Differentiating in-Game Frustration from at-Game Frustration using Touch Pressure
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
Games are engaging in part because players experience competence from overcoming challenges. Although this process can feel frustrating, it is often experienced as a positive frustration that results in further engagement. Motivating frustration can be difficult to differentiate from the disheartening frustration that occurs when games are poorly designed or are much too difficult, yet understanding this difference is important for designers to make informed decisions on how to address player experience problems. We conducted an experiment to determine whether touch pressure from game interaction can differentiate between motivating in-game frustration and disheartening at-game frustration. Our results showed that although in-game and at-game frustration were of similar magnitude, enjoyment was higher and attribution was more internal for in-game frustration. Both peak pressure and mean pressure were also higher for in-game frustration, showing the potential of touch pressure as a game experience evaluation metric.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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