Skip to main content
Log in

Fighting the game. Command systems and player-avatar interaction in fighting games in a social cognitive neuroscience framework

  • Published:
Multimedia Tools and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Videogames often require players to control an avatar in order to act on the virtual world. In many cases, such as in fighting games, the avatar’s body often shares biological features with the player’s body, such as a human-like figure and a highly detailed and realistic movement. Many studies in social cognitive neuroscience focus on how humans understand biological actions, and in particular other humans’ actions. Models and theories that put in tight relation perception, imagination and execution of actions have recently impacted the field of human cognition and provided a considerable paradigm shift. However, the impact of these theories has been largely focused on modern mimetic interfaces, such as virtual reality, but only slightly affect traditional interfaces even if they still comprise the large majority of the human-computer interaction. Fighting games mostly use non-mimetic interfaces, such as traditional gaming pads, so that the player needs to act with a very restricted range of movements, limited to fingers, hand, wrists and arms muscles. While the player’s movements don’t match the avatar movements, the in-game meanings of the button presses, i.e., command system, may facilitate or interfere with the ability to understand, plan and perform motor patterns on the input device. Here I provide a framework to better understand human-fighting game interaction, but relevant for all interactions with avatars, as well as experimental evidence of this approach validity by using the most successful fighting games: Tekken, Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat and Soulcalibur.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This number is the result of the binomial coefficient \( \left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right) \) where n is the number of DualShock3 buttons and k is the number of elements of the subset (couples), minus the number of impossible combinations (left and right arrow buttons; up and down arrow buttons).

  2. In order to typify each game on the basis of what type of ensembles it typically provides, and hence in order to better compare them, the upper/lower factor was not taken into account since it is shared by all games.

  3. In order to check if the effects were driven by the two subjects who reported to have expert-like experience with the Tekken franchise (number of lifetime hours playing games from the Tekken franchise), all the analyses have been re-run excluding these subjects. Results point in the same directions, with the same significant comparisons.

References

  1. Brass M, Bekkering H, Wohlschläger A, Prinz W (2000) Compatibility between observed and executed finger movements: comparing symbolic, spatial, and imitative cues. Brain Cogn 44(2):124–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Brown E, Cairns P (2004) A grounded investigation of game immersion. In: CHI’04 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, pp 1297–1300

  3. Buccino G, Binkofski F, Fink GR, Fadiga L, Fogassi L, Gallese V, ... Freund HJ (2001) Action observation activates premotor and parietal areas in a somatotopic manner: an fMRI study. Eur J Neurosci 13(2):400–404

  4. Catmur C, Heyes C (2011) Time course analyses confirm independence of imitative and spatial compatibility. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 37(2):409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Chandrasekharan S, Mazalek A, Nitsche M, Chen Y, Ranjan A (2010) Ideomotor design: using common coding theory to derive novel video game interactions. Pragmat Cogn 18(2):313–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Cowley B, Charles D, Black M, Hickey R (2008) Toward an understanding of flow in video games. Comput Entertain (CIE) 6(2):20

    Google Scholar 

  7. Craik FI, Tulving E (1975) Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. J Exp Psychol Gen 104(3):268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Csikszentmihalyi M (1997) Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. HarperPerennial, New York, p 39

    Google Scholar 

  9. Gallese V (2009) Mirror neurons, embodied simulation, and the neural basis of social identification. Psychoanal Dialogues 19(5):519–536

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gamefaqs.com (2017) Heavyweight champ (1976) – release details. http://www.gamefaqs.com/arcade/567840-heavyweight-champ/data. Accessed 2 June 2017

  11. Green CS, Bavelier D (2006) Effect of action video games on the spatial distribution of visuospatial attention. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 32(6):1465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Guiard Y (1987) Asymmetric division of labor in human skilled bimanual action: the kinematic chain as a model. J Mot Behav 19(4):486–517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Harper T (2013) The culture of digital fighting games: performance and practice. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  14. Iacoboni M (2009) Imitation, empathy, and mirror neurons. Annu Rev Psychol 60:653–670

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Juul J (2010) A casual revolution: reinventing video games and their players. MIT press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kessler K, Thomson LA (2010) The embodied nature of spatial perspective taking: embodied transformation versus sensorimotor interference. Cognition 114(1):72–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kilner JM, Marchant JL, Frith CD (2009) Relationship between activity in human primary motor cortex during action observation and the mirror neuron system. PLoS One 4(3):e4925

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Klatzky RL (1998) Allocentric and egocentric spatial representations: definitions, distinctions, and interconnections. In: Spatial cognition. Springer, Berlin, pp 1–17

  19. Leganchuk A, Zhai S, Buxton W (1998) Manual and cognitive benefits of two-handed input: an experimental study. ACM T Comput-Hum Int 5(4):326–359

    Google Scholar 

  20. Mattiassi A (2017) Command systems and player-avatar interaction in successful fighting games in light of neuroscientific theories and models. On CEUR in Proceedings of GHItaly

  21. Mattiassi AD, Mele S, Ticini LF, Urgesi C (2014) Conscious and unconscious representations of observed actions in the human motor system. J Cogn Neurosci 26(9):2028–2041

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Miall RC, Wolpert DM (1996) Forward models for physiological motor control. Neural Netw 9(8):1265–1279

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Nickerson RS (1965) Short-term memory for complex meaningful visual configurations: a demonstration of capacity. Can J Psychol 19(2):155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ogden CK, Richards IA (1923) The meaning of meaning: a study of the influence of thought and of the science of symbolism. Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc, New York

  25. Pirovano M, Surer E, Mainetti R, Lanzi PL, Borghese NA (2016) Exergaming and rehabilitation: a methodology for the design of effective and safe therapeutic exergames. Lect Notes Comput Sc 14:55–65

    Google Scholar 

  26. Prinz W (1990) A common coding approach to perception and action. In: Relationships between perception and action. Springer, Berlin, pp 167–201

  27. Rizzolatti G, Craighero L (2004) The mirror-neuron system. Annu Rev Neurosci 27:169–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Sun Y, Wang H (2014) Insight into others’ minds: spatio-temporal representations by intrinsic frame of reference. Front Hum Neurosci 8:58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Thirioux B, Jorland G, Bret M, Tramus MH, Berthoz A (2009) Walking on a line: a motor paradigm using rotation and reflection symmetry to study mental body transformations. Brain Cogn 70(2):191–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Tversky B, Hard BM (2009) Embodied and disembodied cognition: spatial perspective-taking. Cognition 110(1):124–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Umiltà C, Nicoletti R (1990) Spatial stimulus-response compatibility. In: Advances in psychology 65. North-Holland, pp 89–116

  32. Wikipedia (2018) List of best-selling video game franchises. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_game_franchises. Accessed 6 May 2018

  33. Yantis S (1993) Stimulus-driven attentional capture. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 2(5):156–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was not funded by anyone and as such represents independent work with no conflict of interests. I would to thank my students Massimiliano De Luise, Silvia Menotti and Francesco Finotto for helping in stimuli preparation and data collection, Giovanni Colangelo and Alessandro Torresan for assistance in language editing and Cristian Mungherli for calculus assistance.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alan D. A. Mattiassi.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mattiassi, A.D.A. Fighting the game. Command systems and player-avatar interaction in fighting games in a social cognitive neuroscience framework. Multimed Tools Appl 78, 13565–13591 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-019-7231-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-019-7231-2

Keywords

Navigation