20,0 LlBRAE—‘i
Michigan State
Ul liversity

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

MAKING SENSE OF BRAIN GAMES: A SCIENTIFIC
ANALYSIS OF GAME DESIGN IN THE BRAIN FITNESS
SOFTWARE MARKET

presented by
APAR S MANIAR

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

degree in Telecommunication,
M. A. lnforrnation Studies, and Media

 

 

Major Professor’s Signature
‘Pedwlcu, '4 I 2000‘

Date

 

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity institution

1-.n-n-.-.-t-o-l-I-n-e---I-I-I-e-l-o-I-c-o-I-o-o-I---o-n-l-I-o-U-I-O-l-a-l-l-l-I-l-c-l-l-l-n-o-I-l-.-l-l-u-l-I-l-l-o-

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date clue.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 KzlProleccsPrelelRC/DateDue.indd

 

MAKING SENSE OF BRAIN GAMES: A SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS OF GAME
DESIGN IN THE BRAIN FITNESS SOFTWARE MARKET

By

Apar S Maniar

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS
Telecommunication, Information Studies and Media

2010

ABSTRACT

INLKKING SENSE OF BRAIN GAMES: A SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS OF GAME
DESIGN IN THE BRAIN FITNESS SOFTWARE MARKET

By

Apar S Maniar

Brain games have emerged as a new segment of games within serious games, over the last
few years there is some research being done as to whether they are effective. This project
aims to analyze current brain games from a game design perspective to find out whether they

are good games.

The research involved analyzing games from the four different brain domains of Attention,
Visual Spatial, Memory and Language processing by characterizing them for the different
forms of fun, and whether individual elements within the games such as sound effects,

music, non-playing characters, fonts etc. were plain or pleasing.

Using quantitative analysis we analyzed 33 randomly selected individual and brain fitness
company brain games. Any casual observer who has tried some of these games has probably
noticed that brain games tend to offer much less engaging game play than a typical
successful online casual game. They appear not to be fun enough to attract players unless the
player is overly concerned about brain fitness. In fairness, serious games are not expected to
be as fun or as well designed as high budget blockbuster commercial games and we wanted

to test that hypothesis and provide a systematic analysis of the brain games in the market.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

. I feel really lucky to have been accepted at the M.A. program in the Telecommunication,
Information Studies & Media program at Michigan State University. Over the course of the
program I have been fortunate to have made good friends and gain knowledge which I
know will serve me well throughout my career. I want to take the opportunity to thank the
people who helped me complete my thesis. First of all I would like to thank Dr. Carrie
I-Ieeter for all the help she has provided, not just during the thesis but also before it while I
was trying to narrow down a topic for my research. Without her as a mentor and teacher I
would have had a tough time finishing my thesis. I would like to thank my advisor Brian
\V’inn for his support and advice throughout the program. Thanks also to Alex Games for

agreeing to be on my committee on a short notice and for all the valuable inputs.

I would like to thank all my fellow classmates with whom I have had an amazing time, for
their friendship, sharing and expertise. The camaraderie I have enjoyed during my time here

is something I will treasure fondly.

I cannot forget to acknowledge the support of my parents without them I probably wouldn’t
have made it here, their belief in me and constant encouraging has kept me going. Above all
I would like to thank my wife for her patience and understanding, while I trudged along
towards the completion of the program and had to spend a considerable time away from

her.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ........................................................................................................ v
List of Figures .................................................................................................... viii
Chapter 1

Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1
W’hat are Brain Games? ............................................................................................................. 2
Significance of Brain Games ................................................................................................................... 3
Are Brain Games Good Games? ............................................................................................. 4
Fun in Games ............................................................................................................................................ 4
Goals ............................................................................................................................................ 5
Chapter 2

Methods ................................................................................................................. 7
Universe of Brain Games .......................................................................................................... 7
Game Selection ......................................................................................................................................... 9
Coders ........................................................................................................................................ 17
Coding Definition ................................................................................................................................... 17
Overall ........................................................................................................................................ 24
Reliability ................................................................................................................................... 24
Chapter 3

Results ................................................................................................................. 26
Plain vs. Pleasing ...................................................................................................................... 26
Pleasing or Plain Summary ...................................................................................................... 48
Overall Game Features ............................................................................................................ 49
Forms of Fun ............................................................................................................................ 55
Forms of Fun Summary .......................................................................................................... 68
Total Forms of Fun ................................................................................................................. 69
Chapter 4

Conclusions ......................................................................................................... 77
State of the art of brain game design .................................................................................... 78
Differences by company ......................................................................................................... 79
Future of brain game design ................................................................................................... 80
Further Research and Analysis ............................................................................................... 81
Bibliography ........................................................................................................ 83

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Universe of Brain Games .......................................................................................... 7
Table 2 Visual Style by brain domain ................................................................................... 27
Table 3 Visual Style by Company ......................................................................................... 28
Table 4: Visual Style by Service type ..................................................................................... 28
Table 5: Intro by Company .................................................................................................... 29
Table 6: Title by Company ...................................................................................................... 30
Table 7: Fonts by brain domain ............................................................................................ 31
Table 8: Fonts by company ..................................................................................................... 32
Table 9: Fonts by Service type .............................................................................................. 33
Table 10: Buttons by Company ............................................................................................. 34
Table 11: In-Game Feedback by Company ........................................................................ 35
Table 12: Between Rounds Feedback by Company ........................................................... 36
Table 13: End of Game Feedback by Company ................................................................. 38
Table 14: Tutorial by brain domain ...................................................................................... 39
Table 15: Tutorial by Company .............................................................................................. 40
Table 16: Tutorial by Service Type ........................................................................................ 40
Table 17: Demo by brain domain .......................................................................................... 41
Table 18: Demo by Company ............................................................................................... 42
Table 19: Demo by Service Type ........................................................................................... 42
Table 20: Instructions by Company ...................................................................................... 43
Table 21: Instructions by Service Type ................................................................................. 44
Table 22: Inclusion of NPC by Company ............................................................................ 45
Table 23: Sound effects by brain domain ............................................................................. 46
Table 24: Sound effects by Company .................................................................................... 47
Table 25: Sound effects by Service Type .............................................................................. 48
Table 26: Pleasing or Plain Summary .................................................................................... 49

Table 27:
Table 28:
Table 29:
Table 30:
Table 31:
Table 32:
Table 33:
Table 34:
Table 35:
Table 36:
Table 37:
Table 38:
Table 39:
Table 40:
Table 41:
Table 42:
Table 43:
Table 44:
Table 45:
Table 46:
Table 47:
Table 48:
Table 49:
Table 50:
Table 51:

Table 52

Overall Visual Style by Company ......................................................................... 50
Overall Interactivity by brain domain .................................................................. 51
Overall Interactivity by Company ........................................................................ 52
Overall Interactivity by Service type .................................................................... 53
Overall feedback by brain domain ....................................................................... 53
Overall feedback by Company .............................................................................. 54
Overall feedback by Service Type ........................................................................ 55
Advancement & Completion by brain domain .................................................. 56
Advancement & Completion by Company ......................................................... 56
Advancement & Completion by Service Type ................................................... 57
Beauty by Company ................................................................................................ 59
Creation by Company ............................................................................................ 61
Exploration by Company ...................................................................................... 62
Immersion by Company ........................................................................................ 64
Intellectual Problem Solving by Company .......................................................... 65
Story by Company .................................................................................................. 66
Forms of Fun Summary ......................................................................................... 69
Total Forms of Fun by brain domain .................................................................. 70
Total Forms of Fun by Company ........................................................................ 70
Total Forms of Fun by Service Type ................................................................... 71
Flow by brain domain ............................................................................................ 72
Flow by Company ................................................................................................... 73
Flow by Service Type ............................................................................................. 73
Engagement by brain domain ............................................................................... 74
Engagement by Company ..................................................................................... 75
Engagement by Service Type ................................................................................ 75

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Language Game Screenshots ................................................................................. 11
Figure 2: Visual Spatial Game Screenshots .......................................................................... 13
Figure 3: Memory Game Screenshots ................................................................................... 14
Figure 4: Attention Game Screenshots ................................................................................. 16
Figure 5: Plain ........................................................................................................................... 18
Figure 6: Pleasing ...................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 7: Blue Background ..................................................................................................... 19
Figure 8: Themed Background ............................................................................................... 20

(Images in the thesis are presented in color.)

vii

INTRODUCTION

Scientists had long believed that the brain was a fixed, slowly declining organ. Neurology
researchers discovered within the last decade that in fact, brains can change in response to
activity or inactivity. Brain plasticity is the term used to describe growth or decline in the
number of brain neurons and connections between neurons (Stein & Hoffman, 2003;
Ferdnandez, 2009). This research launched the “brain fitness” industry and prescriptions for
brain exercises to improve different cognitive functions (SharpBrains, 2009). These efforts
initially targeted individuals with injury or disease based brain damage, and eventually
expanded to include mature adults concerned with maintaining brain functions, and more

recently, to children.

Concurrently, video and computer games were becoming main stream, including a category
known as games for learning (I’rensky 2001). Games for learning developed into a separate
category with games existing for various activities, starting with the Carmen Sandiego series
(Mobygames, 2009) going as far back as 1985 to the more recent games from Ubisoft as part
of their My Coach series (Nutt, 2008). Initially brain exercises were offered in paper form
(such as Small & Vorgan, 2004), but with computer and video games increasing in popularity
these games were converted into interactive computer exercises (such as Robinson, 2006).
Instead of turning the page to see the right answer, immediate feedback could be provided.
Eventually, companies marketed suites of online brain games, typically designed in
consultation with medical experts and offered in combination with advice on how often to

play and other tips on healthy lifestyles, all with the promise of improved brain health.

