Via Mark Griffiths’ Twitter, a Huffington Post article discussed about how playing video games can leave some perceptual aftereffects called Game Transfer Phenomena. The article is based on a recent publication by Angela B. Ortiz de Gortrari (Nottingham Trent University) and Mark Griffiths (Nottingham Trent University) in the International of Human-Computer Interaction.
The aim of this study was to identify, classify, and explain gamers’ perceptual experiences referred to as Visual Game Transfer Phenomena (VGTP) to contribute to the understanding of the effects of post-video-game playing and encourage healthy and safe gaming. A total of 656 experiences from 483 gamers were collected from 54 online gaming forums. The findings suggest that intensive playing can result in misperceptions and visual distortions of real-life objects and environments, stereotypical visual experiences that arise from mind visualization, and pseudo-hallucinatory experiences with video game content. Gamers’ experiences can be explained by the interplay of physiological, perceptual, and cognitive mechanisms. Observation of video game features suggests that in most cases a relationship between the games’ structural characteristics, gamers’ VGTP experiences, and gamers’ playing habits appeared relevant. VGTP can occur while gaming, immediately after stopping play, or after some delay. Further VGTP characteristics and their psychosocial implications are discussed.
I personally do experience GTP after long bouts of gaming, the most salient experiences were my playthroughs with OSU! Quite often, I would tap the desk whenever I listen to music as if I’m still playing. Continue reading
Several months ago, Jamie Madigan (Psychology of Video Games) blogged about inattention blindness in video games, his explanation of the phenomenon is spot on and so I suggest you read his blog before continuing. A few earlier months, I picked up an article by David Vallett (University of Nevada Las Vegas) and his colleagues on this very topic. I forgot about it until it showed up again in the newest issue of Computers in Human Behavior.
Early studies of visual attention noted a phenomenon termed ‘inattention blindness’ – the inability of participants to see clear stimuli enter the visual field when attending to something else in that field – and sought to expand the understanding of the phenomenon (Neisser & Becklen, 1975; Simons & Chabris, 1999; Stoffregen, Baldwin, & Flynn, 1993). Other research has focused on the changes to the human brain and cognitive functions as a result of video game play, both in positive and negative contexts (Howard- Jones, Ott, van Leeuwen, and De Smedt (2010)). This quasi-experimental study sought to corroborate some of the findings that tie together these seemingly disparate lines of research, adapting the methodology of the most cited inattention blindness experiment (Simons & Chabris, 1999).
It’s Black Friday and if you want to experience inattention blindness in a videogame, I suggest Papers, Please. Continue reading
The video is relevant to the article’s examination of cognitive flexibility, which is defined in wikipedia “as the mental ability to adjust thinking or attention in response to changing goals and/or environmental stimuli”, and real-time strategy games. Brian Glass (Queen Mary, University of London) and colleagues have an article published in PLoS ONE. Through Jamie Madigan, Brian Glass contacted me about posting his study in my blog and I asked him to write the blog post, which is great so I can have some extra time to write on other studies.
Training in action video games can increase the speed of perceptual processing. However, it is unknown whether video-game training can lead to broad-based changes in higher-level competencies such as cognitive flexibility, a core and neurally distributed component of cognition. To determine whether video gaming can enhance cognitive flexibility and, if so, why these changes occur, the current study compares two versions of a real-time strategy (RTS) game. Using a meta-analytic Bayes factor approach, we found that the gaming condition that emphasized maintenance and rapid switching between multiple information and action sources led to a large increase in cognitive flexibility as measured by a wide array of non-video gaming tasks. Theoretically, the results suggest that the distributed brain networks supporting cognitive flexibility can be tuned by engrossing video game experience that stresses maintenance and rapid manipulation of multiple information sources. Practically, these results suggest avenues for increasing cognitive function.
Their study was also reported in ScienceDaily and CNET. The article can be freely read at the journal website. Continue reading
Heart rate recordings by Ben Lewis-Evans (University of Groningen) who is not involved in this particular study
Annie Lang (Indiana University) is a name every grad student should know. In fact, one of her former graduate student is a faculty member at OSU (Zheng Joyce Wang). She is big because she developed the Limited Capacity Model of Motivated Mediate Message Processing (LC4MP) explaining how we pay attention to information, be it to a conversation, television or videogames. She is also one of the few who studied communication through psychophysiology.
So when her name came up and it involves videogames, then it must be important, although painful to read since I’m weak against psychophysiology research.
