Guided Emotional State Regulation: Understanding and Shaping Players’ Affective Experiences in Digital Games
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Designing adaptive games for individual emotional experiences is a tricky task, especially when detecting a player’s emotional state in real time requires physiological sensing hardware and signal processing software. There is currently a lack of software that can identify and learn how emotional states in games are triggered. To address this problem, we developed a system capable of understanding the fundamental relations between emotional responses and their eliciting events. We propose time-evolving Affective Reaction Models (ARM), which learn new affective reactions and manage conflicting ones. These models are then meant to provide information on how a set of predetermined game parameters (e.g., enemy and item spawning, music and lighting effects) should be adapted, to modulate the player’s emotional state. In this paper, we propose and describe a framework for modulating player emotions and the main components involved in regulating players’ affective experience. We expect our technique will allow game designers to focus on defining high-level rules for generating gameplay experiences instead of having to create and test different content for each player type.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it