Nintendo led the way for the commercial game industry to enter the brain fitness domain.
Nintendo’s Brain Age game, first released in Japan on the DS, achieved resounding
commercial success; introduced in 2005, the game had already sold 4 million copies byjuly
2006, with 3 million of those sales in japan (Surette, 2006). Nintendo also released Brain Age
2 and Big Brain Academy for the Nintendo DS platform. The latter was also ported to the
Nintendo \V"ii console in 2007; Brain Age has been hailed as the granddaddy of non-games
(Nutt, 2008), despite the fact that Brain Age was no next gen game, either in terms of
graphics or the game play. It had a more homebrew feel to it with a small development time
and team size. The game play consists of basic math problems, memorization, visual spatial
exercises like counting numbers that blink in a certain color etc. however the universal

appeal and intuitive feel of the game has made it a big success

A study in the United Kingdom found that children who played Dr Kawas/Jima’y Brain
Traz'm'qg (aka Brain Age: Train Your Brain in Minutes a Day!) for 20 minutes at the start of
each day for nine weeks improved their scores on a math test 50% more than students who

did not play (jenkins, 2008).

What are Brain Games?

Given this background of brain games we ask a very basic question, what are brain games?
This is a difficult question to answer, as there is no one standard definition that is widely

accepted, as are the diverse terms used to describe them. Terms like Cognitive Games and
Brain Fitness Software are also used alternatively to denote brain games. Brain games are a

specialized subset within the serious games category, which are a set of very specific activities

where a player interacts with software targeted to exercise a specific area of the brain by
doing certain particular tasks. Overall there are five brain areas Attention, Visual-Spatial,
Executive functions, Memory, Language, Auditory, Mathematical, and Executive processing.
Most suites of games offered by companies incorporate different games that cover as many

of these areas as possible.

Significance of Brain Games

Neuroscience research addresses the question of whether playing brain games can improve
cognitive functioning. There are some studies that indicate that there is a link between doing

certain kinds of brain exercises and the positive effects they have on the brain.

0 In 2006, the ACTIVE Study, funded by National Institute of Health, demonstrated
that older adults could improve their brain abilities with the correct training. Certain
mental exercises can partially offset the expected decline in older adults' thinking
skills and show promise for maintaining cognitive abilities needed to do everyday
tasks. Some of the gains from training were seen to be beneficial 5 years later (W’illis,
et a1. 2006).

o The Bronx Aging Study, published in the New Englandjournal of Medicine,
followed almost 500 people for more than 20 years. The research found that people
who participated in mentally stimulating activities, such as interactive games and
other leisure activities multiple times a week had a 65-75% better probability of
remaining sharp than those who did not participate in these activities (Verghese, et

a1. 2003)

0 Another well-known study is the Nun Study. Scientists followed 700 nuns for more
than 20 years. An interesting finding was that certain types of intellectual activity and
stimulation could protect against many types of cognitive decline (Snowdon, 2001)

o A study from Columbia University supports the concept of brain reserve and that
education, occupation and stimulating leisure activities all reduce the potential risk of
developing brain disease (Stern, 2006) Cognitive Reserve and Alzheimer Disease,

Alzheimer Disease & Associated Disorders).

Are Brain Games good games?

Given the importance of brain games and the effects on an individual there is another
question which we think is equally important, are the current games available to users good
games? Do the games available to players qualify as good games or they are just digital
versions of paper based exercises without adding much interactivity and fun? Cursory
examination of brain games would suggest they have weak production values and poor game
design. \V e sought to systematically analyze the quality of brain games offered by major

competitors in the field and quantify how fun they are.

Fun in Games

Over the years one of the major goals that designers have strived for in games is whether
they are fun, it is almost expected that games are fun. However there is not a lot of
consensus what fun means Chris Crawford (Crawford, 2003) defines the relationship

between Games Play and Fun as follows:

Games: is the formal activity you perform
Play: is the actual behavior you engage in

Fun: is the experience or emotion you derive from that behavior

The two important things that stand out in this definition is it’s a combination of the
experience that a player gets and the emotions a player feels while playing the game would
contribute to the total fun a player gets from a game. So every player would elicit different
amounts of fun from the same game based on the kind of person they are and what they will

experience. (Koster, 2005)

No wonder most designers and researchers dislike the use of single term fun (Crawford,
2003; Rollings and Adams 2003; LeBlanc 2000) instead they divide the overarching concept
of fun into more meaningful emotions or experiences that can be quantified, (Garneau,
2001; LeBlanc, 2000; Lazzaro, 2004; Heeter et al., 2003) these were labeled as the different

forms of fun (Garneau 2001, LeBlanc 2000)

This is not just limited to games for entertainment, as serious games have matured the
question has been asked should serious games be fun (Davidson et al., 2008; Fortungo,
2008) as there is a risk of the message getting lost. Recent studies (Ritterfield et al., 2009;
Fortungo, 2008) support that if the players were enjoying themselves while playing the game
the message would be conveyed effectively as the player would be motivated to play the

game repeatedly.

Goals

The goal of the research is as follows:

Compare a random sample of brain games and quantitatively analyze them for the

forms of fun and various design elements of the game

Offer an in depth portrait of the state of the art of modern brain game design

Discuss next steps for this emerging market

METHODS

Universe of Brain Games

A Google search for the term “brain games” and “brain game companies” gave several
million hits. It was necessary to narrow down the number of companies to study and focus
on the best of the brain games available in the market. SharpBrains is an organization that
has been tracking progress within this segment of games and had conducted an extensive
survey and created a detailed report of the leading Brain Game companies in 2008. This was
used as a starting point to select the companies leading to the eventual selection of the games

themselves.

The companies covered within the SharpBrains report were:

Table 1: Universe of Brain Games

 

Company Website Products

 

Language Series
Scientific Learning http://www.sci|earn.com/ Elementary
Language Series
Secondary

Reading Series

Reading Assistant

 

Cognifit http://www.e-mindfitness.com/ Mindfit

 

Online subscription
Lumos Labs https://www.lumosity.com/ based games

 

Online subscription
My Brain Trainer httpz/Iwww.mybraintrainer.com/ based games

 

 

Brain Fitness

Posit Science http://www.positsciencecoml Program CIBSSiC
Insight

 

 

 

 

Table 1: Universe of Brains (cont’d)

 

Daikim

http://www.dakim.com/

mPower — Home
mPower -
Institutional

 

CogMed Program

http://www.cogmed.com/cogmed/

JM for ages 4-7
RM for ages 7 & Up

 

QM for adults
Scientific Brain Training http://www.sbt—corp.com/ Online
http://www.happy-neuron.com/ Junior

Brain Fitness Series
Brain Train Junior

 

Online subscription

 

 

Fit Brains http://www.fitbrains.com/ based games
Nintendo http://www.brainage.com/ Brain Age
Advanced Brain

Technologies http://www.abtmedia.com/ BrainBuilder

 

BrainTrain

http://www.braintrain.com/

Captain’s Log
(Multiple Products)

 

CNS Vital Signs

https://www.cnsvs.com/

CNS Vital Signs

 

Cognitive Drug Research

http://www.cognitivedrugresearch.com/

The CDR System

 

 

Lexia Learning

 

http://www.|exialearning.com/

 

Lexia Cross Trainer

 

The Universe of brain games was very fragmented in terms of the how the games were

delivered. Some were one or a few brain games, free to play via a website. Others were

collections of brain games marketed as a coherent service for a monthly subscription fee to

access the games. These services also offered tip on maintaining brain health, and tracked

game play and progress of the user over time. Some like the Nintendo Brain Age required a

dedicated piece of hardware to play the game. Subscription sites that offered online games

8

 

were selected as the kinds of brain games to include in this content analysis. Happy Neuron,

FitBrains, and Lumosity were the three brain game services matching these criteria.

Big Fish Games, a casual game site, include “brain teasers” as a category of game genre.
Games that are part of a collection of commercial casual games compete for players with the
universe of other casual games. \V'hile subscribers to a brain game service probably value
cognitive exercise and consider fun to be a side benefit, casual game players probably value
fun and view cognitive exercise as a side benefit. For these reasons, brain games available on
Big Fish probably stress fun more strongly than the brain game services do. Brain Games
from Big Fish were included in the analysis, to compare fun in those games with fun in brain

games in the brain game suites.

Game Selection

Neurologist Andrea Bozoki consulted with Brian \‘Vinn and Carrie Heeter on designing brain
games. She identified nine major cognitive domains that could be exercised in a brain game:
\Vorking Memory, Executive Processing, Visual-Spatial Processing, Episodic Memory,
Procedural Memory, Attention and Divided Attention, Language, Semantic Memory, and
Tonal Processing. Executive Processing (judgment and reasoning) seemed difficult to
define and too diverse in scope, so those games were excluded from the analysis. Four
cognitive domains were commonly featured in brain games: Language, Memory, Visual-

Spatial Memory, and Attention.

Overall a total of 33 games were selected across the four brain domains. Whenever possible

I selected two games in each brain domain from each company. In some cases, a company

offered only one game, or even no games in that domain. The following were the criteria

with which the games were selected:

0 The game was offered by one of the three brain game services or else was listed as a
Brain Game on Big Fish games.

0 Games could be played on PC or Mac — they did not require some kind of special
hardware platform to run the game (e.g. Brain Age)

0 The game could be classified as predominantly exercising one of the four cognitive
domains

0 I selected sites that offered a preview of the games before having to subscribe to play

them.

I began by generating a list of all of the games from each company that fit each of the four
cognitive domains. When a company had more than two games for a particular cognitive
domain, numbers were assigned to each game in the list, and two were randomly selected

using a random number generator.

Only Big Fish brain teaser games that could be clearly classified as exercising a specific
cognitive domain were included. (In other words, if memory were a small part of a complex
game, that game was not included. If the primary game mechanics involved memory, then
the game counted as a memory game.) Here is the list of brain games chosen for analysis,
including the company and cognitive domain. The first number in parentheses after the
company name shows how many games were analyzed. The second number is the total

number of games from that company fitting that brain domain.

Domain 1 Language (8)

10

Langgage Game Screen Shots*

 

 

. {SUCtjE‘fflgwmg'k‘vvkigf‘j ‘
WORD ZEN: ; FORGOTTEN ~--— \—-—.~J\. .

l ; FILL i RICH '; TUTU TICK
Mahjongg RIDDLES3 The =Ropei’rowsim.