This paper reports a study designed to investigate whether playing violent video games elicits the psychological conditions theoretically required for media use to cause aggressive behavior. Specifically, the study was designed to examine whether these games elicit desensitization, facilitation, and disinhibition. Thus, does physiological arousal in response to violent activity decrease over time during game play, and is there a difference between novice and experienced game players (as would be expected if desensitization had occurred)? Do players experience positive emotional states when actively engaged in virtual violent behavior (fighting and killing opponents) – a necessary condition for disinhibition? Do game players frame their motivations in terms of self-defense and game success, as would be necessary for facilitation to occur? The results showed that playing first-person shooters did elicit these requisite patterns of cognitive, physiological, and emotional states. Violent game play is a positive, arousing, present, dominant experience, as required for disinhibition and facilitation. Experienced game players are less aroused than less experienced game players (as required for desensitization). Further, during a game-playing session, exploring and searching for enemies become less arousing, while fighting and killing become more arousing over time (as required by desensitization and facilitation).
Via Jamie Madigan, I learned that Michael Ambinder [see post, see article] whose mentor is Daniel Simons (University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana), another big name in psychology, used psychophysiology to help design videogames, such as Left 4 Dead. Continue reading
Which one has the higher frame rate? (Answer is at the bottom of this post)
Due to my ineptitude at fixing computer problems, I have inadvertently formatted my laptop’s hard drive to oblivion. My digital life is now on hold until I have completed my graduate duties and when I rebuild my laptop. Four months’ worth of internet wisdom I picked up is lost, but my research data are safe. In any case, this event scarred my confidence with computers and this is post will be sadly a short one.
A few weeks ago, I saw a few reddit threads showing the difference of animation rendered at different frame rates. The first one showed a simple example, a second thread was made showing more examples, including the one in this post. Reddit user Regen89 made a valid point: “There is a HUGE difference between watching something at 30 vs 60 frames and playing something at 30 vs 60 fps”. I agree and I recalled a single paper that investigated frame rates and videogame play.
The rate at which frames are rendered in a computer game directly impacts player performance, influencing both the game playability and enjoyability. However, despite the importance of frame rate and the wide-spread popularity of computer games, to the best of our knowledge, there is little quantitative understanding of the effects of frame rate on player performance in computer games. This paper provides a unique classification of actions in First Person Shooter (FPS) games based on interaction requirements that allow qualitative assessment of the impact of frame rates on player performance. This qualitative assessment is supported by quantitative analysis from two large user studies that measure the effects of frame rate on the fundamental player actions in a FPS game. Nearly 100 users participated in the two user study experiments, providing performance and perception data over a range of frame rates commonly studied for video streaming and inclusive of frame rates found in many computer game platforms. In general, the analysis shows that actions that require precise, rapid response, such as shooting, are greatly impacted by degradations in frame rates, while actions with lower precision and response requirements, such as moving, are more tolerant of low frame rates. These insights into the effects of frame rates on player performance can guide players in their choice for game settings and new hardware purchases, and inform system designers in their development of new hardware.
The left one is the higher frame rate at 60 fps.
Claypool, K., & Claypool, M. (2007). On frame rate and player performance in first person shooter games. Multimedia Systems, 13 (1), 3-17. DOI: 10.1007/s00530-007-0081-1
Via Rock, Paper Shotgun, Daphne Bavelier (University of Rochester) gave a TED talk on her research on the brain and action videogames.
Some platform videogames have this special level where the movement controls were reversed as a challenge to the player. The left becomes right, the up is now down. Anyone playing this level for the first time might fail the level several times, but it becomes easier when you later encounter it in other videogames. Super Karoshi and This is the only level are two examples that used that trope.
Matthew Cain (Duke University) and company published their findings in Attention, Perception and Psychophysics.
Video game expertise has been shown to have beneficial effects for visual attention processes, but the effects of action video game playing on executive functions, such as task switching and filtering out distracting information, are less well understood. In the main experiment presented here, video game players (VGPs) and nonplayers (nVGPs) switched between two tasks of unequal familiarity: a familiar task of responding in the direction indicated by an arrow, and a novel task of responding in the opposite direction. nVGPs had large response time costs for switching from the novel task to the familiar task, and small costs for switching from the familiar task to the novel task, replicating prior findings. However, as compared to the nVGPs, VGPs were more facile in switching between tasks, producing overall smaller and more symmetric switching costs, suggesting that experience with action video games produces improvements in executive functioning. In contrast, VGPs and nVGPs did not differ in filtering out the irrelevant flanking stimuli or in remembering details of aurally presented stories. The lack of global differences between the groups suggests that the improved task-switching performance seen in VGPs was not due to differences in global factors, such as VGPs being more motivated than nVGPs.
If I were a pokemon, this line of research would be my weakness. It took me a long time to review this article. Continue reading