skip to main content
10.1145/3565970.3567684acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessuiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Evaluating Difficulty Adjustments in a VR Exergame for Younger and Older Adults: Transferabilities and Differences

Published:01 December 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

Virtual reality (VR) exergames have the potential to train cognitive and physical abilities. However, most of these spatial games are developed for younger users and do not consider older adults with different design requirements. Yet, to be entertaining and efficient, the difficulty of games has to match the needs of players with different abilities. In this paper, we explore the effects of individually calibrating a starting difficulty and adjusting it: i) exactly as calibrated before, ii) 50% more difficult, and iii) 50% less difficult. In a user study, we compare the effects of using these adjustments on reaction times and subjective measures on younger (n=30) and older adults (n=9). The results show that most of the users prefer a faster-paced VR game in terms of enjoyment, but this also resulted in a higher perceived workload. Compared to the younger adults, the older adults rated the game more positive in terms of higher enjoyment and eagerness to play the game again, as well as lower perceived workload. This emphasizes the need for games to be designed for the user group they are intended for; both in terms of cognitive-physical difficulty and game content. Furthermore, we reflect on the transferability of the results obtained from testing with the younger adults and highlight their potential, especially for identifying suggestions and issues with the gameplay.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

sui22-4-video.mp4

mp4

109.1 MB

References

  1. 2019. Unity Real-Time Development Platform. https://unity3d.com/get-unity/download/archiveGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Gustavo Andrade, Geber Ramalho, Hugo Santana, and Vincent Corruble. 2005. Extending reinforcement learning to provide dynamic game balancing. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Reasoning, Representation, and Learning in Computer Games, 19th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI). 7–12.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Dennis Ang and Alex Mitchell. 2019. Representation and frequency of player choice in player-oriented dynamic difficulty adjustment systems. In Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play. 589–600.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Dale Cantwell, Daire O Broin, Ross Palmer, and Greg Doyle. 2012. Motivating elderly people to exercise using a social collaborative exergame with adaptive difficulty. In Proceedings of the 6th European Conference on Games Based Learning, Cork, Ireland. 4–5.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Wojtek J Chodzko-Zajko, David N Proctor, Maria A Fiatarone Singh, Christopher T Minson, Claudio R Nigg, George J Salem, and James S Skinner. 2009. Exercise and physical activity for older adults. Medicine & science in sports & exercise 41, 7 (2009), 1510–1530.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Anna Cox, Paul Cairns, Pari Shah, and Michael Carroll. 2012. Not doing but thinking: the role of challenge in the gaming experience. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 79–88.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi and Mihaly Csikzentmihaly. 1990. Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. Vol. 1990. Harper & Row New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Facebook Technologies, LLC. 2022. Meta Quest. https://www.oculus.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Paul M Fitts. 1954. The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement.Journal of experimental psychology 47, 6 (1954), 381.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. FitXR. 2022. FitXR. https://fitxr.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. International Organization for Standardization. 2019. ISO 9241-210:2019 Ergonomics of human-system interaction — Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems. https://www.iso.org/standard/77520.html International Organization for Standardization. Geneva, Switzerland.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Patrick D Gajewski and Michael Falkenstein. 2016. Physical activity and neurocognitive functioning in aging-a condensed updated review. European Review of Aging and Physical Activity 13, 1 (2016), 1–7.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Beat Games. 2022. Beat Saber. https://beatsaber.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Courtney D Hall, Alan L Smith, and Steven W Keele. 2001. The impact of aerobic activity on cognitive function in older adults: A new synthesis based on the concept of executive control. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology 13, 1-2 (2001), 279–300.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Sandra G Hart and Lowell E Staveland. 1988. Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In Advances in psychology. Vol. 52. Elsevier, 139–183.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Judith Hartfill, Jenny Gabel, Lucie Kruse, Susanne Schmidt, Kevin Riebandt, Simone Kühn, and Frank Steinicke. 2021. Analysis of Detection Thresholds for Hand Redirection during Mid-Air Interactions in Virtual Reality. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology. 1–10.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Nicole TM Hill, Loren Mowszowski, Sharon L Naismith, Verity L Chadwick, Michael Valenzuela, and Amit Lampit. 2017. Computerized cognitive training in older adults with mild cognitive impairment or dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. American Journal of Psychiatry 174, 4 (2017), 329–340.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Anne Hösch. 2018. Simulator Sickness in Fahrsimulationsumgebungen-drei Studien zu Human Factors. Ph.D. Dissertation. Technische Universität Ilmenau.