. . . ITEM‘;
Reinvented Moonlight Sonatas W‘H‘JT—jg"

 

Figure 1: Language Game Screenshots
(Copyright permission for including screen shgts could not be obtained for Word Zen gr
Fgrgotten Riddles)

Lumosity (1 of 1)

Word Bubbles

Fit Brain (2 of 4)
Wild Word Garden

Paradise Island

11

Happy Neuron (2 of 5)

Embroidery

The Story is Full of Blanks

Big Fish (one from formal brain games mini-suite, 2 of 2 top 20 other word category brain
teasers)

Brainiversity: W'ord Maker

W'ord Zen

Forgotten Riddles: The Moonlight Sonatas

Domain 2 Visual—Spatial (9)

Visual Spatial Screen Shgts

12

ELEMENTS JIGSAW WORLD

 

Lumosity (2 of 2)
Monster Garden

Spatial Speed Match

Fit Brain (2 of 2)
Hidden Masterpiece

Deep Blue Expedition

Happy Neuron (selected the free visual-spatial game and re-categorized An American in
Paris, also free, as visual-spatial even though Happy Neuron thought of visual—spatial as

13

mental rotation)
Entangled Objects

An American in Paris

Big Fish (one from formal brain games mini—suite, 2 of 2 top 20 other word category brain
teasers)

Brian Challenge: Visual Game

Jigsaw World

Elements

Domain 3 Memo 8

 

lib '
, mu I
LIKE"-
: I'-§VA§%

 

Figure 3: Memory Game Screenshots

14

Lumosity (selected 2 of 4 —- omitted speed match because we already used it in visual-
spatial, omitted Moneycomb because it was numeric)
Memory Match

Name tag

Fit Brain (2 of 2)
Busy Bistro

Crime Scene Shuffle

Happy Neuron (omitted An American in Paris because already used and omitted Around
the World in 80 Trips because very similar to American in Paris. Randomly selected 1 of 2
verbal memory and one of 4 visual-spatial memory)

Elephant Memory

Big Fish (one each from formal brain games mini—suites, there did not seem to be direct
memory games amongst the top 20...)
Brain Challenge: Memory Game

Brainiversi r: Visual Memo
ry

There were no Big Fish casual games outside of the two brain game suites that exercised

only memory.

Domain 4 Attention (8)

Attention Game Screen Shots

15

 

GIVE ZAPS
TIRE ‘52: FE:
LACE TEAM

 

Figure 4: Attention Game Screenshots
Lumosity (selected 2 of 3 — one clearly divided attention, one clearly focused, the third
unknown so omitted Top Chimp)
Birdwatching

Lost in Migration

Fit Brain (2 of 2)
Pandora’s Boutique

Street of Dreams

Happy Neuron (The 2 that were free were chosen)
Catch the Ladybug

Secret Files

16

Big Fish (one each from formal brain games mini-suites, there did not seem to be direct
memory games amongst the top 20...)
Brain Challenge: Focus Game

Brainiversity: Alphabet Soup

There were no Big Fish casual games outside of the two brain game suites that exercised

only attention.

Coders

In order to ensure the coding of the games went smoothly and there was some credibility to
the overall approach, we selected three coders, such that each of them had previous formal
knowledge of the game design process and have participated extensively in designing games
especially games for the web. Out of the total of 33 games that were analyzed all the coders
played the same three games to ensure inter-coder reliability. The remaining 30 games were
randomly distributed between the coders so that each coder did not play more than ten
games. The games were also distributed so that each coder gets to play and code games from
all the different brain domains thus ensuring no one coder affects the coding of a particular

domain.

Coding Definition

W’e spent months discussing quantitative ways of analyzing fun and quality of brain games.
The coding approach went through five iterations. The final coding system adopted two
primary considerations: whether different design elements were purely functional or more

17

aesthetically designed and what forms of fun the game designers incorporated (or attempted

to incorporate) in the game.

Functional versus Pleasing

Game designers can create a game that is functional. The game is playable. Game graphics
and player feedback are present, but minimal attention has been devoted to design. If there
is text on the screen in a functional game, the text may be in the default system font, black
text on a white background. If there are buttons such as Play or Help, they might be simple
rectangles surrounding the word. If there are shapes in the game, the circles might be 2D
simple shapes. Artwork seems to be used from a collection of clip art. Sound effects seem
like basic free downloadable sounds. There are probably no animated transitions or win and
lose states. The layout may be haphazard; to indicate not much attention was paid to the art

direction of the game. A functional game is just the basics, with little attention to design.

At the other end of the spectrum, great attention may be paid to the design. Graphics may

be integrated and elegant and every button and text item that is part of the game looks as if it
has been created and customized for that game. Different events in the game have their own
sound effects and the music included in the game does the job to make the overall game not

only play well but look richer making the game pleasing.

 

This photograph of plain white placeware exemplified a
“plain” design.

 

 

 

Figure 5: Plain

18

This placeware is more stylized, more “pleasing.”

    

u. . I
r...n

Figure 6: Pleasing

Similarly, this distinction might be considered in terms of whether the design is “generic” —
one that could be used in any game. An example is the blue background in this jigsaw puzzle

shown in Figure 7.

 

Figure 7: Blue Background

Conversely, a game background could be “themed,” consistent and coherent within a
particular game design. An example is the lined background in Figure 8 below, fitting in to

the metaphor of an office.

 

1:21

 

l/‘i’ 1'1 \“ Use the letters below to

u " make as many 'i‘iOrd-s as
\ ' YOU canwnhm 3;.
i ‘ '?' -.r minutes

DEIILSRU

SLIDER__

Sirbrriii ,

 

.--|'- ;_.

    

_.._.-.- .... q—n.

Mom) -

 

 

 

Figure 8: Themed Background

Generic is typically synonymous with plain, in our coding approach.
Forms of Fun

Forms of fun were derived from a quantitative content analysis of Space Learning Games I
participated in as a research assistant in 2002, presented in 2003 at the DIGRA conference in
the Netherlands (Heeter, Chu, Maniar, W’inn, Mishra, Egidio, and Portwood—Stacer, 2003).
In that coding we attempted to code how extensively fun each game was along the 14 forms

of fun delineated in Pierre Alexandre Garneau’s (2001) Gamasutra article.

Garneau’s goal in proposing 14 forms of fun was “to be as complete as possible in the
enumeration of categories of activities that are fundamentally entertaining.” During the
space game coding, we noticed the list left out at least two particularly relevant forms of fun.
Learning about the world (the real world) can be enjoyable and is extremely germane to
consideration of educational games. In addition, none of Garneau’s forms of fun seemed to
address the pleasure of helping or taking care of others. Altruism might include helping
another person, caring for a pet, or even saving humanity. Learning and altruism are forms

of fun that might appeal to girls according to an AAUVC’ (2000) report. During brain game

20

coding we realized yet another form of fun was missing — the fun of a narrative or story.
That form was added to the list. we coded the 17 forms of fun as 1 (non-existent), 2
(moderate), and 3 (extensive) and we used Garneau’s article as the basis of the definitions of

forms of fun. The definitions appear below.

.‘ldz'a/zc‘emm/ — It can be within a round, accomplishing a larger goal by completing a series of
tasks, or between rounds by leveling up. Simply completing a task is not enough to count as
advancement (i.e., memorize these five names and repeat them back). Just by having the
challenge get a bit harder (2 balls then 3 then 4 then times up) is not enough for
advancement, unless getting all five right accomplishes something beyond the right to play it
again. If the game indicates advancement in some meaningful way visually ("4 of 5
complete") AND this advancement is based on play performance (not a force number of

rounds you have to play to complete the game), then there is advancement and completion.

Altruism — If while playing the game the player ends up helping someone or something or

humanity than it has altruistic elements (it was mainly a story driven form of fun.)

Beat/3y - This applies to an overall judgment of the aesthetics of the game. If an otherwise
unpleasing game to the sense had pleasing buttons and game title, that’s not enough to
qualify since those are trivial elements. But the game background and coherence may well

contribute to beauty.

Comedy — If the intention of the game designers was to convey humor through either the

settings or the character the game was coded to have this form of fun.

Competition — If the game encouraged the player to compare and do better than their own

prior score, or to compete with others. Slight competition would be the ability to see leader

21

boards, where the player could see how were your previous scores or how other player’s
scored. High competition would be direct player-vs.-player competition (multiplayer game)

OR playing against an artificially intelligent computer opponent.

Creation — If as part of the game the player has the opportunity to create something using the
game elements than it was coded to have this form of fun, making something would include

putting together words or puzzle pieces to create a bigger word or form a picture.

Dzlrrorery/Exp/oration — If within the game there are potentially interesting things to explore,
and an opportunity to reveal unexpected things then the game was coded as having that
form of fun. Slight exploration would be exploring small spaces or problem spaces where
things are unknown and hidden and you must reveal them through game play. This does not
include putting letters together to form words but does include concentration style matching
games. High exploration would be the ability to explore intricate virtual worlds as part of the

game.

Immersion — If the player was transported to an imaginary place and could reside in that

imaginary place while playing the game then the game was coded to have that type of fun.

Intellectual prob/em io/m'ng — The scope of this type of fun is larger than just a mental ability.
Different aspects like Executive functioning, looking for patterns, problem solving, applying
various strategies, tactics, logic, not just memory, identifying a shape/ object/ motion counted

towards it.

Udr‘ning— If the game allowed the player to learn some relevant and meaningful information

about the real world then the game was coded to have that form of fun.

22

Lone —\Vhile playing a game if the player felt a sense of familial love or romance towards a

character in the game then the game was coded to have this form of fun.

Power —This is defined as the ability of the player to exert some kind ofa strong influence on

the game world and change it or allowing the player to gain strength within the game.

P/gyrira/./1r‘tir’/'t)i — For a game to have this type of fun the player had to be actively involved
with the game by moving their entire or a good portion of the body just moving the hand

while moving the mouse does not count.

Social Interaction — As part of the game if the player could interact with other virtual or real

characters then the game was coded to have this form of fun.

Imqgination — This is defined as the ability of the game to allow the player to be immersed in

the story or scene where the game is taking place and tap their sense of imagination.

