Gamelike features might not improve data

Abstract

Many psychological experiments require participants to complete lots of trials in a monotonous task, which often induces boredom. An increasingly popular approach to alleviate such boredom is to incorporate gamelike features into standard experimental tasks. Games are assumed to be interesting and, hence, motivating, and better motivated participants might produce better data (with fewer lapses in attention and greater accuracy). Despite its apparent prevalence, the assumption that gamelike features improve data is almost completely untested. We test this assumption by presenting a choice task and a change detection task in both gamelike and standard forms. Response latency, accuracy, and overall task performance were unchanged by gamelike features in both experiments. We present a novel cognitive model for the choice task, based on particle filtering, to decorrelate the dependent variables and measure performance in a more psychologically meaningful manner. The model-based analyses are consistent with the hypothesis that gamelike features did not alter cognition. A postexperimental questionnaire indicated that the gamelike version provided a more positive and enjoyable experience for participants than the standard task, even though this subjective experience did not translate into data effects. Although our results hold only for the two experiments examined, the gamelike features we incorporated into both tasks were typical of-and at least as salient and interesting as those usually used by-experimental psychologists. Our results suggest that modifying an experiment to include gamelike features, while leaving the basic task unchanged, may not improve the quality of the data collected, but it may provide participants with a better experimental experience.

Vigilance on the move: video game-based measurement of sustained attention

“…There has been substantial recent interest in the potential benefits of video games (Granic, Lobel, and Engels 2014), although there are limits to its effectiveness (e.g. Hawkins et al 2013). There is recent evidence that 'serious games' may have general performance benefits (Wouters et al 2013), but to date this has not been explored in monitoring tasks.…”

Применение Компьютерных Игровых Технологий Для Развития Регуляторных Функций Дошкольников

“…В игре ребе-нок может почувствовать свою эффективность благодаря получению ярких вознаграждений за выполнение заданий -это помогает детям с трудностями когнитивной регуляции сохранять интерес и быть более внимательными. В исследовании Г. Хавкинс и коллег [24] было проведено сравнение двух версий монотонных тренировочных заданий для детей, одна из которых была представлена в обычном виде, а вторая имела черты видеоигры. В результате проведенного анализа было установлено, что видеоформат задания был более интересен испытуемым и доставлял больше удовольствия, однако, важно отметить, что это не сказалось на успешности выполнения заданий.…”

Performance-Based Contingency Management in Cognitive Remediation Training: A Pilot Study

“…Many CR interventions require participants to complete multiple trials of monotonous tasks. This may lead to boredom and reduced engagement, which in turn impedes task performance (Hawkins, Rae, Nesbitt, & Brown, 2013). Low motivation has been noted as a moderator of CR effects among patients with schizophrenia (Medalia & Choi, 2009; Medalia & Richardson, 2005; Velligan, Kern, & Gold, 2006), yet has received relatively little attention in CR studies with substance users.…”

“…Low motivation has been noted as a moderator of CR effects among patients with schizophrenia (Medalia & Choi, 2009; Medalia & Richardson, 2005; Velligan, Kern, & Gold, 2006), yet has received relatively little attention in CR studies with substance users. Although some computer-based CR programs include game-like motivational elements to increase engagement and enjoyment (e.g., real-time scoring system, virtual prizes and certificates), the actual effect on participant motivation, engagement, and performance may be relatively limited (Hawkins et al, 2013; Katz, Jaeggi, Buschkuehl, Stegman, & Shah, 2014). Thus, the potential for these cognitive enhancing interventions to serve as a viable adjunct treatment for addictions (Bickel, Moody, & Quisenberry, 2014; Sofuoglu, DeVito, Waters, & Carroll, 2013) may be undermined by the inadequate level of motivation and training engagement within this population.…”