Measuring Engagement of Spectators of Social Digital Games
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of this methodology is to assess explicit and implicit measures of engagement of spectators during social digital games in a group of participants with motion tracking systems. In the context of games that are not confined within a screen, measuring the different dimensions of engagement such as physiological arousal can be challenging. The focus of the study is made on the spectators of the game and the differences in their engagement according to interactivity. Engagement is measured with physiological and self-reported arousal, as well as an engagement questionnaire at the end of the experiment. Physiological arousal is measured with electrodermal activity (EDA) sensors that record the data on a portable device (EDA box). Portability was essential because of the nature of the game, which is akin to a life-size pong and includes many participants that move. To have an overview of the events of the game, three cameras are used to film three angles of the playing field. To synchronize the EDA data with events happening in the game, boxes with digital numbers are used and put in the frames of cameras. Signals are sent from a sync box simultaneously to the EDA boxes and to light boxes. The light boxes show the synchronization numbers to the cameras, and the same numbers are also logged on the EDA data file. That way, it is possible to record EDA of many people that move freely in a large space and synchronize this data with events in the game. In our particular study, we were able to assess the differences in arousal for the different conditions of interactivity. One of the limitations of this method is that the signals cannot be sent farther than 20 meters away. This method is, therefore, appropriate for recording physiological data in games with an unlimited number of players but is restricted to a limited space.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".