Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Game Design to Enhance Cognitive Adaptability Webinar
12/17/13
Shane Gallagher, Ph.D Shenan Prestwich
0:00 >> Shane Gallagher: Welcome to the Game Design
to Enhance Cognitive Adaptability Webinar. Itís certainly our pleasure to be here and
talk about the work that we are doing for ADL.
We are looking at designing games and cognitive capabilities and their intersection.
My name is Shane Gallagher and my co-presenter is Shenan Prestwich.
Weíll both get a chance to speak with you today as we run through our presentation.
Letís begin. To start with weíll talk a little bit about intelligence and how that
fits into cognition. Intelligence is measured by IQ. I think everyone
knows that stands for Intelligence Quotient. Not everyone may realize where they fit in,
in terms of IQ. Thereís a chart on the right that gives us
some insight into that. I want to start with that. Most professionals
seem to be around 116 or above in IQ, followed by college graduates at 121+ and
Ph.D recipients with a 132+. Noble prize winners go all the way up to 158
and over. My personal favorite is the next one where
we see Mozart and Bobby Fischer at 164+. It gives you a range and idea of what IQ means
in terms of peopleís accomplishments and things you might be familiar with.
Whatís interesting with IQ is that you see variations but what really causes it.
2:00 Current research tells you that only about
20-50% of the variations of IQís are really due to non-genetic factors,
in other words environmental factors. The rest is due to genetic factors.
Environmental factors happen to be culture, your upbringing, diet,
wellness and a variety of things that determine really 20-50% of your IQ.
Genetic factors is also interesting because ití not like eye color where as itís a fixed
quantity. Itís more like height and weight. If you
think about your weight, which I do often, it can be changed.
You have some degree of control over that. Height is another one that has some degree
of control. Not by you necessarily, but by environment.
Some folks because of diet and environment may be taller as a population or shorter as
a population. This is interesting because it says that our
IQ is not a fixed quantity, contrary to a lot of prior thinking.
The question then is, if IQ is a measure of intelligence can we make ourselves smarter?
4:00 Well, letís talk a little bit about some
concepts. If we think about cognitive capabilities and
enhancing those and cognitive capabilities really are the underpinnings of intelligence.
Thereís a concept called brain plasticity thatís been around for the last 15+ years
that you may have heard about in some fashion or another.
Really that means that the brain is able to grow or create new neural pathways, it can
learn and adapt. Youíve heard the old saying that you canít
teach an old dog new tricks. Thatís really not the case.
You actually can teach an old dog new tricks. People of all ages and stages of life can
continue to learn and pickup new ideas, thoughts. It may be more difficult than other in some
cases. Itís certainly proven that the brain is plastic,
itís not fixed. It doesnít reach a certain stage and stay
there. That brings us to the question. Can the brain
be trained? There is a lot of commercial entities and
companies out there that seem to think so. If youíve seen commercials or gone to different
websites, you probably notice some of these on the right.
Fit Brains, Games for the Brain and Lumosity have advertised quite often.
They are all in the business to say ìWe can help train your brain, we can keep you sharper
and we can keep your brain from agingî. Thatís based upon this idea of brain plasticity,
but also on the idea of intelligence. It leads us to the question, can intelligence
be increased?
6:00 Thereís research that has undertaken over
the last 10 years that has influenced the thinking in this current area.
Letís talk about intelligence in terms of two types, fluid intelligence versus crystallized
intelligence. Crystallized intelligence is probably something
we are all familiar with. If you are good at Jeopardy and can recall
facts, figures and items thatís crystallized intelligence.
If you are really good at solving problems, at adapting, if you are creative thatís fluid
intelligence. They work together but crystallized intelligence
is thought to be more fixed. Now with fluid intelligence which allows us
to be better problem solvers and more creative. Creativity fits right into problem solving.
It seems to be directly related to an executive function in our brain called working memory
capacity. There was some research undertaken in about
2008 that used a game called A Dual-N-Back Game.
I have a picture on the right of the Dual-N-Back. It makes you think about steps backwards,
both visually and auditorily and be able to answer what that was in a sequence.
8:00 If thereís a series of window panels in a
building and the light would go off intermittently in various windows.
You were tracing that as a pattern. Where the last one lit would be be where you
would start from and think backwards. The one back would be the one before that.
Where was that one at? Where was the spatial location and so forth?
They do this auditorily and visually. Itís a game but itís found to increase working
memory capacity when itís used consistently for a specific amount of time.
