The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Using psychophysiological techniques to measure user experience with entertainment technologies
Abstract
Emerging technologies offer exciting new ways of using entertainment technology to create fantastic play experiences and foster interactions between players. Evaluating entertainment technology is challenging because success isn't defined in terms of productivity and performance, but in terms of enjoyment and interaction. Current subjective methods of evaluating entertainment technology aren't sufficiently robust. This paper describes two experiments designed to test the efficacy of physiological measures as evaluators of user experience with entertainment technologies. We found evidence that there is a different physiological response in the body when playing against a computer versus playing against a friend. These physiological results are mirrored in the subjective reports provided by the participants. In addition, we provide guidelines for collecting physiological data for user experience analysis, which were informed by our empirical investigations. This research provides an initial step towards using physiological responses to objectively evaluate a user's experience with entertainment technology.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Picard, R. W. (1997) · MIT Press · doi:10.7551/mitpress/1140.001.0001 · Cited by 7,382
Looking at pictures: Affective, facial, visceral, and behavioral reactions
LANG, P. J., GREENWALD, M. K., BRADLEY, M. M., & HAMM, A. O. (1993) · Psychophysiology · doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.1993.tb03352.x · Cited by 3,190
Ekman, P. (1999) · Handbook of Cognition and Emotion · doi:10.1002/0470013494.ch3 · Cited by 2,125
Boucsein, W. (1992) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-5093-5 · Cited by 818
Cited by
Bargas-Avila, J. A., & Hornbæk, K. (2011) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/1978942.1979336 · Cited by 660
Fundamentals of physiological computing
Fairclough, S. H. (2009) · Interacting with Computers · doi:10.1016/j.intcom.2008.10.011 · Cited by 608
Ecg pattern analysis for emotion detection
Agrafioti, F., Hatzinakos, D., & Anderson, A. K. (2012) · IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing · doi:10.1109/t-affc.2011.28 · Cited by 476
Short-term emotion assessment in a recall paradigm
Chanel, G., Kierkels, J. J. M., Soleymani, M., & Pun, T. (2009) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2009.03.005 · Cited by 367
Empirically Building and Evaluating a Probabilistic Model of User Affect
Conati, C., & Maclaren, H. (2009) · User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction · doi:10.1007/s11257-009-9062-8 · Cited by 328
Avatars Versus Agents: A Meta-Analysis Quantifying the Effect of Agency on Social Influence
Fox, J., Ahn, S. J. (., Janssen, J. H., Yeykelis, L., Segovia, K. Y., & Bailenson, J. N. (2015) · Human–Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/07370024.2014.921494 · Cited by 320
Usability, user experience and accessibility: towards an integrative model
Sauer, J., Sonderegger, A., & Schmutz, S. (2020) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/00140139.2020.1774080 · Cited by 195
Chugunova, M., & Sele, D. (2022) · Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics · doi:10.1016/j.socec.2022.101897 · Cited by 118
(2015) · doi:10.5555/2818754.2818838 · Cited by 111
Gonzalez, J., Soma, H., Sekine, M., & Yu, W. (2012) · Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1186/1743-0003-9-33 · Cited by 87
Physiological Linkage of Dyadic Gaming Experience
Järvelä, S., Kivikangas, J. M., Kätsyri, J., & Ravaja, N. (2014) · Simulation & Gaming · doi:10.1177/1046878113513080 · Cited by 86
On User-Centric Modular QoE Prediction for VoIP Based on Machine-Learning Algorithms
Charonyktakis, P., Plakia, M., Tsamardinos, I., & Papadopouli, M. (2016) · IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing · doi:10.1109/tmc.2015.2461216 · Cited by 75
Roadmap of Designing Cognitive Metrics for Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
Hsiao, J. H.-W., Ngai, H. H. T., Qiu, L., Yang, Y., & Cao, C. C. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2108.01737 · Cited by 45
Understanding Motivations and Player Experiences of Older Adults in Virtual Reality Training
de Vries, A. W., van Dieën, J. H., van den Abeele, V., & Verschueren, S. M. P. (2018) · Games for Health Journal · doi:10.1089/g4h.2018.0008 · Cited by 45
Mining multimodal sequential patterns: a case study on affect detection
Martínez, H. P., & Yannakakis, G. N. (2011) · Proceedings of the 13th international conference on multimodal interfaces · doi:10.1145/2070481.2070485 · Cited by 42
Play-Personas: Behaviours and Belief Systems in User-Centred Game Design
Canossa, A., & Drachen, A. (2009) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-03658-3_55 · Cited by 34
Chang, S., & Suh, J. (2025) · Systems · doi:10.3390/systems13010055 · Cited by 30
Do You Feel the Same? On the Robustness of Cued-Recall Debriefing for User Experience Evaluation
Bruun, A., Law, E. L.-C., Nielsen, T. D., & Heintz, M. (2021) · ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction · doi:10.1145/3453479 · Cited by 16
Metadata
- Authors
- Mandryk, R. L., Inkpen, K. M., & Calvert, T. W.
- Venue
- Behaviour & Information Technology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2006-03
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 141-158
- ISSN
- 0144-929X (ISSN-L)
- 1362-3001
- OpenAlex
- W2015302753
- Cited by
- 518
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 25.75
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