T/m'l/ ofDanger— As part of the game universe there are objects that hint at or overtly
represent danger or threat these could be in the form of sharks, fish hooks, monsters,

criminals, crime scene etc.

Story - Is there a narrative, either in the form of a back-story or game story, to help engage

the player?

Overall

23

E/gzgen/ent — This would involve the player losing a sense of time and place and being in a

trance like state while playing the game requiring some effort to stop playing the game.

F/on/ — This form of fun is defined by the delicate balance of the difficulty of the game where
the game was neither too hard, nor too easy — did the developers manage to find that sweet
spot? Flow is only achieved within the play experience of the game. If the game just has ways

of setting the difficulty of level of play, this is not considered as flow.

Reliability
Three games were coded by all three coders.

Plain or pleasing reliability had 100% agreement for sound effects, NPC verbal style, NPC
appearance, non-interactive demo, and game background. Title and intro screen, pleasant or
plain had 89% agreement. Visual style, buttons, and fonts was 77%, Interactive demo, end

of game feedback, between rounds feedback, and in-game feedback was 66%.

\We added three new variables: appealing overall visual style, appealing interactivity, and
appealing feedback, all coded as 1=bland, 2=somewhat appealing, 3=very appealing. These

were applied consistently across the three coders.

Comedy, Immersion, Love, Physical Activity, Power, Social Interaction, and Thrill of
Danger all had 100% agreement. Altruism, Discovery/ Exploration, and Learning had 89%
agreement. Advancement, Application of a Mental Ability, Competition, and Intellectual
Problem Solving had 66% agreement. The coders discussed definitions and criteria, and

then recoded these attributes, achieving at least 8 % agreement on the original three games.

24

After all of the games were coded, SPSS analysis of results by coder revealed three forms of
fun (Intellectual problem solving, advancement and completion, and competition ) for which
one coder stood out from the other two in terms of frequency. This could be a function of
the games that person was assigned. Nonetheless, a coder was warned if he or she was
overly generous or overly miserly with that category, and all coders recoded those variables

again for all of their games.

Average inter—coder levels of perceived engagement were within .2 points of each other.
Two of three coders initially averaged .9 (on a 0 to 2 scale) while the third coder averaged .3
across all ten games. Flow was re-coded again after discussion to better balance coder

ratings.

25

RESULTS

A total of 33 games were analyzed along two overarching considerations:

0 To assess whether brain games and their various elements were either plain or
pleasing in various aspects of their design
0 To determine how many and which forms of fun if any are most often present in

brain games

For both these criteria, we analyzed the overall occurrence across brain games and then
compared how brain games differed based on which of four brain domains the game
targeted, as well as how brain games differed across companies including a comparison
between brain games by company. A third comparison looked at brain games by service
type (brain games found on brain game company web sites with brain games on generic

casual game web sites). .

Plain Vs Pleasing

The games were coded for 17 different game design elements as either plain (functional with
minimal design to achieve the needed functionality) or pleasing (incorporating aesthetic or
other conceptual design enhancements intended to enhance the player experience). This
section gives a detailed breakdown and results for each of the design elements. In the tables
that follow, n - indicates the number of games for that category, F - is the oneway ANOVA

F value, df is the degrees of freedom and p indicates the significance level. A value of 1 was

26

used to indicate pleasing, and 0 to indicate plain. Thus, the average across games will range

from 0 to 1.

Visual Sg'le

Overall visual style referred to the look and feel of the game including the visual style of
playable objects and game content was mostly plain or pleasing. For the 33 games that were
coded, two thirds of the games were rated visually pleasing and the others were rated as

plain.

Visual Pleasing (By Brain Domain)

Table 2: Visual Style by brain domain

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average Standard Deviation
Memory games (n= 9) 0.56 0.53
Visual Spatial (n= 8) 0.57 0.46
Attention Games (n= 8) 0.63 0.52
Language Games (n= 8) 0.75 0.46
Overall (n = 33) 0.67 0.48
F = 0.32 p = 0.81 df = 3

N 0 significant difference was found for visual style based on which brain domain the 33
games targeted. In other words, memory games were no more likely to be plain than visual

spatial games, attention games, or language games.

27

Visual Pleasing (By Company)

Table 3: Visual Style by Company

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average Standard Deviation

Happy Neuron (n = 8) 0.50 0.54
FitBrains (n = 8) 1.00 0.00
Lumosity (n = 7) 0.43 0.54
Brainversity (n = 3) 0.00 0.00
Brain Challenge (n = 3) 1.00 0.00
Big Fish (n = 4) 1.00 0.00
Overall (n = 33) 0.67 0.48
F = 5.262 p = .002 df = 5

Pleasing or plain visual style was significantly different across companies (F=5.26, df=5,
p=.002). One company, Brainiversity, used a purely functional style for all of their games.
Two brain game companies (Fit Brain and Brain Challenge) consistently employed a pleasing
visual style. The four Big Fish casual games also consistently used pleasing visual styles.

Happy Neuron and Lumosity used pleasing visual styles about half of the time.

Visual Pleasing (By Service Type)

Table 4: Visual Style by Service type

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average Standard Deviation
Brain Game Service (n = 23) 0.65 0.49
Casual Games (n = 10) 0.70 0.48
Overall (n = 33) 0.67 0.48
F = 0.068 p = 0.797 df = 1

Pleasing or plain visual style was not significantly different by service type. Brain games on
brain game company web sites were as likely to be visually pleasing as brain games found on

casual game sites.

28

From here on tables where there were no significant differences between games, when

compared by one of the above three categories, are not included here.

Introductory Screen

Introductory screen was defined as the first screen that is encountered by the player. Overall
60% of the brain games were coded as having a pleasing intro screen while the rest of the

introductory screens (40%) were rated functional (plain).

Whether a brain game’s introductory screen was pleasing or plain did not vary based on what

cognitive domain the game targeted.

Intro Pleasing (By Company)

Table 5: Intro by Company

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average Standard Deviation

Happy Neuron (n = 8) 0.13 0.35
FitBrains (n = 8) 1.00 0.00
Lumosity (n = 7) 0.57 0.54
Brainversity (n = 3) 0.00 0.00
Brain Challenge (n = 3) 1.00 0.00
Big Fish (n = 4) 1.00 0.00
Overall (n = 33) 0.61 0.50
F = 11.031 p = .000 df = 5

The pleasing or plainness of introductory screens was significantly different by company (F
= 11.031, df = 5, p = .000). As with overall visual style, one company, Brainversity, used a

purely functional introductory screen for all three of their games in this study. Two brain

29

game companies (Fit Brain and Brain Challenge) consistently employed a pleasing
introductory screen. The four Big Fish casual games also consistently used pleasing
introductory screens. Lumosity offered a pleasing introductory screen for 57% of their

games, and Happy Neuron did so for 13% of their games.

Introductory screen design was not significantly different by service type.

Title (Font Choice and Title Design),

Each of the games that were analyzed incorporated the title of the game either on the
introductory screen, in the main game interface, or both. Those using a generic, common,
non-decorative font and straight line layout were deemed plain. Those whose title were
decorative or themed or designed in some way were deemed pleasing. Overall 70% of the

games studied had visually pleasing title text and 30% of them were plain.

Font and the title design did not differ significantly across the four brain domains.

Title Pleasing (By Company)

Table 6: Title by Company

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Standard

Average Deviation
Happy Neuron (n = 8) 0.13 0.35
FitBrains (n = 8) 1.00 0.00
Lumosity (n = 7) 1.00 0.00
Brainversity (n = 3) 0.33 0.58
Brain Challenge (n = 3) 1.00 0.00
Big Fish (n = 4) 0.75 0.50
Overall (n = 33) 0.70 0.47

 

30

F = 11.023 p = .000 df = 5

There was a significant difference in title design among different companies. FitBrains,
Lumosity and Brain Challenge consistently created pleasing titles, three fourths of the games
from Big Fish had pleasing titles, and one third of the games from Brainversity had pleasing

titles. Only 13% of the games from Happy Neuron had pleasing title designs.

\V‘hen compared by service type there was no significant difference between brain game

companies and casual game companies for title design.

Fonts (Used throughout the entire gating

For all the games that were analyzed a wide variety of fonts were used throughout the game
for buttons, to convey in-game feedback, in menu items, on instruction screens, etc. Overall
the fonts used in the game were marked as plain if they were generic sans serif or serif fonts
or pleasing if at least some of fonts in the game seemed designed to contribute to the overall
coherent and designed game look and feel. A little more than half of the 33 games analyzed

used plain fonts and the rest used pleasing fonts

Font Pleasing (By Brain Domain)

Table 7: Fonts by brain domain

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average Standard Deviation
Memory games (n= 9) 0.44 0.53
Visual Spatial (n= 8) 0.50 0.54
Attention Games (n= 8) 0.25 0.46
Language Games (n= 8) 0.63 0.52
Overall (n = 33) 0.45 0.51
F = 0.744 p = 0.535 df = 3

31

When compared by brain domains, attention games were least likely to use pleasing fonts

(only 25% of attention games did so), whereas more than half of the games for the other

three brain domains (63%) used pleasing fonts. Using plain fonts in an attention game may

be a wise design decision — perhaps the designers wanted to avoid distracting players with

decorative fonts.

Font Pleasing (By Company)

Table 8: Fonts by company

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average Standard Deviation

Happy Neuron (n = 8) 0.00 0.00
FitBrains (n = 8) 0.88 0.35
Lumosity (n = 7) 0.43 0.54
Brainversity (n = 3) 0.00 0.00
Brain Challenge (n = 3) 0.67 0.58
Big Fish (n = 4) 0.75 0.50
Overall (n = 33) 0.45 0.51
F = 5.629 p = .001 df = S

The font used differed significantly across the various brain companies (F = 5.629, df = 5, p

= .001). While Happy Neuron and Brainversity used only default system fonts for all their

games, Lumosity used pleasing fonts in close to half their games. Brain Challenge and Big

Fish used pleasing fonts for nearly three fourths of their games and FitBrains used pleasing

fonts for 88% of their games.

