1. FACULTY OF ENGINEERING & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES Competitive vs Affiliative Design of Immersive VR Exergames Rafael A. Calvo | Professor in Software Engineering Positive Computing Lab School of Electrical and Information Engineering Kiran Ijaz| PhD Student

2. Agenda ›Introduction ›Problem Statement ›Solution ›Results ›Discussion and Analysis 2

3. Introduction ›Physical activity: a key to reduce many health issues ›Vital for aging population and those suffering various cognitive & physical problems [1] ›Exergames = Computer Games + Motion Sensors Technology 3

4. Problem Statement ›Motion sensing devices(Nintendo Wii, Kinect and Dance Pads) for exergames lack immersion and are less interactive ›VR headsets + video games + motion sensors might provide greater immersive experience ›VR headset (Oculus Rift) provides exciting experiences, richer engagement, greater degree of flow and a profound sense of immersion than a desktop game setup [2] ›Competitive vs Affiliative Designs ›Predominantly Exergames follow competitive design [3-5] ›Gap in design of immersive exergames literature 4

5. Solution ›VR Rides: safely cycle around almost any real-world location in an immersive virtual reality environment. ›Competitive vs Affiliative Games ›Engaging for both young and seniors ›In-game tutorial 5 Fig. 1. VR Rides Architecture

6. VR-Rides Games: Competitive and Affiliative Design Fig. 2. Competitive Game Environment and Leaderboards Fig. 3. Affiliative Virtual Tour 6

7. Evaluation ›Pilot Study: 41 participants 18 to 92 years (21 females and 20 males M=47.29, SD= 22.8) ›Method: VR-Rides equipment was deployed in local community center for 2 weeks -Random assignment for VR-Rides games -Allocated time slot of 30 minutes  Game Play + Feedback -Pre and post-test questionnaire 7 Fig. 4. Competitiveness Index [6] Across the Age Groups

8. Evaluation 8 FactorsStrongly Disagree (%) Disagree(%)Neutral(%)Agree(%)Strongly Agree(%) Sig. Task Enjoyment0(0.00)2(4.88)4.5(10.98)20.5(50.00)14(34.15).000 Motivation0(0.00)4(9.76)11.5(28.05)19(46.34)6.5(15.85).023 Performance Measure0.3(0.81)2.7(6.50)14.7(35.77)18(43.90)5.3(13.01).000 Competence0.25(0.61)5.75(14.02)14.25(34.76)15.75(38.41)5(12.20).000 Connectedness(Comp.) Connectedness(Aff.) 0(0.00) 3(14.29) 0.5(2.5) 5(23.81) 7(35) 8(38.10) 10(50) 5(5.00) 2.5(12.5).004 Table 1. Game Satisfaction Score Competitive vs Affiliative task enjoyment (U = 204.5, p =.879), motivation (U = 195.5, p =.698), performance (U = 199.5, p =.764), competence (U = 187, p =.529) and connectedness (U = 200, p =.798). Young vs old adults for task enjoyment (U = 122.5, p =.015)

9. Evaluation Fig. 5. Participants Satisfaction for two Game Designs 9

10. Discussion and Analysis ›High task enjoyment and motivation levels for both age groups ›Older adults connected really well during the affiliative tour ›Bigger sample size would provide stronger results ›VR-Rides was equally well perceived among young and old adults ›Future Work : lasting effect on one’s mobility and spatial skills 10

11. References [1] Ijsselsteijn, W., Nap, H. H., de Kort, Y., & Poels, K. (2007). Digital game design for elderly users. In Proceedings of the 2007 conference on Future Play - Future Play ’07 (p. 17). [2] Tan, C. T., Leong, T. W., Shen, S., Dubravs, C., & Si, C. (2015). Exploring Gameplay Experiences on the Oculus Rift. In Proceedings of CHI PLAY ’15 (pp. 253–263). [3] Bolton, J., Lirette, D., Lambert, M., & Unsworth, B. (2014). PaperDude A Virtual Reality Cycling Exergame. CHI ’14 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 475–478. [4] Warburton, D. E. R., Bredin, S. S. D., Horita, L. T. L., Zbogar, D., Scott, J. M., Esch, B. T. A., Rhodes, R. E. (2007). The health benefits of interactive video game exercise. Applied Physiology Nutrition and Metabolism, 32, 655–663. [5] Göbel, S., Hardy, S., Wendel, V., Mehm, F., & Steinmetz, R. (2010). Serious Games for Health – Personalized Exergames. In MM’10 (pp. 1663–1666). [6] Harris, P. B., & Houston, J. M. (2010). A Reliability Analysis of the Revised Competitiveness Index. Psychological Reports, 106(3), 870–874. 11

12. THANK YOU 12