4.7 Article

Classification of Video Game Player Experience Using Consumer-Grade Electroencephalography

Journal

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AFFECTIVE COMPUTING
Volume 13, Issue 1, Pages 3-15

Publisher

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TAFFC.2020.2992437

Keywords

Neurogaming; electroencephalography; emotiv; cognitive; affective; engagement; arousal

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study tested the performance of classifiers in neurogaming and found that a combination of classifiers is preferable over selecting a single classifier.
A growing body of literature has emerged that demonstrates the potential of neurogaming platforms for inter-facing with well-known video games. With the recent convergence of advances in consumer electronics, ubiquitous computing, and wearable sensor technologies real-time monitoring of neurocognitive and affective states can be studied in an objective manner. Whilst establishing the optimal relation among frequency bands, task engagement, and arousal states is a goal of neurogaming, a standardized method has yet to be established. Herein we aimed to test classifiers within the same context, group of participants, feature extraction methods, and protocol. Given the emphasis upon neurogaming, a commercial-grade electroencephalographic (EEG; Emotiv EPOC) headset was used to collect signals from 30 participants. The EEG data was then filtered to get separate frequency bands to train cognitive-affective classifiers with three classification techniques: Support Vector Machines (SVM), Naive Bayes (NB), and k-Nearest Neighbors (kNN). Results revealed that the NB classifier was the most robust classifier for identifying negative (e.g., character death) game-based events. The identification of general gameplay events is best identified using kNN and the Beta band. Results from this study suggest that a combination of classifiers is preferable over selection of a single classifier.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available