32

Font Pleasing (By Service Type)

Table 9: Fonts by Service type

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average Standard Deviation
Brain Game Service (n = 23) 0.43 0.51
Casual Games (n = 10) 0.50 0.53
Overall (n = 33) 0.45 0.51
F = 0.113 p = 0.739 df = 1

Font use was not different by service type. Casual game companies and brain game

companies both used pleasing fonts in about 50% of their games.

Imus

Buttons are a frequent component of online Flash games. Buttons were considered plain if
they consisted of a rectangle or rounded rectangle containing a word (such as CONTINUE
or HELP) in a default font. Pleasing buttons were more designed, such as having animation
or color change on mouse over, an audio effect associated with a button, and visual design
to fit in with and contribute to an overall look and feel of the game. Among the 33 brain
games analyzed 60% had pleasing buttons while the other 40% used a more purely

functional, generic button style.

When compared by cognitive functions there was not a significant difference in the use of

plain or pleasing buttons.

33

Buttons Pleasing (By Company)

Table 10: Buttons by Company

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Standard
Average Deviation
Happy Neuron (n = 8) 0.00 0.00
FitBrains (n = 8) 1.00 0.00
Lumosity (n = 7) 0.86 0.38
Brainversity (n = 3) 0.00 0.00
Brain Challenge (n = 3) 0.67 0.58
Big Fish (n = 4) 1.00 0.00
Overall (n = 33) 0.61 0.50
F = 22.520 p = .000 df = 5

As shown by the table there was a significant difference in plain and pleasing buttons by

company. Happy Neuron and Brainversity used only plain buttons for their games; on the
other hand Big Fish and FitBrains consistently used pleasing buttons across all their games.
The other two companies Brain Challenge and Lumosity had pleasing buttons for 67% and

86% respectively.

There was no significant difference in button design by service type.

In-game Feedback

Games usually provide various kind of feedback to the player during game play to indicate
the status of the game including success and failure, level, and so forth (we refer to this as
”in-game feedback”). In-game feedback includes alert boxes, dings / chimes and visual
animations to let the player know the outcomes of their actions. Most games included
right/ wrong feedback. One of the games did not have any in-game feedback. Plain good

34

and bad feedback used a typical happy sound (usually a musical chord) for right, and a
buzzer or similar annoying unhappy sound for wrong. Pleasing in-game feedback included
themed animations (fish dancing or sparkles) and more elaborate and unique audio. Among
32 games which included in—game feedback, 60% incorporated pleasing feedback and 40%

used plain feedback

There was no significant difference in the pleasingness ofin-game feedback by brain
domain. However, games designed to exercise visual spatial cognitive functions used

pleasing in-game feedback 75% of the time — relatively higher than the other brain domains.

ln-Game Feedback Pleasing (By Company)

Table 11: ln-Game Feedback by Company

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average Standard Deviation

Happy Neuron (n = 7) 0.14 0.38
FitBrains (n = 8) 0.88 0.35
Lumosity (n = 7) 0.43 0.54
Brainversity (n = 3) 0.33 0.58
Brain Challenge (n = 3) 1.00 0.00
Big Fish (n = 4) 1.00 0.00
Overall (n = 32) 0.59 0.50
F = 4.558 p = .004 df = 5

Like many of the other categories analyzed, there were significant differences between the
pleasingness of in-game feedback by different companies. One of the games from Happy
Neuron did not include any in-game feedback. Among the rest of the Happy Neuron games
(n = 7) only 14% of the games had pleasing feedback. Only one third of Brainversity games

provided pleasing in-game feedback, as did 43% of Lumosity games. Eight-eight percent of

35

FitBrains games and all three games by Brain Challenge and Big Fish featured pleasing in—

game feedback.

Incorporation of pleasing in-game feedback approached but did not achieve significant
difference by service type. There was a trend towards casual game companies being more

likely to use pleasing in-game feedback.

Between Rounds Feedback

Many brain games required players to complete multiple rounds of the same or very similar
challenge to finish a complete game. Between rounds feedback assessed the feedback that
was provided to the players when each round was over. Eight out of the 33 games analyzed
did not have the concept of rounds as part of their game play hence they were not
considered. Sixty—four percent of the 25 brain games with between round feedback featured

pleasing feedback and the rest 36% had plain feedback

No significant difference was found for between rounds feedback based on which brain

domain the games targeted.

Between Game Rounds Feedback Pleasing (By Company)

Table 12: Between Rounds Feedback by Company

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average Standard Deviation

Happy Neuron (n = 6) 0.33 0.52
FitBrains (n = 8) 0.88 0.35
Lumosity (n = 5) 0.60 0.55
Brainversity (n = 1) 0.00

Brain Challenge (n = 2) 1.00 0.00
Big Fish (n = 3) 0.67 0.58
Overall (n = 25) 0.64 0.49

 

 

 

 

 

36

P: 1.571 p=.216 df=5

The pleasing or plainness of between round feedback was different by company (F=1.571,
df=5, p=.216). As with overall visual style, one company, Brainversity, used a purely
functional form of in—game feedback for all of their games. One brain game company (Brain
Challenge) consistently employed a pleasing visual style and pleasing between round
feedback. Games from FitBrains, Big Fish and Lumosity used pleasing between rounds
feedback far more often (88%, 60% and 67%) did Happy Neuron, which used pleasing

between round feedback for only one third of their games

Pleasing or plain between-round feedback was not significantly different by service type.

End Game Feedback

Once a player has played through an entire game (which could consist of multiple rounds)
the game provides a way to let the player know how they performed in the game. This may
include scores, time elapsed and other details (defined as the End Game Feedback). Two
games did not provide any kind of end of game feedback. Among the rest of the 31 games,

68% had pleasing end of game feedback and 32% had plain.

There was no significant difference in end of game feedback by brain domain.

37

End of Game Feedback Pleasing (By Company)

Table 13: End of Game Feedback by Company

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average Standard Deviation

Happy Neuron (n = 8) 1.00 0.00
FitBrains (n = 7) 0.71 0.49
Lumosity (n = 7) 0.29 0.49
Brainversity (n = 3) 0.00 0.00
Brain Challenge (n = 3) 1.00 0.00
Big Fish (n = 3) 1.00 0.00
Overall (n = 31) 0.68 0.48
F = 6.855 p = .000 df = 5

The pleasing or plainness of end game feedback was significantly different by company

(F Z6855, df=5, p=.000). As with between rounds feedback, one company, Brainversity,

used a purely functional form of end game feedback for all of their games. Two brain game

companies (Happy Neuron and Brain Challenge) consistently employed a pleasing visual

style for end of game feedback. The three games from Big Fish also used pleasing end game

feedback. FitBrains provided pleasing end of game feedback for 71% of their games while

Lumosity provided for only 29% of their games

Pleasing or plain end of game feedback was not significantly different by service type. Brain

games on brain game company web sites and brain games found on casual game sites both

had equally pleasing end game feedback.

Tutorials (Interactivg)

38

Many of the games allowed the players to learn how to play the game this was done by
allowing the player to actively take part in the learning process and interact with the game,
this was defined as tutorial. Any element that increased the overall appeal like visual effects,
animation, audio etc. added to the richness of the tutorial and hence was marked as pleasing.
Only 14 games out of the total of 33 had an interactive tutorial, 57% of the game tutorials

were pleasing and 43% of those were marked plain

Tutorial Pleasing (By Brain Domain)

Table 14: Tutorial by brain domain

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average Standard Deviation
Memory games (n= 3) 0.67 0.58
Visual Spatial (n= 5) 0.60 0.55
Attention Games (n= 4) 0.25 0.50
Language Games (n= 2) 0.00 0.00
Overall (n = 14) 0.43 0.51
F = 1.034 p = 0.419 df = 3

There was a significant difference across the four different cognitive domains when it came
to the plainness and pleasantness of their tutorials. None of the language games had a
pleasing tutorial, only one fourth of the attention games had a pleasing tutorial. Visual spatial

and Memory games fared much better at 60% and 67% respectively.

39

Tutorial Pleasing (By Company)

Table 15: Tutorial by Company

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Standard

Average Deviation
Happy Neuron (n = 7) 0.14 0.38
FitBrains (n = 2) 1.00 0.00
Lumosity (n = 3) 0.33 0.58
Brainversity (n = 0)
Brain Challenge (n = 1) 1.00
Big Fish (n = 1) 1.00
Overall (n = 14) 0.43 0.51
F = 2.813 p = .091 df = 4

As with cognitive domains there was a significant difference when the tutorials were

compared by the companies. Brainversity did not have a game that had a tutorial among the

rest two brain companies (FitBrains and Brain Challenge) consistently had pleasing tutorials,

the single game from Big Fish that had a tutorial was also pleasing. One third of the games

from Lumosity had a pleasing tutorial and only 14% of happy neuron games had a pleasing

tutorial.

Tutorial Pleasing (By Service Type)

Table 16: Tutorial by Service Type

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average Standard Deviation
Brain Game Service (n = 12) 0.33 0.49
Casual Games (n = 2) 1.00 0.00
Overall (n = 14) 0.43 0.51

 

 

 

 

F = 3.429

p = 0.089

40

df=1

Off the 14 games that had a tutorial only two were casual games and both of them had
pleasing tutorials however from the rest ofgames which all belonged to brain game
companies only a third of them had pleasing tutorials, thus leading to a significant difference

by service type.

Demo

The brain games allowed the player to watch a non interactive demo giving them a step by
step guide to play the game and show the objective of the game, this was defined as a demo.
16 games from the ones analyzed did not have a demo and were not considered from the

rest 77% of the games had a pleasing demo and 23% had a functional demo.

Demo Pleasing (By Brain Domain)

Table 17: Demo by brain domain

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average Standard Deviation
Memory games (n= 7) 0.71 0.49
Visual Spatial (n= 3) 1.00 0.00
Attention Games (n= 3) 0.33 0.58
Language Games (n= 4) 1.00 0.00
Overall (n = 17) 0.76 0.44
F = 1.993 p = 0.165 df = 3

There was a significant difference between the various games when compared based on the
cognitive domains, Visual spatial and Language games consistently had pleasing demos,
while 71% of memory games had pleasing demos. However attention games had far lesser

pleasing demos at 33%.

