The Response to Impactful Interactivity on Spectators’ Engagement in a Digital Game
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Spectator Experience
1.2. Engagement
1.3. Hypothesis Development
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Experimental Design and Sample
- Fast ball or slow ball?
- Enlarge paddle of blue player or red player?
- Accelerate the ball for blue player or red player?
- Bigger or smaller ball?
- Which one do you prefer between Godzilla and King Kong?
2.2. Procedure
2.3. Measures and Apparatus
2.4. Analysis
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Warman, P. 2017 Newzoo Global eSports Market Report; Newzoo: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; p. 25. [Google Scholar]
- Wouters, N.; Downs, J.; Harrop, M.; Cox, T.; Oliveira, E.; Webber, S.; Vetere, F.; Vande Moere, A. Uncovering the honeypot effect: How audiences engage with public interactive systems. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems, Brisbane, QLD, Australia, 4–6 June 2016; pp. 5–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheung, G.; Huang, J. Starcraft from the stands: Understanding the game spectator. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 7–12 May 2011; pp. 763–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benford, S.; Crabtree, A.; Reeves, S.; Sheridan, J.; Dix, A.; Flintham, M.; Drozd, A. Designing for the opportunities and risks of staging digital experiences in public settings. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Montreal, QC, Canada, 22–27 April 2006; pp. 427–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tan, L.; Chow, K.K.N. An embodied approach to designing meaningful experiences with ambient media. Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2018, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Downs, J.; Vetere, F.; Smith, W. Differentiated participation in social videogaming. In Proceedings of the OzCHI ’15: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Australian Special Interest Group for Computer Human Interaction, Parkville, VIC, Australia, 7–10 December 2015; pp. 92–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rubio-Tamayo, J.L.; Barrio, M.G.; García, F.G. Immersive environments and virtual reality: Systematic review and advances in communication, interaction and simulation. Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2017, 1, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Reeves, S.; Benford, S.; Malley, C.O.; Fraser, M. Designing the spectator experience. Reeves, Steve Benford, Claire O’Malley, Mike Fraser. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’05), Portland, OR, USA, 2–7 April 2005; pp. 741–750. [Google Scholar]
- GRiD Crowd; Moment Factory: Montréal, QC, Canada, 2016.
- Alcorn, A. Pong; Atari, Inc.: Sunnyvale, CA, USA, 1972. [Google Scholar]
- Portalés, C.; Casas, S.; Vidal-González, M.; Fernández, M. On the use of ROMOT—A robotized 3D-movie theatre—To enhance romantic movie scenes. Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2017, 1, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rozendaal, M.C.; Braat, B.A.L.; Wensveen, S.A.G. Exploring sociality and engagement in play through game-control distribution. AI Soc. 2010, 25, 193–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tekin, B.S.; Reeves, S. Ways of spectating: Unravelling spectator participation in Kinect play. In Proceedings of the CHI ’17: CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Denver, CO, USA, 6–11 May 2017; pp. 1558–1570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- O’Brien, H.L.; Cairns, P.; Hall, M. A practical approach to measuring user engagement with the refined user engagement scale (UES) and new UES short form. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 2018, 28–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fredricks, J.A.; Blumenfeld, P.C.; Paris, A.H. School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Rev. Educ. Res. 2004, 74, 59–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Latulipe, C.; Carroll, E.A.; Lottridge, D. Love, hate, arousal and engagement. In Proceedings of the CHI ‘11: CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 7–12 May 2011; pp. 1845–1854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Webster, J.; Ho, H. Audience Engagement in Multimedia Presentations. Data Base Adv. Inf. Syst. 1997, 28, 63–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mayes, D.K.; Cotton, J.E. Measuring Engagement in Video Games: A Questionnaire. Proc. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. Annu. Meet. 2001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brockmyer, J.H.; Fox, C.M.; Curtiss, K.A.; McBroom, E.; Burkhart, K.M.; Pidruzny, J.N. The development of the Game Engagement Questionnaire: A measure of engagement in video game-playing. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2009, 45, 624–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’Brien, H.L.; Toms, E.G. The Development and Evaluation of a Survey to Measure User Engagement. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 2010, 61, 271–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- O’Brien, H.L.; Cairns, P. Theoretical Perspectives on User Engagement; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2016; ISBN 9783319274447. [Google Scholar]
