Motorway Jive: A game for investigating the implications of unimodal output in the design of immersive accessible experiences


Published on

Motorway Jive: A game for investigating the implications of unimodal output in the design of immersive accessible experiences by Dimitrios Darzentas, Dr. Michael Brown and Dr. Noirin Curran

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Motorway Jive: A game for investigating the implications of unimodal output in the design of immersive accessible experiences

  1. 1. Designing Games for All: Exploring Output and Immersion. Investigating the impact of modality perception on immersion in digital games
  2. 2. The Senses Five Primary Sensory Modalities • Vision • Auditory • Somatosensory (Touch and Proprioception) • Olfactory (Sense of Smell) • Gustatory (Sense of Taste)
  3. 3. Multimodal Interaction • • Human Interaction and Communication is inherently multimodal – An everyday conversation includes more than just auditory cues… – A touch can convey a whole idea… Human Computer Interaction remains limited – Multimodal Input is common. • Voice, Touch, Gaze, Motion, Gesture, BMI, etc. – Output tends to be limited • Visual, Auditory and occasionally haptic (vibration)
  4. 4. Immersion • • • Subjective by nature Difficult to achieve and easy to destroy Engagement is a vital ingredient – Mental engagement is intensely subjective but promotes immersion very effectively. – Physical engagement is easier to achieve and directly promotes immersion.
  5. 5. The importance of immersion • • • Immersion is an acknowledged ingredient of human crafted experiences – Books, Films, Theatre, Games… The majority of these constructs are limited by their medium with regards to their form and function Even when technology comes into play, the extents are often limited – 3D Films, Force Feedback
  6. 6. The Project Investigates the role of two sensory modalities, specifically visual and auditory perception, in achieving effective immersion and presence. • Establishing an experimental design to provide balanced and comparable sets of modal cues. Do so with natural interfaces for low physical engagement barriers. • Performing a user study that would evaluate the modalities both in isolation and in combination in order to study the impact of each modality.
  7. 7. The Experiment What did we do? • We made participants dodge cars. • Sometimes while blindfolded.
  8. 8. The Setup • • • Simulated a collision avoidance scenario – Virtual Cars on a highway – Mental Engagement Multimodal Input – Motion sensing technology (Kinect) – High Physical Engagement Multimodal Output – Visual and Auditory Feedback
  9. 9. The Specifics • • The Participants where asked to dodge the incoming cars for as long as possible. Nine measured sessions in total – 3 With both visual and auditory feedback – 3 With only visual feedback – 3 With only auditory feedback
  10. 10. Data Collection and Evaluation Primary desired data element: • Qualitative Immersion Measures – Method: IMEX questionnaire Secondary data element • Quantitative performance data – Participant survival time per session
  11. 11. Quantitative Results - Immersion Mean IMX score on 0-100 scale 90 The analysis showed that the modal output had a significant impact on immersion. 80 70 60 50 Both Modalities 40 Audio Only 30 Visual Only 20 10 0 General Immersion Action Visceral Mental Visceral
  12. 12. Quantitative Results Performance and Preference • • Performance was measured by the survival time of each participant in each play through – Insignificant difference between Audio-Visual and Visualonly sessions – Significant difference between Audio-Visual and Audioonly sessions – as was expected With regards to preference – 75% preferred the Audio-Visual version – 25% preferred the Audio-only version – Noce preferred the visual only version
  13. 13. Qualitative Results & User Feedback Overall, feedback from the users shows promising results: • Positive reactions to the experience • High levels of Immersion • Interesting responses regarding value of audio – A/V is optimal – Visual only is “muted” and “disconnected” – Audio only is “intense” and “thrilling”
  14. 14. Qualitative Results & User Feedback Three themes surfaced: • Rapid Immersion – Physical and Mental engagement equals rapid immersion – “Damn this is intense!” • The importance of sound – Removing a “secondary” modality has an impact – “Something was missing, I was waiting for the crunch.” • Engaging audio experience – Removing a “primary” modality has a severe impact – “That was absolutely terrifying! I was all there!”
  15. 15. Conclusions • The Starting point – The objective: Design and implement a highly immersive digital experience – The hypothesis: Unimodal and multimodal experiences create different levels of immersive response. • The findings – Achieving Immersion: Relatable scenarios and natural input greatly promote immersion – Unimodal Output: Removing primary senses leads to intense experiences
  16. 16. Potential Application • • • Enhanced Entertainment Experiences Games Designed for All – Vision Impairment • – Dexterity/Mobility Impairment • Games Designed for All vs. Accessible Games
  17. 17. The next step • • • • Contextual modality suppression – Scenario based sensory deprivation Further immersion enablers – Oculus rift Introduce additional output modalities – Haptic feedback Investigate immersive scenarios
  18. 18. Thanks for listening!