41

Demo Pleasing (By Company)

Table 18: Demo by Company

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average Standard Deviation
Happy Neuron (n = 2) 0.00 0.00
FitBrains (n = 6) 1.00 0.00
Lumosity (n = 5) 0.60 0.55
Brainversity (n = 0)
Brain Challenge (n = 3) 1.00 0.00
Big Fish (n = 1) 1.00
Overall (n = 17) 0.76 0.44
F = 4.647 p = .017 df = 4

Similarly when the demos were compared by which company the game belonged too there
was a big difference. Two brain companies FitBrains and Brain Challenge had pleasing
demos for all their so did the brain games from the casual game company Big Fish. Happy

Neuron only had functional demos for both their games and Lumosity had pleasing demos

for 60% of their games.
Demo Pleasing (By Service Type)

Table 19: Demo by Service Type

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average Standard Deviation
Brain Game Service (n = 13) 0.69 0.48
Casual Games (n = 4) 1.00 0.00
Overall (n = 17) 0.76 0.44
F = 1.569 p = 0.230 df = 1

42

When demos from different games were compared based on service type all four of the
casual games had pleasing demos however only 69% (from a total of 13 games) of the games

from brain game companies had pleasing demos.

Instructions

If a game had a static screen with all the instructions given using a combination of text or
graphics in addition to or without having an interactive tutorial or a non-interactive demo
with any animations etc. those games were coded as having an instruction screen. They were
marked pleasing if the instruction were given a treatment which was consistent with the
game and added overall appeal to the game. A simple background with text over it was not
considered pleasing. A total of 23 games from the total games had instructions screen off

which 57% were plain and 43% were pleasing.

Among the 23 games that had instruction screens there was no significant difference in
plainness and pleasantness across the four cognitive domains hence games from one domain

were as likely to be plain or pleasing as games from any other domain.

Instruction Pleasing (By Company)

Table 20: Instructions by Company

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average Standard Deviation

Happy Neuron (n = 7) 0.14 0.14
FitBrains (n = 8) 0.75 0.75
Lumosity (n = 3) 0.00 0.00
Brainversity (n = 3) 0.33 0.33
Brain Challenge (n = 0)

Big Fish (n = 2) 1.00 0.00
Overall (n = 23) 0.43 0.51

 

 

 

 

 

43

F = 3.912

There was a significant difference across the games when compared by the company that
developed the games, both the games from the casual game company Big Fish had pleasing
instruction screen and Lumosity was the only brain game company that did not have any
game with a pleasant instruction screen. Three fourths of the games from FitBrains had a

pleasing instruction while Brainversity and Happy Neuron had 33% and 14% games with

pleasing instruction screen.

Instruction Pleasing (By Service Type)

df=4

Table 21: Instructions by Service Type

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average Standard Deviation
Brain Game Service (n = 18) 0.39 0.50
Casual Games (n = 5) 0.60 0.55
Overall (n = 23) 0.43 0.51

 

F = .669

There was some difference across the games when compared by service type, 60% of brain
games (from a total of 5) from casual gaming companies had a pleasing instruction screen

where as only 39% (from a total of 18) of brain games from brain game companies had a

pleasing instruction screen.

N PC Verbal Style

44

df=1

 

NPCs, or non playing characters, are a common component of certain game genres. It turns
out that less than one third of the brain games coded (3‘ %) incorporated an NPC. \V hen an
NPC did show up, it was coded for verbal style and visual appearance. Non playing
characters that helped the players either by showing them things or telling about various
things to do within the game were coded for their verbal style. The verbal style was not
restricted to just audio -- even text or gestural animations coming from an NPC were
considered as part of their verbal style. Of the 10 games including an NPC with a verbal
style, 70% used a pleasing verbal style (such as being in character or being humorous) and
30% of the NPCs had a plain verbal style, simply explaining how to play or reporting a

score.

Inclusion of an NPC (By Company)

Table 22: Inclusion of NPC by Company

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Percent
Happy Neuron (n = 8) 12.5%
FitBrains (n = 8) 12.5%
Lumosity (n = 7) 14.3%
Brainversity (n = 3) 100%
Brain Challenge (n = 3) 100%
Big Fish (n = 4) 25%
Overall (n = 33) ' 30%

 

The number of brain games including an N PC is too small to allow for statistical
comparisons. It is worth noting that 100% of the games in Brainversity and Brain Challenge
incorporated an NPC, as did one of the other four Big Fish games. Among the three online

brain game companies, the use of NPCs was consistently low, ranging from 12.5% to 14.3%.

45

NPC Appearance

While there were only ten of the 33 games that had an NPC which spoke (either via
onscreen text or audio) and there were only nine games that had an NPC which was visually
represented in the game. Out of the nine games, eight (89%) had a pleasing visual
appearance for NPC’s and only one game had a plain visual N PC representation. Here too,

the numbers are too small to analyze by brain domain, company or service type.

Sound Effects

Any audio associated with the game including, effects for each mouse click or event with the
game, background audio, transition screen audio effects etc. were coded under this category.
Overall if the game had a lot more customized audio for a particular game and not just
generalized dings and chimes which could be used in any game then it was coded as pleasing.
If the game only had generic audio with no special effort to functionally make the game
work it was coded as plain. Off the 33 games analyzed 61% of the games had plain sound

effects and 39% of the games had pleasing sound effects.

Sound Effects Pleasing (By Brain Domain)

Table 23: Sound effects by brain domain

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average Standard Deviation
Memory games (n= 9) 0.44 0.53
Visual Spatial (n= 8) 0.63 0.52
Attention Games (n= 8) 0.13 0.35
Language Games (n= 8) 0.38 0.52
Overall (n = 33) 0.39 0.50

 

 

 

 

 

46

F = 1.456 p = 0.247 df = 3

The plain and pleasing factor for sound effects varied over the four brain domains, the
highest being 63% for visual spatial games and the lowest being 13% for attention games.

Memory and Language were comparatively close to each other at 44% and 38% respectively

Sound Effects Pleasing (By Company)

Table 24: Sound effects by Company

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average Standard Deviation

Happy Neuron (n = 8) 0.00 0.00
FitBrains (n = 8) 0.63 0.52
Lumosity (n = 7) 0.14 0.38
Brainversity (n = 3) 0.33 0.58
Brain Challenge (n = 3) 0.67 0.58
Big Fish (n = 4) 1.00 0.00
Overall (n = 33) 0.39 0.50
F = 5.065 p = 0.002 df = 5

Pleasing or plain sound effects was significantly different across companies (1:25.065, df=5,
p=.002). One company, Happy Neuron, used a purely functional style for all of their games.
Only the four Big Fish casual games consistently used pleasing sound effects. The other
varied in between with Lumosity and Brainversity at the lower end of the spectrum with
14% and 33%, while FitBrains and Brain Challenge were closer to the higher side with 63%

and 67%.

47

Sound Effects Pleasing (By Service Type)

Table 25: Sound effects by Service Type

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average Standard Deviation
Brain Game Service (n = 23) 0.26 0.45
Casual Games (n = 10) 0.70 0.48
Overall (n = 33) 0.39 0.50
F = 6.376 p = 0.017 df = 1

There was quite a large gap between the plain or pleasing factor when brain games were
compared by service types. Seventy percent of the brain games hosted on casual gaming sites
included pleasing sounds effects whereas only about one fourth of the brain games hosted

on brain game websites (26%) featured pleasing sound effects.

Pleasing or Plain Summary

In summary, whether various elements of brain game design were pleasing or plan did not
vary by brain domain or by service type. There was highly significant variation by company.
A pleasing demo was most common, found in 76% of brain games. Title, visual style,
buttons, and feedback were more often pleasing than plain, overall. Less than half- of brain
games included pleasing fonts, tutorials, or instructions. Sound effects were the single most

neglected design element. Only 39% of brain games incorporated pleasing sound effects.

48

Table 26: Pleasing or Plain Summary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Domain Company Service
Demo 76% n.s. 0.017 n.s.
Title 70% n.s. 0.000 n.s.
End Feedback 68% n.s. 0.000 n.s.
Visual Style 67% n.s 0.002 n.s.
Between Rounds Feedback 64% n.s. n.s. n.s.
Intro Screen 61% n.s. 0.000 n.s.
Buttons 61% n.s. 0.000 n.s.
In-Game Feedback 59% n.s. 0.004 0.116
Fonts 45% n.s. 0.001 n.s.
Tutorial 43% n.s. 0.091 n.s.
Instructions 43% n.s. 0.019 n.s.
Sound Effects 39% n.s. 0.002 n.s.

 

Overall Game features

While all of the games were coded for individual elements that comprised the visual style,
game feedback and the interactivity within the games, the games were also coded for overall
visual style, interactivity and feedback. They were coded as bland, somewhat appealing or
very appealing. If a game had only functional elements within a category it was coded as
bland, if it had a balanced mix of plain and pleasing elements it was marked somewhat
pleasing and if the game had mostly pleasing elements it was marked as very appealing. A
value ofl was used to indicate if the overall element was bland a value of2 indicated if the
element was somewhat appealing and a value of 3 indicated that the element was very

appealing, thus the average across games for these tables’ ranges from 1 to 3.

49

Overall Visual Style

In addition to coding specific components ofvisual style such as fonts, introductory screen,
buttons, we attempted to code a more gestalt, overall impression of visual style. Of the 33
games, 21% of the games were coded as having plain overall visual style, 36% of the games
had a somewhat appealing visual style and 43% of the games had a very appealing visual

style.

When the games were compared by cognitive domains there was no significant difference

for the overall visual style of the games.

Visual Style (By Company)

Table 27: Overall Visual Style by Company

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average Standard Deviation

Happy Neuron (n = 8) 1.50 0.54
FitBrains (n = 8) 2.88 0.35
Lumosity (n = 7) 2.14 0.38
Brainversity (n = 3) 1.00 0.00
Brain Challenge (n = 3) 2.67 0.58
Big Fish (n = 4) 3.00 0.00
Overall (n = 33) 2.21 0.78
F = 18.557 p = 0.000 df = 5

There was a significant difference in the appeal of the overall visual style by company. All
the games from Brainversity were coded as plain. On the other end of the spectrum all the
games from Big Fish were coded as having very appealing visual style. FitBrains games had

an average visual style appeal of 2.88 (where 3 is very appealing and 1 is bland); Brain

50

Challenge was next in line with an average visual style appeal of 2.67. Lumosity averaged

2.14 and Happy Neuron visual style averaged 1.5.

There was no significant difference in the overall visual style of games when they were
compared by service, so games hosted on brain company websites had an overall visually

pleasing style similar to those that were hosted on casual game company websites.

Overall Interactivity

In addition to coding specific components of interactivity such as buttons and visual
feedback, we attempted to code a more gestalt, overall impression of the interactive
experience of playing the game. Off the 33 games that were analyzed 30% of the games
were coded as using relatively plain interactivity, 27% were coded as having somewhat
appealing interactivity and 43% of the games were coded as having very appealing

interactivity.

Overall Interactivity (By Brain Domain)

Table 28: Overall Interactivity by brain domain

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average Standard Deviation
Memory games (n= 9) 2.11 0.93
Visual Spatial (n= 8) 2.13 0.84
Attention Games (n= 8) 2.13 0.84
Language Games (n= 8) 2.13 0.99
Overall (n = 33) 2.12 0.86
F = 0.001 p = 1.000 df = 3

When compared by the four brain domains there was no significant regarding the overall

51

interactivity of the games, games from one domain were found to be equally interactive as

compared to other domains.

Overall Interactivity (By Company)

Table 29: Overall Interactivity by Company

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average Standard Deviation

Happy Neuron (n = 8) 1.25 0.46
FitBrains (n = 8) 2.63 0.52
Lumosity (n = 7) 2.29 0.95
Brainversity (n = 3) 1.33 0.58
Brain Challenge (n = 3) 2.33 0.58
Big Fish (n = 4) 3.00 0.00
Overall (n = 33) 2.12 0.86
F = 7.127 p = 0.000 df = 5

\When the games were compared based on the company that hosts there was a significant
difference on the overall quality of interactivity in games. There were three distinct clusters
where Happy Neuron and Brainversity were together at the bottom with an average
interactivity appeal of 1.25 and 1.33 (on a scale from 1 = bland to 3 = very appealing) and
Big Fish was the leader of the pack with all their games scoring a perfect 3 on appealing
interactivity. The other three companies FitBrains, Brain Challenge and Lumosity were in

between (2.63, 2.33, and 2.29 respectively) in terms of overall interactivity appeal.

52

Overall Interactivity (By Service Type)

Table 30: Overall Interactivity by Service type

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average Standard Deviation
Brain Game Service (n = 23) 2.04 0.88
Casual Games (n = 10) 2.30 0.82
Overall (n = 33) 2.12 0.86
F=0.617 p=O.438 df= 1

There was no significant difference when the games were compared by the type of the
service; hence brain games on brain game company websites were as interactive as games

that were hosted on casual gaming websites.

Overall Game feedback

Games were rated for the overall gestalt appeal of feedback, combining in-game, between
rounds and end of game feedback. Among the 33 games analyzed 27% had bland feedback,

40% of had somewhat appealing feedback and 33% incorporated very appealing feedback.

Overall Feedback (By Brain Domain)

Table 31: Overall feedback by brain domain

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average Standard Deviation
Memory games (n= 9) 1.78 0.83
Visual Spatial (n= 8) 2.13 0.64
Attention Games (n= 8) 2.00 0.76
Language Games (n= 8) 2.38 0.92
Overall (n = 33) 2.06 0.79

 

53

F = 0.831 p = 0.488 df = 3

When the games were compared across the different brain domains there was no significant
difference between them and almost all the different domains scored 60% of better rating

for overall game feedback.

Overall Feedback (By Company)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 32: Overall feedback by Company
Average Standard Deviation

Happy Neuron (n = 8) 1.88 0.35
FitBrains (n = 8) 2.50 0.54
Lumosity (n = 7) 1.29 0.76
Brainversity (n = 3) 1.33 0.58
Brain Challenge (n = 3) 2.67 0.58
Big Fish (n = 4) 3.00 0.00
Overall (n = 33) 2.06 0.79
F = 8.656 p = 0.000 df = 5

There was a significant difference in the overall appeal of feedback when the games were
compared by the company that hosts them. Lumosity and Brainversity had the lowest overall
appealing feedback, averaging 1.29 and 1.33 respectively and the Big Fish casual brain games,
similar to overall visual style and interactivity, again had the highest score on feedback, a
perfect 3. Brain Challenge and FitBrains were closer to the higher end of the spectrum with

2.67 and 2.50 respectively. Happy Neuron averaged 1.88 for overall game feedback.

54

Overall Feedback (By Service Type)

Table 33: Overall feedback by Service Type

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average Standard Deviation
Brain Game Service (n = 23) 1.91 0.73
Casual Games (n = 10) 2.40 0.84
Overall (n = 33) ‘ 2.06 0.79
F=2.811 p=0.104 df= 1

When compared by the service type there was a little difference between games that were
hosted on brain game company websites, scoring 64%, for overall game feedback as

compared to 80% scored by games hosted on casual gaming companies.

Forms of Fun

The games were coded for 20 different forms of fun the games either did not have a
particular form of fun (was coded as Not Existing) it had a little of the form of fun, for
example a person had very minimal intellectual problem solving as part of game (was coded
as A little) or if the entire game and its functionality depends on intellectual problem solving
(was coded as A lot). This section gives a detailed breakdown and results for each of the
different forms of fun. In the tables that follow, n - indicates the number of games for that
category, F — is the oneway AN OVA F value, df is the degrees of freedom and p indicates
the significance level. A value of 1 was used to indicate if the form of fun was non—existent a
value of 2 indicated if there was a little of that form of fun and a value of 3 indicated a lot of

the form of fun. Thus, the average across games will range from 1 to 3.

55

Advancement and Completion

Overall, 30% of brain games included a strong component of the fiin of advancement and
completion; 24% of brain game play included a glimmer of advancement and completion,

and the plurality (45.5%) did not invoke advancement and completion fun.

Advancement & Completion (By Brain Domain)

Table 34: Advancement & Completion by brain domain

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average Standard Deviation
Memory games (n= 9) 1.89 0.78
Visual Spatial (n= 8) 1.88 0.99
Attention Games (n= 8) 1.88 0.99
Language Games (n= 8) 1.75 0.89
Overall (n = 33) 1.85 0.87
F = 0.041 p = 0.989 df = 3

There was no significant difference in the inclusion of advancement and completion by brain

domain.

Advancement & Completion (By Company)

Table 35: Advancement & Completion by Company

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average Standard Deviation

Happy Neuron (n = 8) 1.25 0.71
FitBrains (n = 8) 2.25 0.71
Lumosity (n = 7) 1.71 0.95
Brainversity (n = 3) 1.33 0.58
Brain Challenge (n = 3) 1.67 0.58
Big Fish (n = 4) 3.00 0.00
Overall (n = 33) 1.85 0.87
F=4.112 p= .007 df=5

56

The four Big Fish casual games all incorporated a strong element of advancement and
completion, averaging 3.0 on a scale from 1=not at all to 3: a lot. FitBrains averaged 2.25
(they had one or two of their 8 games that did strongly invoke advancement and completion,
and the remainder only weakly did so). Lumosity and Brain Challenge often included at least
a little advancement and completion (1.71 and 1.67) while Brainiversity and Happy Neuron

rarely included any (1.33 and 1.25).

Advancement 8: Completion (By Service Type)

Table 36: Advancement 8: Completion by Service Type

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average Standard Deviation
Brain Game Service (n = 23) 1.74 0.86
Casual Games (n = 10) 2.10 0.88
Overall (n = 33) 1.85 0.87
F: 1.206 p: .281 df= 1

There was no significant difference in advancement and completion fun by service type.

Again as with Plain and Pleasing if there was no significant difference observed when the
games were compared by Brain domains, Company or Service types those tables are not

included.

Out of a total of 33 games only one game (3%) had a little of altruism as part of its game-

play the other thirty two games (97%) did not have this form of fun. As the number was

57

significantly lower we did not compare them by cognitive domains, brain game companies

and service type.

Physical Ability

None of the thirty three games had any application of a physical ability as part of their game-

play.

Mental Ability

Given that all the games that were analyzed were brain games all the games had at least some
amount of game—play that exhibited this form of fun. From a total of 33 games 67% of
games demonstrated a lot of this type of fun and 33% of the games had a little of this form

of fun.

When compared by brain domain there was no significant difference in the inclusion of the
application of mental ability as part of the game—play. Almost all games consistently had a

strong inclination to include this form of fun as indicated by the average being 2.50 or higher

Like brain domain there was no significant difference between games when compared by

companies that host them.

There was no significant difference in this form of fun by service type, brain games hosted
on casual gaming websites as well as games hosted on brain game companies websites were

all cerebral in nature.

58

Beau 3'

Only three games out of the total of 33 games that were analyzed had a lot of this form of
fun, indicating most brain games lacking in the overall aesthetic appeal. A significant number
of games (490/0) did not have this form of fun, while some of the games (42%) showed a

little of this type of fun.

There was no significant difference when compared by the brain domains as to the beauty of
the game, none of the domains were higher than A little category, with language games

having the highest average at 1.88.

Beauty (By Company)

Table 37: Beauty by Company

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average Standard Deviation

Happy Neuron (n = 8) 1.13 0.35
FitBrains (n = 8) 2.00 0.54
Lumosity (n = 7) 1.43 0.54
Brainiversity (n = 3) 1.00 0.00
Brain Challenge (n = 3) 1.67 0.58
Big Fish (n = 4) 2.50 0.58
Overall (n = 33) 1.61 0.66
F = 6.580 p = 0.000 df = 5

When brain games were compared by companies they showed quite a wide gap in the
amount of beauty present in games. All four of the games from Big Fish showed a great deal
of beauty averaging 2.5 on a scale from 1 to 3, while none of the games from Brainiversity

had this form of fun with the lowest average of 1.0. FitBrains was a healthy mix of games

59

having a little or lot of this form of fun (average of 2.0). \Vhile rest of the companies had
very little beauty in their games with averages of 1.67 (Brain Challenge), 1.43 (Lumosity) and

1.13 (I lappy Neuron)

There was no significant difference in beauty of the games when compared by service type.

