Advertisement

Assessment of Kim’s Game Strategy for Behavior Cue Detection: Engagement, Flow, & Performance Aspects

  • Crystal S. MarajEmail author
  • Stephanie J. Lackey
  • Karla A. Badillo-Urquiola
  • Irwin L. Hudson
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9740)

Abstract

Psychological constructs, such as engagement and flow, can be used to determine an individual’s involvement in a task and predict levels of performance during Simulation-Based Training (SBT) in military operations. This experiment used a virtual form of Kim’s game (an observational training game that includes memorization of objects and later recall), to improve pattern recognition and behavior cue detection, during SBT. The purpose of this experiment was to assess participant engagement and flow between two conditions, Kim’s game vs. the control. Seventy-five participants were randomly assigned to either condition, and completed a pre-test, training vignette, post-test, and multiple questionnaires which assessed the individuals’ levels of engagement and flow. Experimental results show the control group reported higher levels of both engagement and flow in all subscales, and flow as a higher predictor of performance than engagement. This paper examines plausible explanations why the engagement questionnaire did not assess differences in performance. The lack of statistically significant findings may be a result of the engagement survey questions and the type of task (i.e., discrete or continuous). Finally, this paper provides future recommendations for examining the role of engagement and flow for simulation-based behavior cue detection training.

Keywords

Education Training Military Behavior cue detection Pattern recognition Engagement Flow 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was sponsored by the U.S. Army Research Laboratory – Human Research Engineering Directorate Advanced Training & Simulation Division (ARL HRED ATSD), in collaboration with the Institute for Simulation and Training at the University of Central Florida. This work is supported in part by ARL HRED STTC contract W911NF-14-2-0021. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of ARL HRED STTC or the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government is authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for Government.

References

  1. 1.
    Martin, Hughes, C.E., Schatz, S., Nicholson, D.: The use of functional L-systems for scenario generation in serious games. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Procedural Content Generation in Games (No. 6). ACM, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Connor, C.E., Egeth, H.E., Yantis, S.: Visual attention: bottom-up versus top-down. Curr. Biol. 14(19) (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fischer, S.C., Geiwetz, J.: Training Strategies for Tactical Pattern Recognition. United States Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, Alexandria (1996)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Robert, S., Baden-Powell, S.S.: Scouting Games. vol. 4. The Scout Library (1921)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sniper Sustainment Training. (n.d.). Retrieved from Chapter 9Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    U.S. Army. Sniper Training. Washington, D.C.: Field Manual No. 23-10 (1994)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brandimonte, M.A., Passolunghi, M.C.: The effect of cue-familiarity, cue-distinctiveness, and retention interval on prospective remembering. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Exp. Psychol. 47, 565–588 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Antonacci, D., Modaress, N.: Second life: the educational possibilities of a massively multiplayer virtual world. In: Proceedings of the EDUCASE Southwest Regional Conference, Austin, Texas (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lee, V.E., Smith, J.B.: Effects of high school restructuring and size on early gains in achievement and engagement. Sociol. Educ. 68, 241–270 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Baddeley, A.: Working Memory. Science 255, 556–559 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jackson, S.A., Martin, A.J., Eklund, R.C.: Long and short measures of flow: The construct validity of the FSS-2, DFS-2, and new brief counterparts. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 30(5), 561–587 (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Csikszentmihalyi, M.: The flow experience and its significance for human psychology in optimal experience. pp. 15–35. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1988)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Charlton, J., Danforth, I.: Distinguishing addiction and high engagement in the context of online game playing. Comput. Hum. Behav. 23(3), 1531–1548 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Salcedo, J.: Instructional Strategies for Scenario-Based Training of Human Behavior Cue Detection and Classification with Robot-Aided Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance. Doctoral Dissertation, Orlando, Fl, U.S.A. (2014)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ishihara, S.: Ishihara’s Tests for Color Deficiency. Kanehara Trading, Tokyo (2013)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Godnig, E.C.: The Tachistoscope Its History & Uses. J. Behav. Optom. 14, 39–42 (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    LaBerge, D., Samuels, S.J.: Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cogn. Psychol. 6, 293–323 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Soule, R.L.: Flash recognition training in law enforcement work-next exposure ready now. J. Crim. Law Criminol. Police Sci. 49, 590 (1958)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Crystal S. Maraj
    • 1
    Email author
  • Stephanie J. Lackey
    • 2
  • Karla A. Badillo-Urquiola
    • 1
  • Irwin L. Hudson
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute for Simulation and TrainingUniversity of Central FloridaOrlandoUSA
  2. 2.Design InteractiveOrlandoUSA
  3. 3.US Army Research LaboratoryOrlandoUSA

Personalised recommendations