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Han-Chung Huang, May-Kuen Wong, Ju Lu, Wei-Fan Huang, and Ching-I Teng. 2017. Can using exergames improve physical fitness? A 12-week randomized controlled trial. Computers in Human Behavior 70 (2017), 310–316.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Sukran Karaosmanoglu, Lucie Kruse, Sebastian Rings, and Frank Steinicke. 2022. Canoe VR: An Immersive Exergame to Support Cognitive and Physical Exercises of Older Adults. In Extended Abstracts of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New Orleans, LA, USA) (CHI EA ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 342, 7 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491101.3519736Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Sukran Karaosmanoglu, Sebastian Rings, Lucie Kruse, Christian Stein, and Frank Steinicke. 2021. Lessons Learned from a Human-Centered Design of an Immersive Exergame for People with Dementia. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 5, CHI PLAY, Article 252 (oct 2021), 27 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3474679Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Robert S Kennedy, Norman E Lane, Kevin S Berbaum, and Michael G Lilienthal. 1993. Simulator sickness questionnaire: An enhanced method for quantifying simulator sickness. The international journal of aviation psychology 3, 3 (1993), 203–220.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Oksoo Kim, Yanghee Pang, and Jung-Hee Kim. 2019. The effectiveness of virtual reality for people with mild cognitive impairment or dementia: a meta-analysis. BMC psychiatry 19, 1 (2019), 219.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Lucie Kruse, Sukran Karaosmanoglu, Sebastian Rings, Benedikt Ellinger, Daniel Apken, Thandiwe Feziwe Mangana, and Frank Steinicke. 2021. A Long-Term User Study of an Immersive Exergame for Older Adults with Mild Dementia during the COVID-19 Pandemic. In ICAT-EGVE 2021 - International Conference on Artificial Reality and Telexistence and Eurographics Symposium on Virtual Environments, Jason Orlosky, Dirk Reiners, and Benjamin Weyers (Eds.). The Eurographics Association. https://doi.org/10.2312/egve.20211322Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Lucie Kruse, Sukran Karaosmanoglu, Sebastian Rings, Benedikt Ellinger, and Frank Steinicke. 2021. Enabling Immersive Exercise Activities for Older Adults: A Comparison of Virtual Reality Exergames and Traditional Video Exercises. Societies 11, 4 (2021), 134.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Odders Labs. 2021. OhShape. https://ohshapevr.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Francis Langlois, Thien Tuong Minh Vu, Kathleen Chassé, Gilles Dupuis, Marie-Jeanne Kergoat, and Louis Bherer. 2013. Benefits of physical exercise training on cognition and quality of life in frail older adults. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B 68, 3 (2013), 400–404.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Seri Maeng, Jin Pyo Hong, Won-Hyoung Kim, Hyeyoung Kim, Seo-Eun Cho, Jae Myeong Kang, Kyoung-Sae Na, Seok-Hee Oh, Jung Woon Park, Jae Nam Bae, 2021. Effects of Virtual Reality-Based Cognitive Training in the Elderly with and without Mild Cognitive Impairment. Psychiatry investigation 18, 7 (2021), 619.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Mara Mather and Laura L Carstensen. 2005. Aging and motivated cognition: The positivity effect in attention and memory. Trends in cognitive sciences 9, 10 (2005), 496–502.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Joan M McDowd and Fergus IM Craik. 1988. Effects of aging and task difficulty on divided attention performance.Journal of experimental psychology: human perception and performance 14, 2(1988), 267.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Andre McGrail, Alex Best, and Stintah. 2020. Boat Attack. https://github.com/Unity-Technologies/BoatAttack. Accessed: 06.01.2022.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Lisa Miles. 2007. Physical activity and health. Nutrition bulletin 32, 4 (2007), 314–363.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. John Muñoz, Samira Mehrabi, Yirou Li, Aysha Basharat, Laura E Middleton, Shi Cao, Michael Barnett-Cowan, and Jennifer Boger. 2022. Immersive Virtual Reality Exergames for Persons Living With Dementia: User-Centered Design Study as a Multistakeholder Team During the COVID-19 Pandemic. JMIR Serious Games 10, 1 (19 Jan 2022), e29987. https://doi.org/10.2196/29987Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Daniel L Murman. 2015. The impact of age on cognition. In Seminars in hearing, Vol. 36. Thieme Medical Publishers, 111–121. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0035-1555115Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Ziad S Nasreddine, Natalie A Phillips, Valérie Bédirian, Simon Charbonneau, Victor Whitehead, Isabelle Collin, Jeffrey L Cummings, and Howard Chertkow. 2005. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 53, 4 (2005), 695–699.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Scott A Paluska and Thomas L Schwenk. 2000. Physical activity and mental health. Sports medicine 29, 3 (2000), 167–180.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Manuel Pezzera and N Alberto Borghese. 2020. Dynamic difficulty adjustment in exer-games for rehabilitation: a mixed approach. In 2020 IEEE 8th International Conference on Serious Games and Applications for Health (SeGAH). IEEE, 1–7.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Prefrontal Cortex. 2020. Boat Attack. https://github.com/prefrontalcortex/BoatAttack/tree/boat-attack-vr. Accessed: 13.01.2022.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Sebastian Rings, Sukran Karaosmanoglu, Lucie Kruse, Daniel Apken, Tobias Picker, and Frank Steinicke. 2020. Using Exergames to Train Patients with Dementia to Accomplish Daily Routines. In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play. 345–349.