- Carlton, J.; Jay, C.; Brown, A.; Keane, J. Inferring user engagement from interaction data. In Proceedings of the CHI EA ’19: Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Glasgow, Scotland, UK, 4–9 May 2019; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arce-Lopera, C.; Rodríguez, B.; Avendaño, G.; Victoria, D. In store shelf display technology for enhancing customer brand recognition. ACM Int. Conf. Proc. Ser. 2018, 416–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruan, S.; Jiang, L.; Xu, J.; Tham, B.J.K.; Qiu, Z.; Zhu, Y.; Murnane, E.L.; Brunskill, E.; Landay, J.A. QuizBot: A Dialogue-based Adaptive Learning System for Factual Knowledge. In Proceedings of the CHI ’19: 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Glasgow, Scotland, UK, 4–9 May 2019; pp. 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wiemeyer, J.; Nacke, L.; Moser, C.; ‘Floyd’ Mueller, F. Player Experience. In Serious Games; Dőrner, R., Gőbel, S., Effelsberg, W., Wiemeyer, J., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 243–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Charland, P.; Léger, P.M.; Sénécal, S.; Courtemanche, F.; Mercier, J.; Skelling, Y.; Labonté-Lemoyne, E. Assessing the multiple dimensions of engagement to characterize learning: A neurophysiological perspective. J. Vis. Exp. 2015, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Lang, P.J. The Emotion Probe. Am. Psychol. Assoc. 1995, 50, 372–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martey, R.M.; Kenski, K.; Folkestad, J.; Feldman, L.; Gordis, E.; Shaw, A.; Stromer-Galley, J.; Clegg, B.; Zhang, H.; Kaufman, N.; et al. Measuring Game Engagement: Multiple Methods and Construct Complexity. Simul. Gaming 2014, 45, 528–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nacke, L.E. Games user research and physiological game evaluation. In Game User Experience Evaluation; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 63–86. [Google Scholar]
- Lang, P.J.; Bradley, M.M.; Hamm, A.O. Looking at Pictures: Evaluative, Facial, Visceral, and Behavioral Responses. Psychophysiological Res. 1993, 30, 261–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carpenter, L. Video Imaging Method and Apparatus for Audience Participation. U.S. Patent US5365266A, 15 November 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Maynes-Aminzade, D.; Pausch, R.; Seitz, S. Techniques for interactive audience participation. In Proceedings of the 4th IEEE International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces, ICMI 2002, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 16 October 2002; pp. 15–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Natkins, S. Interactivity in games: The player’s engagement. In Interactivity in Games: The Player’s Engagement; IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010; pp. 160–168. [Google Scholar]
- Pallud, J. Impact of interactive technologies on stimulating learning experiences in a museum. Inf. Manag. 2017, 54, 465–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mandryk, R.L.; Atkins, M.S.; Inkpen, K.M. A continuous and objective evaluation of emotional experience with interactive play environments. In Proceedings of the CHI ’06: SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing System, Montreal, QC, Canada, 22–23 April 2006; Volume 2, pp. 1027–1036. [Google Scholar]
- Passalacqua, M.; Léger, P.M.; Nacke, L.E.; Fredette, M.; Labonté-Lemoyne, É.; Lin, X.; Caprioli, T.; Sénécal, S. Playing in the backstore: Interface gamification increases warehousing workforce engagement. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nacke, L.E.; Grimshaw, M.N.; Lindley, C.A. More than a feeling: Measurement of sonic user experience and psychophysiology in a first-person shooter game. Interact. Comput. 2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Léger, P.M.; Davis, F.D.; Cronan, T.P.; Perret, J. Neurophysiological correlates of cognitive absorption in an enactive training context. Comput. Human Behav. 2014, 34, 273–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Batista, D.; da Silva, H.P.; Fred, A.; Moreira, C.; Reis, M.; Ferreira, H.A. Benchmarking of the BITalino biomedical toolkit against an established gold standard. Healthc. Technol. Lett. 2019, 6, 32–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Heather, L. O’Brien and Elaine, G. Toms What is User Engagement? A Conceptual Framework for Defining User Engagement with Technology. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distance Learn. 2013, 14, 90–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bradley, M.M.; Greenwald, M.K.; Petry, M.C.; Lang, P.J. Remembering Pictures: Pleasure and Arousal in Memory. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 1992, 18, 379–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mehrabian, A.; Wixen, W.J. Preferences for Individual Video Games as a Function of Their Emotional Effects on Players. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nunnally, J.C.; Bernstein, I.H. The Assessment of Reliability. Psychom. Theory 1967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Braithwaite, J.; Watson, D.; Robert, J.; Mickey, R. A Guide for Analysing Electrodermal Activity (EDA) & Skin Conductance Responses (SCRs) for Psychological Experiments. Psychophysiology 2015, 49, 1017–1034. [Google Scholar]
- Baron, R.M.; Kenny, D.A. The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research. Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Conditions | Perceived Arousal | Physiological Arousal (Standardized EDA) | Engagement |
---|---|---|---|
With interactivity | 5.54 | 0.0295 | 3.49 |
Without interactivity | 4.64 | −0.1262 | 3.31 |
N | 78 | 12 | 78 |
p-value | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Brissette-Gendron, R.; Léger, P.-M.; Courtemanche, F.; Chen, S.L.; Ouhnana, M.; Sénécal, S. The Response to Impactful Interactivity on Spectators’ Engagement in a Digital Game. Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2020, 4, 89. https://doi.org/10.3390/mti4040089
Brissette-Gendron R, Léger P-M, Courtemanche F, Chen SL, Ouhnana M, Sénécal S. The Response to Impactful Interactivity on Spectators’ Engagement in a Digital Game. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction. 2020; 4(4):89. https://doi.org/10.3390/mti4040089
Chicago/Turabian StyleBrissette-Gendron, Raphaëlle, Pierre-Majorique Léger, François Courtemanche, Shang Lin Chen, Marouane Ouhnana, and Sylvain Sénécal. 2020. "The Response to Impactful Interactivity on Spectators’ Engagement in a Digital Game" Multimodal Technologies and Interaction 4, no. 4: 89. https://doi.org/10.3390/mti4040089