MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Player-Game Interaction Through Affective Sound

2010· book-chapter· en· W4211102513 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIGI Global eBooks · 2010
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedia Influence and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPleasureContext (archaeology)Interpretation (philosophy)Sound (geography)Game designGame mechanicsPsychologyEmpirical researchCognitive psychologyComputer scienceHuman–computer interactionEpistemologyAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter treats computer game playing as an affective activity, largely guided by the audio-visual aesthetics of game content (of which, here, we concentrate on the role of sound) and the pleasure of gameplay. To understand the aesthetic impact of game sound on player experience, definitions of emotions are briefly discussed and framed in the game context. This leads to an introduction of empirical methods for assessing physiological and psychological effects of play, such as the affective impact of sonic player-game interaction. The psychological methodology presented is largely based on subjective interpretation of experience, while psychophysiological methodology is based on measurable bodily changes, such as context-dependent, physiological experience. As a means to illustrate both the potential and the difficulties inherent in such methodology we discuss the results of some experiments that investigate game sound and music effects and, finally, we close with a discussion of possible research directions based on a speculative assessment of the future of player-game interaction through affective sound.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.549
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it