The interesting part of that is that it correlates positively with scores on very tried and true
tests of intelligence. Thatís been saying that working memory capacity
is directly related to fluid intelligence and that it can be trained and increased.
Therefore, fluid intelligence can be increased. Therefore, you can be a better problem solver
and your IQ goes up. Thatís where this comes from.
With that in mind, can cognitive capabilities be enhanced?
The answer from current research is yes. That is absolutely the case.
We have several folks on the left that have been doing work in this area that Iíve listed.
I didnít cite the specifics but I would be happy to give the specifics if you want it.
With the Dual-N-Back was Jaeggi & Buschkuehl in 2008.
Another interesting body of work was from Green & Bavelier in 2003 which is on attention.
10:00 Not focused attention, but the increase of
attention based upon first person shooting games.
Thereís a lot of work that goes into the increase of executive functions,
which are underlying brain functions for cognitive capabilities that says that these things can
be increased. With that in mind and that background it brings
us to our next question. Can cognitive capabilities be enhanced through
game design? A lot of these things are games. If so, how?
How would we specifically design to increase particular cognitive capabilities that we
care about? Thatís the focus of our work and what weíve
been doing so far. We been using a particular commercial video
game called Portal. Weíve been doing various studies with it.
Iím going to talk about a specific study that weíve done and where itís leading to
on the next study. Shenan will talk about that and where we are
going with all of this. Letís move right ahead.
Letís talk about what we care about in the study which is adaptability.
Cognitive capabilities and game design, cognitive adaptability is a set of cognitive components
that we care about. How do we get there?
A lot of folks care about the concept of being adaptable: the Department of Labor,
the Department of Education and especially the Department of Defense who we are directly
affiliated with.
12:00 For various reasons thatís important.
What that means is the ability to use existing knowledge, solve problems and try new strategies
and solutions. The interesting thing about adaptability is
that it very contextual but also very high level which is a strange combination.
Itís very difficult to access. We had to think about if we are concerned
about this we want to get down to the lowest level.
This is what drove us down to the cognitive pieces of this.
On a scale we have a macro level of adaptability, which is adaptive stance and operational adaptability.
We have mid which is individual adaptive behavior. And we have the cognitive underpinnings or
micro which we call the micromomentary of cognitive processes that is cognitive adaptability.
Thatís really what we are concerned with in the study.
Our Lens of Analysis, what we cared about as we are looking at games is this concept
of cognitive adaptability. It has several components, some which can
be accessed cognitively and others on a higher level.
They do work together. The idea of cognitive openness or creativity
is very closely related and is very important. Focused attention, cognitive flexibility/metagcognition
which is very closely related but accessed differently.
Critical thinking and problem solving. Whatís interesting is that anyone with an
education that's looking at what we care about right now
in the 21st Century skills and abilities are all about these types of things.
Problem solving, critical thinking, creativity and it all works together.
14:00 Potentially, findings of cognitive adaptability
are applicable in more than one area. The construct of cognitive adaptability just
to go over it again is laid out in this way. We are concerned about the cognitive processes
which Iíll highlight, but not visually. They are focused attention, cognitive flexibility
and metacognition. We care about the other three: critical thinking,
problem solving ability and cognitive openness but they are on a higher level and more difficult
to access. We looked at one of the cognitive underpinnings
of these things and it turns out that we can access focused attention,
cognitive flexibility and an executive function which Iíll talk about in a little while.
How does this translate to game design? How do we think about game design anyway?
We care about particular features that we are looking for in a game that will produce
certain types of outcome. Within the game design world a lot of you
may be familiar with a framework called MDA (Mechanics Dynamics and Aesthetics).
The mechanics are components at the algorithmic level.
Dynamics are how they interact. Aesthetics are the emotional responses evoked.
This quote is taken from Hunicke, LeBlanc & Zubek textbook.
How do we apply this? We didnít design the game.
We are not looking to design; we are looking at analyzing and understanding the game.
16:00 With that in mind we came up with a framework
that started with features that we care about. Iíll talk about those in just a moment.
The features that we care about that support cognitive adaptability and their sub-features.
What are the mechanics that those translate into?
What are the dynamics and aesthetics? Thatís the way we looked at it,
so we could understand what would produce in a game and align with the features that
we care about within that game. To break it down a little further we have
features and sub-features. Some examples: Feature as Rules and sub-features
could be explicit, implicit and so forth. Some others: Conflict could be violent and
non-violent. They can break down another level if you want
to. If you want to look at rules this way: features,
transparency and consistency and they each have sub-features under that.
Itís just a way of mapping out what we really cared about down to the level that we think
is important and looking at the MDA associated with it.
We had to think about what those features would be and how we would foster cognitive
adaptability with a game. Itís not an easy thing to do because thereís
not much literature there. The intersection of games and cognitive adaptability
is pretty lean. We scoured some other literatures and I think
we struck gold in clinical psychology and instructional design which is under learning
sciences. In clinical psychology we have cognitive remediation
therapy (CRT).
18:00 That really gave us a lot of thoughts about
rules and things that we needed in feature overlap about openness
and how we want to think about the learning within in it.
We needed to access the learning sciences as well, so that gave us an assessment instrument
which came from Cambridge Cognition (CANTAB). So finally, what do we care about? What are
the features that we are looking at in Portal 2?
Why did we choose Portal 2? First of all, looking into the literature
and looking down into the adaptability we came up with these things
that we think that are important to produce cognitive adaptability within in an individual.
If the game has the following: unstated/implicit rules, unstated/implicit shifting of the rule
sets, dynamic shifting environments, open-ended
game play and implicit reinforcement for actions and choices.
If it has those things thatís what we think would be a good candidate.
We did a trade off analysis at a high level and also interviews with several players to
look at several games. We came up with Portal 2 as a very good candidate
that seemed to have everything that we wanted. We didnít empirically analyze it.
Weíll talk about that analysis in a little while.
20:00 We thought it was good enough that we could
go with it. With that in mind, we have Portal 2 as a game.
We have these features that we are looking for and test if these would potentially increase
cognitive adaptability within in a player. That sets up our first study.
We want to find out, in this case Portal 2, if playing a commercial off the shelf game
would increase cognitive adaptability. We wanted to do it in a quantitative way.
A lot of games research is qualitative. You have a lot of anecdotal.
You have very little that is quantitative in nature and produces numbers that we can
take to decision makers. For example: here is some empirical evidence
and something that we can really use. Unfortunately that drives decision makers
a lot more than qualitative analysis does. That drove the study. We set it up as a real
experiment in experimental design. We grabbed a bunch of airmen from Sheppard
Air Force Base. We did an experiment in controlled conditions.
We also looked at correlations. We did pre and post test and correlational measures.
We used some specific measures. Weíll talk about one in particular called CANTAB.
We also looked at metacognition.
22:00 Metacognition is a very important part of
cognitive adaptability, but itís very hard to access especially if
you are looking at changes over time from an intervention.
Itís really a function of age. Metacognitve awareness increase as you get
older but it doesnít necessary change within 12 hours of game play.
I did take a snapshot of that and it didnít produce a whole lot in this study.
We also looked at the games history questionnaire to find out the background in terms of playing
portal and terms of playing any type of game that
the airmen brought to the table. Empirically we needed a measure that would
give us quantitative data. We are looking at the cognitive processes
and executive functions that make up a significant part of cognitive adaptability.
We combined these components within a battery and administered a computerized set of test.
The tests used touch screen monitors and behaved like a set of video games, but produced an
outcome that we could then analyze and compare. We tested the following: attention switching,
spatial working memory, spatial span, rapid visual information processing and executive
planning. Attention switching really tests cognitive
flexibility. Spatial span is directly related to the working
memory capacity in fluid intelligence. Rapid information processing is how fast you
can process information. Executive planning is thinking ahead planning,
thinking of the next step and things like that.
24:00 Unfortunately we wanted to test reaction time,
which is one of the most sensitive in the battery, but due to hardware issues it didnít
work. That was a measure that we couldnít get in
our battery. We had those players play for 6 hours over
2 days. They took breaks about every 1.5 hours. We had the controlled group playing Microsoft
games: Solitaire, Minesweeper, Hearts, Bejeweled/Tetris and so forth.
We had these four. They played 1.5 hours a day over 2 days. The protocol was the same.
What did we find? Iím not going to go into any statistics or go into any numbers.
I can if you are interested, but I wonít do it here.
The focused attention (specifically signal detection) was enhanced in Portal 2 players
versus MS Games players meaning that they did score
higher in focused attention. Not surprisingly, because it took a lot of
concentration. We donít know if it persisted but during
that time period they were working that attention quite a bit more than the controlled players.
The potential cause is the amount of concentration needed, thatís probably the reason at this
point.
26:00 That was very interesting. This is the correlational
pieces. Those that had previous experience playing
Portal 2 within the past six months correlated with greater spatial working memory capabilities.
It is self report, but thatís an interesting measure.
If you think about working memory, potentially and how it correlates with fluid intelligence
thatís very interesting. Historically gameplay of those you played
19+ hours/week of any game correlated with greater spatial working memory,
spatial sequencing and cognitive planning capabilities.
Those are very important executive functions. That was on the pre-test.
Of all the participants, those who reported playing 19+ hours/week of video games of any
type scored higher on those executive functions tests.
Thatís very interesting. Also, there were some interactions with MMOGís,
card games, puzzles, racing, strategy and sports games.
Potentially those might have some value, we donít know for sure, but it bears looking
at it further. I think we have a few folks that have attended
some of our presentations in the past that may be looking at replicating the study and
expand it. We intend of getting more Portal 2 data and
getting history data for more correlational work this Spring.
I donít have it on the last slide, but we are working on that.
28:00 We took this to another phase after we finished
and treated Portal 2 as a black box. We didnít know what might be inside or what
might be doing what. We didnít know where the features where exactly
and how much. We really needed to drill down into it.
This next phase of the webinar is where Shenan is going to talk about how and why we did
that. Iíll come back in at the end. Go ahead Shenan.
>> Shenan Prestwich: Thank You Shane. Shane mentioned that in the study we did treat
it as a black box. We had some ideas that it generally had those
characteristics. We didnít have a really clear, detailed or
thorough map as to exactly where those characteristics were present
in the game or when they were present and to what degree.
We didnít have a clear cognitive picture of the game.
We actually inquired into Valve Software, the makers of the Game, to see if they could
provide us any documentation or design documentation. We werenít able to attain any.
We wanted to empirically and thoroughly evaluate the game our self for the cognitive capabilities
and design characteristics that we were looking for.
We turned to Cognitive Task Analysis (CTA). Itís a technique commonly used by industry
and research professionals. Itís meant to capture and model behavioral
and cognitive processes involved in a accomplishing a task at an expert level,
usually a job related task.
30:00 It includes the following: looking at the
decision making processes, responding to environmental cues or audio/visual cues in the environment,
what tools they may have to utilize, performing sub-tasks and how they analyze and alter their
own performance in performing that task on the job.
We wanted to apply CTA to video games to understand video games similarly on a cognitive level
to the way that people apply CTA to a job or job task.
We wanted to understand the design of the game and how the design interacts with player
cognition. Our goal was to use CTA to map and model the
cognition and interaction within the video game.
At the time it was a novel thing to apply CTA to the entire narrative structure of the
video game. We really had to look at the ways CTA had
been applied in other areas and develop a novel protocol ourselves
for applying it to the entire narrative structure video game.
Iíll talk a little about the protocol that we developed.
It ended up being a two part protocol. Part 1: Preliminary Analysis/Lexicon Development.
We found it was really important to establish a common vocabulary for the game.
CTA usually involves at least one researchers guiding the CTA and administering it.
In this case, because we are using video games one person playing the game and interacting
with the researcher.
32:00 The researcher tries to illicit whatís going
on in their head as they are playing the game. We found it really important to establish
a common vocabulary so everyone was on the same page
and using the same words to describe the game and talk about the games.
Names for features, tools, obstacles, environmental features and etcÖ
Itís also important to analyze the structure of the game and break it down into measurable
units that you can analyze. Thatís another vocabulary language to make
sure you are on the same page to how you talk about the structure of the game in general.
In the case of Portal 2, itís very clearly broken down into chapters which correlates
to the greater story of the game and levels that the player has to accomplish in
the chapter. Itís linear in that regard that the player
has to beat the level in order to move on to the next level.
This is an example of a diagram that we made to lay out the vocabulary.
Some of this was provided by Steam who put out this game.
We found that there were features that didnít have a name or a word provided by the game
so we had to add a few to make sure we were all on the same page.
Part 2: Focused Knowledge Elicitation. This is where the player plays through the
game and the researcher guides the player before
each level to speak aloud as they are playing and narrate their thought processes and what
action they are taking.
34:00 As well as, what theyíre thinking, what decision
theyíre making, what options theyíre considering, etcÖ
Weíll talk about the application of this later, as they move through the physical spaces
of the game. We asked them to describe their expectations
in terms of how they will interact with the game environment.
We asked them to keep speaking out loud as those expectations were challenged or confirmed.
We asked them how they were re-evaluating those decisions.
As we did this, we recorded each level of game play with a program called FRAPS
which captures what goes on the screen and the audio of the player and researcher speaking
aloud. As we went back and analyzed the recordings
that we had taken with FRAPS to get into a deeper level of analysis we
also audio recorded all of our analysis. We had hours and hours of recording.
We went level by level. After each level, the subject would play through
and try to speak to the researcher as much as possible all of the things that I mentioned.
After every level, we would stop the FRAPS recording and go through and analyze it.
We did this twice. On the first round we looked for certain design and cognitive related qualities.
We looked for affordances, which is anything in the level that was put in the game for
the player to interact with. It could be a tool like a portal gun, a button
to press, a stairway to rise up and walk on, etcÖ
What requisite knowledge the player needed to complete the level.
Letís say they had to use portals in the level.
Requisite knowledge would be how portals work, what they are, how you shoot a portal, how
you move through a portal, etcÖ
36:00 What smaller portals, what we call micro-puzzles
were present in each level that the player had to work through in order
to accomplish a larger task? The mechanical and cognitive steps required.
What the player actually had to do as well as what decisions they had to make.
What audio or visual cues they had to take note of and process to get information from
the environment. We have a video, but Iím not sure if the
audio is going to work real well. Iím having a little trouble with it on the
GoTo Webinar software. We originally wanted to demonstrate with this.
This is a FRAPS recording that we took. Itís a very short level, which is why we
thought it would be good to play. We wanted to show an example of what the interaction
between the player and researcher sounded like when performing the game.
I donít think the audio is going to work well,
so Iím going to start playing it but skip around so you can see what the environment
looks like in Portal. Iíll skip around here.
You can see thatís heís walking through and surveying the environment.
Thereís a button and a dotted line connected to the door. The button controls the door.
You may not be able to hear it, but you can see a box falling.
The box falling was a visual and audio cue that the player had to take not of.
Thereís half of a portal. Portals are obviously very key to the game of Portal.
38:00 If you are not familiar with it, the player
has a portal gun. Portal is also referred to both as puzzle
logic game and a physics game because the rules of the game and environment
are constantly changing. You have to figure out the physics of portal.
A lot of other things are changing that bend physics, but bend it in a way thatís specific
to the rules of the environment. None of that is given to the player. The player
has to figure that out what the rules of physics are.
Weíll stop that now. We wanted you guys to see what a CTA session looks like, even if
for this very short simple level. We do have this video uploading to the ADL
YouTube channel. A link to that will be available on the resources
page for this webinar. Jono will point you to that at the end.
This is an example of that first set of information that we would try to collect from the first
round of analyzing the FRAPS recording. This is an example from Chapter 1, Level 1.
This is the first level in the game and itís incredibly simple and short.
This is the depth of information that we captured from even such a short level such as that.
The second time we would review the FRAPS recording
we would review it to identify the presence or absence of design characteristics in the
game. This would be both the researcher and the
player analyzing it together. This is the Rubric that we used. We would
look in each level for any rules that were present.
We would go through, in incredible detail, describe every rule that applied to that environment
in that level. That included both constituative rules which
are rules of the universe and how the game world operates and operational
rules meaning the rules of play.
40:00 For each rule that we listed we would determine
if it was implicit or explicit, meaning whether the player had to figure out
the rule for themselves or if it was explicitly told to them.
We looked at if it was a new or altered rule, or if it was an old rule that carried on from
a previous level. We would also note any environmental changes
that occurred in the game. One example of that is in one level you are
suddenly confronted with a pool of water. The water is deadly and you have to figure
that out. You have never encountered deadly water before.
That would be an environmental change. We also had the player describe their expectations
as they went through the game of what they had to do and how they
had to interact with the environment. We looked at whether that was challenged or
confirmed and whether they had to re-evaluate. For each instance the player described their
expectations and whether it was what they expected or if
their expectations were challenged. We would determine that expectation in its
correctness or incorrectness was explicitly or implicitly reinforced.
Whether they had to figure out whether that was correct or not or whether the game explicitly
told them. Finally we had the player list out any instances
of open-endedness in the game. We had them list ways that they thought the
game was open-ended and ways they game play was constrained.
As Shane mentioned, there is never going to be a game thatís completely open ended
because one of the things that makes a game a game is the fact that it has rules.
Thereís always going to be some constraints on game play because itís necessary for the
existence of the game. There are some games that are more open ended
and do allow more freedom of choice than others.
42:00 So this slide lists our progress so far.
We have developed a protocol for applying CTA to video game play that encompasses a
thorough and empirical analysis of cognitive, mechanical and design elements.
In analyzing the design characteristics we have definitely confirmed that Portal 2
does have in a modulating fashion a very persistent presence of all five cognitive adaptability
design characteristics throughout the entire levels and entire narrative
of the game. We have started to analyze the varying information
processing and filtering as well as the executive function requirements throughout the game.
A lot of this comes from analyzing the audio/visual cue processing requirements of each level.
We have started to break it down into which audio/visual cue the player took note of that
were relevant, helpful or critical to their decision making
process that they could not complete the level if they did not take note of the cue.
We broke down which ones were irrelevant or distracting as the player had to work through
to get the critical cues. Ok, Iíll throw it back to Shane now to talk
about the next project we are doing with CTA. >> Shane Gallagher: Thanks Shenan.
This is where we going right now with this particular phase.
Some of this has to do with the progress you saw on the previous chart.
We are looking at developing a cognitive profile of all the analyzed puzzles and micro puzzles
in Portal 2. We want to align those to specific CANTAB
battery components so we know if itís attention switching focused
or if itís spatial span or executive planning.
44:00 What seems to be the overarching cognitive
requirement of the puzzle or combination of puzzles if they are micro puzzles.
We are looking at custom level builder through Portal 2 which is a nice feature of Portal
2. It allows us to develop levels that we can
align to have specific cognitive properties based upon how we have profiled those puzzles.
We are going to fine tune those and look at those design levels as a intervention.
We want to see if we can pin point developing and enhancing the cognitive adaptability components
that we care about. With that I believe we are ready to go to
Jono for questions. >>Jono Poltrack: Thank You Shane and Shenan.
We have just one comment. Remember on your GoTo Webinar screen chat
window thereís a link to the webinar resources. You can find the slides there and eventually
weíll get a video up there. The video that Shenan played is all available
there. Weíve had some questions on that so please
look at your chat window and youíll see the link for that.
Shane and Shenan answered most of the questions. Participants if you have any questions please
enter those now. I do have one for Shane that is unanswered.
I realize that I should have put down the slide that this was associated with because
it was early on in the presentation. Please remember that this within your first
ten slides and hopefully that will give you the context.
Is the increase in cognitive capability general of context specific?
46:00 >> Shane Gallagher: Thatís a good question
and one of the reasons that we looked at the cognitive capabilities
at that level is because they tend to generalize. They tend to not be context specific, so for
example adaptability itself is context specific. You are adaptable within a particular context;
however, general cognitive flexibility is not contextual.
Working memory capacity is not contextual. They should be fully transferable basically
not domain specific. Thatís another reason we are at that level
because we think if we can increase that it would have a benefit for transference.
>>Jono Poltrak: Very good. Thank You Shane. Let me double check to see if Marcus has any
questions on the DCO side. I donít believe so. Do you have anything
there, Marcus? >>Marcus Birtwhistle: No there isnít.
>>Jono Poltrak: Ok, thank you very much. Shane Iíll put you on the spot for any last words.
>>Shane Gallagher: I just want to say Thank You all for attending.
I hope you look forward to some of the work that weíre doing throughout January in our
effort. Check out our resources, we have some papers
and presentations on this. We think we can influence at least the identification
of valuable commercial off the shelf (COTS) games
as well as potential ways of game design for serious games that can get down to this level.
48:00 Thank you for attending.
>>Jono Poltrak: Shane, I do have one more question that came in that we can catch.
Is there a difference between novice and experienced players?
>>Shane Gallagher: Yes, there is a difference. We used experienced players because we wanted
the cognitive load to be low in terms of the games itself
and we wanted to concentrate on what the puzzles were and how they were being solved.
An expert was more desirable in this type of analysis.
If you do it on different levels, you will probably get a different take.
We did not do any work with any novice players, only experts.
>>Shenan Prestwich: We should note that the game design characteristics are going to stay
consistent whether a novice or expert is playing. The game design that we are looking at will
still be consistent not matter the level of the player.
>>Jono Poltrak: Very good. Thank You very much Shane and Shenan.
You can go to www.adlnet.gov/webinars to get the resources for this webinar and every other
webinar that weíve had in the past. Thatís includes the slides, often video recording
and other resources. If you are looking for the resources specifically
for this webinar again the link is in the chat window.
Also, check www.adlnet.gov towards the end of this year and the beginning of next year
and weíll introduce the next webinar in the webinar series.
Thank You everyone for attending. Have a great rest of your day!