* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download The effects of game mechanics and web
Survey
Document related concepts
George Armitage Miller wikipedia , lookup
Dual process theory wikipedia , lookup
Environmental enrichment wikipedia , lookup
Human multitasking wikipedia , lookup
Neo-Piagetian theories of cognitive development wikipedia , lookup
Indirect tests of memory wikipedia , lookup
Neurophilosophy wikipedia , lookup
Cognitive neuroscience wikipedia , lookup
Cognitive semantics wikipedia , lookup
Embodied cognitive science wikipedia , lookup
Play (activity) wikipedia , lookup
Cognitive flexibility wikipedia , lookup
Cognitive development wikipedia , lookup
Cognitive psychology wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
The effects of game mechanics and web-based testing on cognitive test performance and participant enjoyment (i.e. Gamification and Cognitive Tests) Jim Lumsden [email protected] School of Experimental Psychology, University of Bristol, BS8 1TU, Bristol, UK Cognitive Tests • Cognitive tests are a staple tool in psychological research • Aim to collect pure measures of cognitive function and are therefore simplistic and involve lots of repetition • Cannot produce valid measures if the participant is bored • They need to be engaging, and gamification may be the answer Research Questions 1. Do different game mechanics effect the cognitive data collected? 2. Do different game mechanics effect subjective ratings of engagement? 3. Do different game mechanics influence attrition rates? (Study 2 only) We ran two studies to look at the effects of game mechanics on the data collected by two cognitive tasks Study 1 Overview (the cowboy study) • Three variants of a Go-No-Go task (non-game, points and theme) • 287 participants (lab: 84, online: 203) Signup through MTurk Randomly assigned to variant Signup in person in Bristol Complete task (~ 10min) Subjective questionnaire delivered Cognitive Task Results (the cowboy study) Go RT: points vs non-game (BF = .157) Go Accuracy: points vs non-game (BF = .459) No-Go Accuracy: points vs non-game (BF = .253) Questionnaire Results (the cowboy study) Study 2 Overview (the attrition study) • Three variants of a Stop Signal Task (non-game, points and theme) • Longitudinal (10 days long) www.prolific.ac Participants and Procedure (the attrition study) • 265 participants total, all online, ~90 in each variant • Reimbursed between £4 and £7 4 consecutive days of test sessions Signup through Prolific Academic Randomly assigned to variant Day 2 Day 1 Day 3 Day 4 Reimbursed £4 after all completed 6 optional days of test sessions Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 Day 8 Reimbursed £0.50 for each completed Day 9 Day 10 Study ends Cognitive Task Results (the attrition study) Go RT: F[2, 260] = 4.421, p=0.014, η2=0.032 FailedStop RT: F[2, 260] = 5.403, p=0.005, η2=0.040 Go Accuracy: F[2, 260] = 1.053, p=0.350,η2=0.008 Stop Accuracy: F[2, 260] = 4.450, p=0.013, η2=0.033 SSRT: F[2, 260] = 4.747, p=0.009, η2=0.035 SSRT: theme vs non-game (BF = 0.278) Questionnaire & Participant Attrition (the attrition study) Kaplin-Meier Mantel-Cox Test: X2= 2.323, p = .127 One way ANOVA of condition F(2, 261) = 1.643, p = 0.195 Bayes T-test Mean Sessions Completed, Points vs Non-game: BF = 0.163 Key findings • Even with very light gamification there were impacts on cognitive measures • However, these effects are quite small • Points had the least impact on performance and increased participant enjoyment • Negative effects of Theme variant on data and engagement • “looks like a game but doesn’t play like one” • Study 2: No statistical difference in participant attrition between task variants • But, 10% more participants remained in the Theme variant until the end Conclusions • Don’t waste time making graphics or complex games: just pointify • Gamifying cognitive tests can be effective for increasing reported engagement but it is a trade off because you will impact the data some way. • Further research is needed to quantify impact on cognitive measures Acknowledgements With thanks to my supervisors: Tobacco and Alcohol Research Group: Dr Jenny Barnett Dr David Coyle Dr Charlotte Housden Prof Natalia Lawrence Prof Marcus Munafò Angela Attwood Emily Crowe Kayleigh Easey Meg Fluharty Therese Freuler Suzi Gage Meryem Grabski Gemma Hammerton Eleanor Kennedy Jasmine Khouja Glenda Lassi Rebecca Lawn Jim Lumsden Olivia Maynard Andy Skinner Alex Board Amy Taylor Gemma Taylor Chris Stone David Troy Miriam Cohen Andy Eastwood Postdoc PhD Student PhD Student PhD Student Research Assistant Postdoc PhD Student Postdoc PhD Student PhD Student Postdoc PhD Student PhD Student Postdoc Postdoc Administrator Postdoc Postdoc Research Assistant PhD Student PhD Student PhD Student [email protected] @jl9937 21 February 2017 Any questions? 14 Questionnaire Results (the cowboy study) Questionnaire Results (the attrition study) Cognitive Task Results (the cowboy study) Go RT: points vs non-game (BF = .157) Go Accuracy: points vs non-game (BF = .459) No-Go Accuracy: points vs non-game (BF = .253) Cognitive Task Results (the attrition study) SSRT: theme vs non-game (BF = .278)