Advertisement

Physiological Model to Classify Physical and Cognitive Workload During Gaming Activities

  • Néstor Arroyo-Gómez
  • José Laparra-HernándezEmail author
  • Andrés Soler-Valero
  • Enrique Medina
  • Helios de Rosario
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 586)

Abstract

Some of new approaches in Human Factors and Ergonomics are based on the assessment of cognitive and physical workload using physiological measurements. Nevertheless, the relationship between both requires to get in depth about its causes and effects. The main goal of this work was to develop a model to distinguish the impact of physical and cognitive workload, leaning on physiological response analysis. To do this, senior citizens performed a set of tasks of video games, where the predominance of each type of workload is known. Facial electromyography, galvanic skin response and electrocardiogram signals from subjects were recorded while they performed the tasks. The parameters extracted were used to design a classification model to predict the type of workload involved in a task. The designed model is based in a reduced number of variables and it achieves a 75.6% of success to differentiate physical and cognitive demands.

Keywords

Gaming tasks Cognitive/physical demands Physiological model Senior citizens 

References

  1. 1.
    Stramler, J.H.: The Dictionary for Human Factors/Ergonomics. CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton (1993)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mital, A., Govindaraju, M.: Is it possible to have a single measure for all work? Int. J. Ind. Eng.-Theory Appl. Pract. 6(3), 190–195 (1999)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kohlisch, O., Schaefer, F.: Physiological changes during computer tasks: responses to mental load or to motor demands? Ergonomics 39(2), 213–224 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fredericks, T.K., Choi, S.D., Hart, J., Butt, S.E., Mital, A.: An investigation of myocardial aerobic capacity as a measure of both physical and cognitive workloads. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 35(12), 1097–1107 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pan, J., Tompkins, W.J.: A real-time QRS detection algorithm. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 3, 230–236 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Heino, A., Van der Molen, H.H., Wilde, G.J.S.: Risk-homeostatic Processes in Car Following Behaviour: Electrodermal Responses and Verbal risk Estimates as Indicators of the Perceived Level of Risk During a Car-driving Task (Report VK 90-22). Traffic Research Centre, University of Groningen, Haren (1990)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rubio-Valdehita, S., Díaz-Ramiro, E.M., López-Higes, R., Martín-García, J.: Effects of task load and cognitive abilities on performance and subjective mental workload in a tracking task. Ann. Psychol. 28(3), 986–995 (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dreiseitl, S., Ohno-Machado, L.: Logistic regression and artificial neural network classification models: a methodology review. J. Biomed. Inform. 35(5), 352–359 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Néstor Arroyo-Gómez
    • 1
  • José Laparra-Hernández
    • 1
    Email author
  • Andrés Soler-Valero
    • 1
  • Enrique Medina
    • 1
  • Helios de Rosario
    • 1
  1. 1.Instituto de Biomecánica de Valencia (IBV)Universitat Politècnica de ValènciaValenciaSpain

Personalised recommendations