Biofeedback game design

Lennart E. Nacke, Michael R. Kalyn, Calvin Lough, Regan L. Mandryk

2011 · 250 citations · 12 references

Concepts

TL;DR

Prior work on physiological game interaction has focused on dynamically adapting games using physiological sensors. The paper proposes a classification of direct and indirect physiological sensor input to augment traditional game control. The authors conducted a mixed‑methods study using different sensor mappings to determine which sensors best support specific game mechanics. Participants prefer direct physiological control, indicating that direct sensors should be mapped intuitively to in‑world actions while indirect sensors are best used as dramatic devices to alter game features.

Abstract

Prior work on physiological game interaction has focused on dynamically adapting games using physiological sensors. In this paper, we propose a classification of direct and indirect physiological sensor input to augment traditional game control. To find out which sensors work best for which game mechanics, we conducted a mixed-methods study using different sensor mappings. Our results show participants have a preference for direct physiological control in games. This has two major design implications for physiologically controlled games: (1) Direct physiological sensors should be mapped intuitively to reflect an action in the virtual world; (2) Indirect physiological input is best used as a dramatic device in games to influence features altering the game world.

References

12