Game Design: Theory and Practice, 2nd edn. Wordware Publishing, Plano (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Oxford English dictionary. Accessed 15 Dec 2017
  11. 11.
    Oxford English dictionary. Accessed 15 Dec 2017
  12. 12.
    Hall, A.: Reading realism: audiences’ evaluations of the reality of media texts. J. Commun. 53(4), 624–641 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Muckler, V.C.: Exploring suspension of disbelief during simulation-based learning. Clin. Simul. Nurs. 13(1), 3–9 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Teplan, M.: Fundamental of EEG measurement. Meas. Sci. Rev. 2, 1–11 (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Duncan, C.C., et al.: Event-related potentials in clinical research: guidelines for eliciting, recording, and quantifying mismatch negativity, p300, and n400. Clin. Neuropsychol. 120, 1883–1908 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kuitunen, A.: Integrated semantic processing of complex pictures and spoken sentences - evidence from event-related potentials (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kutas, M., Federmeier, K.D.: N400. Scholarpedia 4(10), 7790 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kutas, M., Hillyard, S.A.: Reading senseless sentences: brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science 207(4427), 203–205 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Frishkoff, G., Tucker, D.: Anatomy of the N400: brain electrical activity in propositional semantics. University of Oregon, Brain Electrophysiology Lab (2000)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kutas, M., Federmeier, K.D.: Thirty years and counting: Finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). Annu. Rev. Psychol. 62(1), 621–647 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Regel, S., Meyer, L., Gunter, T.C.: Distinguishing neurocognitive processes reflected by P600 effects: Evidence from ERPs and neural oscillations. PLoS One 9(5), e96840 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Meerendonk, N.V.D., Kolk, H.H.J., Chwilla, D.J., Vissers, C.T.W.M.: Monitoring in language perception. Lang. Linguist. Compass 3(5), 1211–1224 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Maganioti, A.E., Hountala, C.D., Papageorgiou, C.C., Kyprianou, M.A., Rabavilas, A.D., Capsalis, C.N.: Principal component analysis of the P600 waveform: RF and gender effects. Neurosci. Lett. 478, 19–23 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Brouwer, H., Fitz, H., Hoeks, J.: Getting real about semantic illusions: rethinking the functional role of the P600 in language comprehension. Brain Res. 1446, 127–43 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jasper, H.H.: The ten-twenty electrode system of the international federation. Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol. 10, 371–375 (1958)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chow, W.Y., Phillips, C.: No semantic illusions in the “semantic P600” phenomenon: ERP evidence from mandarin chinese. Brain Res. 1506, 76–93 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Aalborg University CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark
  2. 2.Augmented Cognition LabAalborg University CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations