Paper Reading #18- Biofeedback game design: using direct and indirect physiological control to enhance game interaction

Title: Biofeedback game design: using direct and indirect physiological control to enhance game interaction
Reference Information:
Lennart Nacke, Michael Kalyn, Calvin Lough, and Regan Mandryk. " Biofeedback game design: using direct and indirect physiological control to enhance game interaction". CHI '11: Proceedings of the 2011 annual conference on Human factors in computing systems ACM New York, NY, USA ©2011.
Author Bios:
Lennart Nacke- He is an Assistant Professor for HCI and Game Science at the Faculty of Business and Information Technology at University of Ontario Institute of Technology (UOIT).
Michael Kalyn- A summer student working for Dr. Mandryk. He is a graduate in Computer Engineering and in his fourth year of Computer Science. His tasks this summer will be related to interfacing sensors and affective feedback.
Calvin Lough- Graduate student at the University of Saskatchewan.
Regan Mandryk- He's an Assistant Professor in the Department of Computer Science at the University of Saskatchewan. Obtained his B.Sc. in Mathematics from the University of Winnipeg in 1997, his M.Sc. in Kinesiology from Simon Fraser University in 2000, and his Ph.D. in Computing Science from Simon Fraser University in 2005.
Summary:

• Hypothesis: If the authors can come up with either a direct or indirect method of physiological control sensors for users to control while immersed in a video game, then the user will enjoy the video game using these sensors much more than just with traditional controllers.
• Methods: The authors created a game that featured many kinds of bonuses or power-ups that could be obtained if the user used their physiological inputs correctly (i.e. Medusa's Gaze to freeze enemies). The authors had some volunteers play through their game with randomly integrated physiological features to test how they were used.
• Results: The results from the user studies and surveys indicated that the user's "fun" was directly associated with which game conditions were played under, that the users preferred the physiological sensors to play the game than without them, and that the kind of physiological conditions placed in the game had no effect on their "fun". Interestingly, however, users preferred some physiological controls over others. For example, one participant wasn't even sure that the EKG sensor controlled in the second game. Also, participants didn't like the fact that biting their lip was a control mechanism because it began to hurt after a few uses. Players did like the fact that flexing their leg allowed them to move faster or jump higher, however.
• Content: Basically, the authors wanted to conduct a study based on a) if physiological controls/sensors made gameplay more interactive and "fun" and b) which sensors worked best. The authors found that the sensors did make the gameplay experience more enjoyable and that some sensors did work better than others. The sensors they found to be optimal were the ones that directly mapped the part of the body to gameplay (i.e. flexing your leg to move faster/jump higher) because it made the most conceptual sense to the player. The authors' surveys and questionnaires allowed them to have some insight into possibly designing a whole game solely based on physiological inputs.

Discussion:
I would have loved to have been a participant in this study. I think that some of these physiological sensors would definitely enhance gameplay (but I do agree with some of the participants that not all of the sensors were necessary. Some would definitely detract from the experience). This kind of study will more than likely breed the next generation of video games. I don't know how I feel about that. I like my games with the traditional controller and buttons and what not. The Kinect and WiiMote don't really interest me that much personally, but it is nonetheless an advancement in technology. I think that certain kinds of games could definitely have these kinds of sensors integrated phenomenally. In my opinion, the authors definitely achieved their goals because not only did they figure out if physiological sensors were "worth it", but they were accurately able to determine which kinds of sensors worked best for certain situations / gameplay environments.