Effective Gamification of the Stop-Signal Task: Two Controlled Laboratory Experiments.
cognition
games, experimental
motivation
proof of concept study
psychology
video games
Journal
JMIR serious games
ISSN: 2291-9279
Titre abrégé: JMIR Serious Games
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101645255
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 Sep 2020
08 Sep 2020
Historique:
received:
14
01
2020
accepted:
25
06
2020
revised:
16
06
2020
entrez:
8
9
2020
pubmed:
9
9
2020
medline:
9
9
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
A lack of ability to inhibit prepotent responses, or more generally a lack of impulse control, is associated with several disorders such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and schizophrenia as well as general damage to the prefrontal cortex. A stop-signal task (SST) is a reliable and established measure of response inhibition. However, using the SST as an objective assessment in diagnostic or research-focused settings places significant stress on participants as the task itself requires concentration and cognitive effort and is not particularly engaging. This can lead to decreased motivation to follow task instructions and poor data quality, which can affect assessment efficacy and might increase drop-out rates. Gamification-the application of game-based elements in nongame settings-has shown to improve engaged attention to a cognitive task, thus increasing participant motivation and data quality. This study aims to design a gamified SST that improves participants' engagement and validate this gamified SST against a standard SST. We described the design of our gamified SST and reported on 2 separate studies that aim to validate the gamified SST relative to a standard SST. In study 1, a within-subject design was used to compare the performance of the SST and a stop-signal game (SSG). In study 2, we added eye tracking to the procedure to determine if overt attention was affected and aimed to replicate the findings from study 1 in a between-subjects design. Furthermore, in both studies, flow and motivational experiences were measured. In contrast, the behavioral performance was comparable between the tasks (P<.87; BF01=2.87), and the experience of flow and intrinsic motivation were rated higher in the SSG group, although this difference was not significant. Overall, our findings provide evidence that the gamification of SST is possible and that the SSG is enjoyed more. Thus, when participant engagement is critical, we recommend using the SSG instead of the SST.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
A lack of ability to inhibit prepotent responses, or more generally a lack of impulse control, is associated with several disorders such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and schizophrenia as well as general damage to the prefrontal cortex. A stop-signal task (SST) is a reliable and established measure of response inhibition. However, using the SST as an objective assessment in diagnostic or research-focused settings places significant stress on participants as the task itself requires concentration and cognitive effort and is not particularly engaging. This can lead to decreased motivation to follow task instructions and poor data quality, which can affect assessment efficacy and might increase drop-out rates. Gamification-the application of game-based elements in nongame settings-has shown to improve engaged attention to a cognitive task, thus increasing participant motivation and data quality.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to design a gamified SST that improves participants' engagement and validate this gamified SST against a standard SST.
METHODS
METHODS
We described the design of our gamified SST and reported on 2 separate studies that aim to validate the gamified SST relative to a standard SST. In study 1, a within-subject design was used to compare the performance of the SST and a stop-signal game (SSG). In study 2, we added eye tracking to the procedure to determine if overt attention was affected and aimed to replicate the findings from study 1 in a between-subjects design. Furthermore, in both studies, flow and motivational experiences were measured.
RESULTS
RESULTS
In contrast, the behavioral performance was comparable between the tasks (P<.87; BF01=2.87), and the experience of flow and intrinsic motivation were rated higher in the SSG group, although this difference was not significant.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, our findings provide evidence that the gamification of SST is possible and that the SSG is enjoyed more. Thus, when participant engagement is critical, we recommend using the SSG instead of the SST.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32897233
pii: v8i3e17810
doi: 10.2196/17810
pmc: PMC7509611
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e17810Informations de copyright
©Maximilian Achim Friehs, Martin Dechant, Sarah Vedress, Christian Frings, Regan Lee Mandryk. Originally published in JMIR Serious Games (http://games.jmir.org), 08.09.2020.
Références
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2010 May;63(5):863-91
pubmed: 19746300
Trends Cogn Sci. 2004 Apr;8(4):170-7
pubmed: 15050513
Neuroreport. 2004 Nov 15;15(16):2467-70
pubmed: 15538176
J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2010 Nov;16(6):1064-76
pubmed: 20719043
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2015 Apr;144(2):264-73
pubmed: 25559653
Neuroimage. 2012 Feb 1;59(3):2860-70
pubmed: 21979383
Psychon Bull Rev. 2018 Feb;25(1):58-76
pubmed: 28685272
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2011 Mar;100(3):426-32
pubmed: 21280965
Soc Sci Med. 2010 Jul;71(1):30-7
pubmed: 20400220
J Atten Disord. 2009 Sep;13(2):137-43
pubmed: 19429883
Psychol Sci. 2013 Mar 1;24(3):352-62
pubmed: 23399493
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2016 Oct;111(4):493-504
pubmed: 27295328
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2018 Dec;44(12):1933-1945
pubmed: 30299126
JMIR Ment Health. 2020 Mar 26;7(3):e12388
pubmed: 32213474
Sensors (Basel). 2019 Jun 28;19(13):
pubmed: 31261716
Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2011 Nov;26(7):602-13
pubmed: 21653627
JMIR Serious Games. 2016 Jul 15;4(2):e11
pubmed: 27421244
Behav Res Methods. 2018 Jun;50(3):1166-1186
pubmed: 28726177
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2015 Feb;144(1):158-171
pubmed: 25420117
Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2019 Oct;19(5):1129-1142
pubmed: 31313248
Stat Methods Med Res. 1997 Jun;6(2):103-14
pubmed: 9261910
J Med Internet Res. 2017 Nov 22;19(11):e395
pubmed: 29167090
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2014 Aug;40(4):1295-300
pubmed: 24842070
Psychol Res. 2020 Apr;84(3):823-833
pubmed: 30128660
Clin Neuropsychol. 2015;29(1):101-17
pubmed: 25494327
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2010 Jun;63(6):1072-84
pubmed: 19890767
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1984 Apr;10(2):276-91
pubmed: 6232345
J Med Internet Res. 2012 Nov 14;14(6):e152
pubmed: 23151820
Cognition. 2015 Sep;142:81-95
pubmed: 26036922
Top Cogn Sci. 2016 Jul;8(3):520-47
pubmed: 27489199
J Abnorm Psychol. 2005 May;114(2):216-22
pubmed: 15869352
J Med Internet Res. 2017 Apr 20;19(4):e128
pubmed: 28428161
Dev Psychol. 1997 Mar;33(2):308-318
pubmed: 9147839
Psychon Bull Rev. 2018 Feb;25(1):35-57
pubmed: 28779455
Clin Neuropsychol. 2009 Sep;23(7):1093-129
pubmed: 19735055
Behav Res Methods. 2014 Mar;46(1):159-72
pubmed: 23835649
PLoS One. 2013;8(2):e55773
pubmed: 23418458
Nebr Symp Motiv. 1992;40:57-97
pubmed: 1340523
Psychol Sci. 2015 May;26(5):604-16
pubmed: 25847536
Elife. 2019 Apr 29;8:
pubmed: 31033438
Am Psychol. 2000 Jan;55(1):68-78
pubmed: 11392867
J Psychiatry Neurosci. 2008 Sep;33(5):413-22
pubmed: 18787658
Behav Res Methods. 2007 May;39(2):175-91
pubmed: 17695343
Res Dev Disabil. 2009 Nov-Dec;30(6):1268-80
pubmed: 19497707
Neuroimage. 2002 Dec;17(4):1820-9
pubmed: 12498755
BMJ. 1994 Jun 4;308(6942):1499
pubmed: 8019287
Behav Res Methods. 2013 Jun;45(2):301-18
pubmed: 23055169
Biol Psychiatry. 2000 Aug 1;48(3):210-21
pubmed: 10924664
J Neurosci. 2007 Apr 4;27(14):3743-52
pubmed: 17409238
Child Neuropsychol. 2010;16(6):604-18
pubmed: 20628928
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2015;68(5):833-57
pubmed: 25633089
Contemp Educ Psychol. 2000 Jan;25(1):54-67
pubmed: 10620381
PeerJ. 2016 Jul 06;4:e2184
pubmed: 27441120
J Clin Psychol. 2007 Jun;63(6):585-92
pubmed: 17457848
Psychol Assess. 2015 Jun;27(2):365-76
pubmed: 25419646
Trends Cogn Sci. 2014 Apr;18(4):177-85
pubmed: 24440116
Exp Brain Res. 2013 Oct;230(3):333-43
pubmed: 23955103
Brain Behav. 2018 Aug;8(8):e01076
pubmed: 30020566
J Biomed Inform. 2016 Dec;64:296-319
pubmed: 27815228
Brain Cogn. 2018 Feb;120:1-7
pubmed: 29202318
J Exp Psychol Appl. 2011 Jun;17(2):110-27
pubmed: 21604910