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Richard M Ryan, C Scott Rigby, and Andrew Przybylski. 2006. The motivational pull of video games: A self-determination theory approach. Motivation and emotion 30, 4 (2006), 344–360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-006-9051-8 The IMI items are available online under this link: http://selfdeterminationtheory.org/intrinsic-motivation-inventory/. Accessed: 02.09.2022.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Dimitrios Saredakis, Ancret Szpak, Brandon Birckhead, Hannah AD Keage, Albert Rizzo, and Tobias Loetscher. 2020. Factors associated with virtual reality sickness in head-mounted displays: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in human neuroscience 14 (2020), 96.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Lindsay Alexander Shaw, Burkhard Claus Wünsche, Christof Lutteroth, Stefan Marks, and Rodolphe Callies. 2015. Challenges in virtual reality exergame design. (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Jeff Sinclair, Philip Hingston, and Martin Masek. 2007. Considerations for the design of exergames. In Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques in Australia and Southeast Asia. 289–295.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Jan D Smeddinck, Sandra Siegel, and Marc Herrlich. 2013. Adaptive difficulty in exergames for Parkinson’s disease patients.. In Graphics Interface. 141–148.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Jamie L Tait, Rachel L Duckham, Catherine M Milte, Luana C Main, and Robin M Daly. 2017. Influence of sequential vs. simultaneous dual-task exercise training on cognitive function in older adults. Frontiers in aging neuroscience 9 (2017), 368. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2017.00368Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. Tuong Thai. 2019. The Influence Of Exergaming On Heart Rate, Perceived Exertion, Motivation To Exercise, And Time Spent Exercising. (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. David Unbehaun, Daryoush Daniel Vaziri, Konstantin Aal, Rainer Wieching, Peter Tolmie, and Volker Wulf. 2018. Exploring the Potential of Exergames to Affect the Social and Daily Life of People with Dementia and Their Caregivers. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Montreal QC, Canada) (CHI ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173636Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Ricardo Borges Viana and Claudio Andre Barbosa De Lira. 2020. Exergames as coping strategies for anxiety disorders during the COVID-19 quarantine period. Games for health journal 9, 3 (2020), 147–149.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Matthias Wilde, Katrin Bätz, Anastassiya Kovaleva, and Detlef Urhahne. 2009. Überprüfung einer Kurzskala intrinsischer Motivation (KIM). Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften 15 (2009).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Within. 2022. Supernatural. https://www.getsupernatural.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Wenge Xu, Hai-Ning Liang, Nilufar Baghaei, Xiaoyue Ma, Kangyou Yu, Xuanru Meng, Shaoyue Wen, 2021. Effects of an Immersive Virtual Reality Exergame on University Students’ Anxiety, Depression, and Perceived Stress: Pilot Feasibility and Usability Study. JMIR Serious Games 9, 4 (2021), e29330.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  52. Wenge Xu, Hai-Ning Liang, Kangyou Yu, and Nilufar Baghaei. 2021. Effect of Gameplay Uncertainty, Display Type, and Age on Virtual Reality Exergames. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–14.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Betty Yin, Samuel Bailey, Emma Hu, Milinda Jayarekera, Alex Shaw, and Burkhard C Wünsche. 2021. Tour de Tune 2-Auditory-Game-Motor Synchronisation with Music Tempo in an Immersive Virtual Reality Exergame. In 2021 Australasian Computer Science Week Multiconference. 1–10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Ludmiła Zając-Lamparska, Monika Wiłkość-Dębczyńska, Adam Wojciechowski, Marta Podhorecka, Anna Polak-Szabela, Łukasz Warchoł, Kornelia Kędziora-Kornatowska, Aleksander Araszkiewicz, and Paweł Izdebski. 2019. Effects of virtual reality-based cognitive training in older adults living without and with mild dementia: a pretest–posttest design pilot study. BMC research notes 12, 1 (2019), 1–8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Hao Zhang, Qiong Wu, Chunyan Miao, Zhiqi Shen, and Cyril Leung. 2019. Towards age-friendly exergame design: The role of familiarity. In Proceedings of the annual symposium on computer-human interaction in play. 45–57.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. Mohammad Zohaib. 2018. Dynamic difficulty adjustment (DDA) in computer games: A review. Advances in Human-Computer Interaction 2018 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Evaluating Difficulty Adjustments in a VR Exergame for Younger and Older Adults: Transferabilities and Differences

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in
          • Published in

            cover image ACM Conferences
            SUI '22: Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Symposium on Spatial User Interaction
            December 2022
            233 pages
            ISBN:9781450399487
            DOI:10.1145/3565970

            Copyright © 2022 ACM

            Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 1 December 2022

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article
            • Research
            • Refereed limited

            Acceptance Rates

            Overall Acceptance Rate86of279submissions,31%

            Upcoming Conference

            SUI '24
            ACM Symposium on Spatial User Interaction
            October 7 - 8, 2024
            Trier , Germany

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader

          HTML Format

          View this article in HTML Format .

          View HTML Format