Using fNIRS to Assess Cognitive Activity During Gameplay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work explores the use of functional Near Infrared Spectroscopy (fNIRS) to assess cognitive activity during videogame play, and compare it to cognitive activity during cognitive tasks that assess executive control. To this end, we assessed haemodynamic response to videogame and cognitive tasks in the prefrontal cortex, each manipulated on a spectrum of difficulty. In our study (n = 37), we find that mental effort expended during videogame play did not differ from mental effort expended during cognitive tasks---and speculate that regional cognitive activity during gameplay is indicative of functions pertaining to memory encoding and retrieval, planning, and sustainment of attention. Our findings suggest the utility of fNIRS as a means to understand challenge as part of the player experience, and contest the popular conception of videogame play as cognitively undemanding entertainment. Further, we were successful in distinguishing between difficulty levels in the gameplay tasks, situating fNIRS as broadly useful for granular assessment of gameplay difficulty. As such, we contend that fNIRS is an effective and useful tool for generating high-resolution insights regarding cognition (and particularly the experience of difficulty) during gameplay.
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 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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".