Comedy

Overall among the 33 games analyzed none of the games had a lot of humor as part of their
game play hence none of the games were rated as having A Lot of this form of fun. Only
15% of the games had some form of comedy in the game but a majority of the games (8 %)

had no humor at all.

When the games were compared by cognitive domains, companies that hosted the games
and the service type there were no significant differences indicating a general lack of humor

in brain games as none of them had a high average.

Competition

Most of the brain games that were analyzed targeted at individuals who wanted to either
keep their brains active or improve the brain function hence they did not include direct
competition with others, but were more of self paced games allowing the individual player to
play at their own pace and improve. Thus none of the games showed A Lot of competition
as part of the game-play, 52% of the games did not have any form of competition and 48%

had a little form of competition mostly in the form of a statistical evidence of how a player

60

 

fared as compared to other players on average instead of direct completion with another

player.

Given that not a lot of games had this form of fun, when they were compared by cognitive
domains, companies that hosted games and service type of the companies there were no

significant differences as to the amount of competition included in the games.

Creation

A high percentage of the 33 games analyzed (82%) did not encourage players to create things
within the game thus accounting for the lack of this form of fun. Two games showed a little
of this form of fun and four games showed a lot of this form. Given the low number of
games that showed this form of fun it was not surprising to see there were no significant
differences between games when compared by cognitive domains or service type hence we

did not consider those.

Creation (By Company)

Table 38: Creation by Company

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average Standard Deviation

Happy Neuron (n = 8) 1.13 0.35
FitBrains (n = 8) 1.13 0.35
Lumosity (n = 7) 1.29 0.76
Brainiversity (n = 3) 1.00 0.00
Brain Challenge (n = 3) 1.00 0.00
Big Fish (n = 4) 2.50 1.00
Overall (n = 33) 1.30 0.68
F = 4.484 p = 0.004 df = 5

61

When compared by companies hosting the games however all four games from Big Fish
scored high on this form of fun averaging a total of 2.5 on a scale ofl to 3. The rest of the
companies had averages closer t one indicating a low amount of creation as part of the

game-play.

Exploration

70% of the games did not allow for any kind of exploration within the games, 18% of the
games allowed some exploration as part of the game-play and only 12% allowed significant

exploration as part of the game-play.

There was no significant difference in the amount of exploration involved in games when

compared by brain domains.

Exploration (By Company)

Table 39: Exploration by Company

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average Standard Deviation

Happy Neuron (n = 8) 1.13 0.35
FitBrains (n = 8) 1.63 0.74
Lumosity (n = 7) 1.14 0.38
Brainversity (n = 3) 1.00 0.00
Brain Challenge (n = 3) 1.00 0.00
Big Fish (n = 4) 2.75 0.50
Overall (n = 33) 1.42 0.71
F = 8.242 p = 0.000 df = 5

62

There was a significant difference when games were compared by companies as to the
amount of exploration that was allowed by a game. Big Fish had the highest average of 2.5
on a scale from 1=not present to 3 = a lot and on the other end of the spectrum Brain
Challenge and Brainiversity did not have any kind of exploration in any of their games.
FitBrains, Lumosity and Happy Neuron had a couple of games each that allowed a little

exploration with averages of 1.63, 1.14 and 1.13 respectively.

There was no significant difference in the amount of exploration involved as part of the

game-play when compared by the service type of the companies

Immersion

Overall among the 33 games that were analyzed a little more than half (52%) of the games
did not allow the player to be immersed in a completely different setting and 48% of the
games allowed only a little immersion. There were no games that allowed the player to be
totally immersed in a different universe. Most brain games did not have a different world in

which the player could get involved in and get lost.

When the games were compared by brain domains, there was no significant difference to the

amount of immersion allowed by the games setting.

63

Immersion (By Company)

Table 40: Immersion by Company

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average Standard Deviation

Happy Neuron (n = 8) 1.38 0.52
FitBrains (n = 8) 1.75 0.46
Lumosity (n = 7) 1.57 0.54
Brainversity (n = 3) 1.00 0.00
Brain Challenge (n = 3) 1.00 0.00
Big Fish (n = 4) 1.75 0.50
Overall (n = 33) 1.48 0.51
F: 2.222 p=0.081 ' df=5

None of the companies averaged above two when the games were compared by companies;
however a casual game company (Big Fish) and a brain game company (FitBrains) scored an
average of 1.75 as compared to Brainiversity and Brain Challenge which had an average of

1.0 indicating none of their games had any sense of immersion.

When the games were compared by service type like brain domains there was no significant
difference to the amount of immersion allowed by the games, indicating brain games hosted
on casual gaming websites as well as games hosted by brain companies were relatively the

same.

Intellectual Problem Solving

Two thirds of the total games analyzed did not have any intellectual problem solving as part
of the game-play. 24% of the games had a little intellectual problem solving and only 9% of

the games had a lot of this form of fun.

64

When the games were compared by brain domains, there was no significant difference to the

amount of intellectual problem solving required as part of the game-play.

Intellectual Problem Solving (By Company)

Table 41: Intellectual Problem Solving by Company

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average Standard Deviation

Happy Neuron (n = 8) 1.25 0.71
FitBrains (n = 8) 1.25 0.46
Lumosity (n = 7) 1.29 0.49
Brainversity (n = 3) 1.67 0.58
Brain Challenge (n = 3) 1.00 0.00
Big Fish (n = 4) 2.50 0.58
Overall (n = 33) 1.42 0.66
F = 3.979 p = 0.008 df = 5

Intellectual problem solving differed significantly based on which company was hosting the
game, Big Fish had the highest average of 2.5 indicating most of their games had a lot of this
form of fun, where as Brain Challenge with an average of 1.0 indicates none of its game had
any intellectual problem solving. The rest of the four companies Happy Neuron, FitBrains,
Lumosity and Brainiversity had some of their games that had a little intellectual problem

solving.

When the games were compared by service type, there was no significant difference to the

amount of intellectual problem solving required as part of the game—play.

Stog‘

Out of the total of 33 games that were analyzed, 24 did not have any kind of story but just

had a set of tasks the player needed to complete. From the remaining nine only three had a

65

rich story with a setting and characters while the other six had a little amount of story in
terms ofa place where the game took place and the actions of the player affected the story

of the game in a very minimal way.

When the games were compared by brain domains, there was no significant difference as to

games belonging to which domain had more story compared to other domains.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Story (By Company)
Table 42: Story by Company
Average Standard Deviation

Happy Neuron (n = 8) 1.13 0.35
FitBrains (n = 8) 1.38 0.52
Lumosity (n = 7) 1.43 0.79
Brainversity (n = 3) 1.00 0.00
Brain Challenge (n = 3) 1.00 0.00
Big Fish (n = 4) 2.25 0.96
Overall (n = 33) 1.36 0.65
F = 2.592 p = 0.049 df = 5

When the amount of story present in a game was compared by the different companies
hosting the game there was a significant difference. Big Fish had the highest average of 2.25
for its four games indicating almost all its games had a little of story with a few of them
having a rich story. However Brainiversity and Brain Challenge did not have any games that
had any kind of story for their games. FitBrains and Lumosity with averages of 1.38 and 1.43
had a couple of games that had some story elements within the game, while only one of the

games from happy Neuron had some kind of story for its game.

66

When the games were compared by service type, there was no significant difference in the
amount of story present in the games. Thus brain games hosted on a casual gaming website
had a similar amount of story as part of the overall game—play as compared to brain games

hosted on brain game websites.

new;

Only five out of the total of 33 games analyzed involved a little of real world learning, rest of
the games had no learning component as part of the game-play. As the number of games
having this form of fun was lower they were not compared by brain domains, companies

and service type.

 

None of the 33 games analyzed had any component of love as part of the game—play.

Physical Activity

None of the 33 games analyzed required the player to do any kind of physical activity while
playing the games except pushing buttons on a keyboard which was not considered for this

analysis.

Power

67

None of the 33 games analyzed allowed you to gain any kind of power as part of the game-

play.

Social Interaction

As observed earlier since the games are targeted at individuals to be able to play them at their
own pace there is no active form of social interaction while playing the game in any of the

games that were analyzed.

Danger

Out of the 33 games analyzed 94% of the games had no sense of danger as part of the game-
play only 6% of the games had a little sense of danger. Since there were only two games that
showed this form of fun we did not compare them by brain domains, service type and

companies hosting the game.

Forms of Fun Summary

In summary, mental abilities was the most common form of fun in brain games, found in
100% of the games analyzed. Advancement and Completion was next most common, found
in 5 % of the brain games. Beauty and Competition each appeared in nearly half of the
games. The remaining 14 forms of fun were either rare or completely absent. Most brain
games rely on a limited set of forms of fun. Like the pleasing or plain findings, forms of fun,

when present at all, were highly significantly different by company, and not different by

68

brain domain. The inclusion of intellectual problem solving was more common in online

casual games.

Table 43: Forms of Fun Summary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

none glimmer strong Domain Company Service

Mental Ability 0% 33% 67% n.s. n.s. n.s.
Advancement and

Completion 46% 24% 30% n.s. 0.007 n.s.
Beauty 49% 42% 9% n.s. 0.000 n.s.
Competition 52% 48% 0% n.s. n.s. n.s.
Intellectual Problem

Solving 67% 24% 9% n.s. 0.008 0.029
Exploration 70% 18% 12% n.s. 0.000 0.143
Story 73% 18% 9% n.s. 0.049 n.s.
Creation 82% 6% 12% n.s. 0.004 n.s.
Comedy 85% 15% 0%

Learning 85% 15% 0%

Danger 94% 6% 0%

Altruism 97% 3% 0%

Immersion 52% 48% 0% 0.081

Physical Ability 100% 0% 0%

Love 100% 0% 0%

Physical Activity 100% 0% 0%

Power 100% 0% 0%

Social Interaction 100% 0% 0%
TOTAL FORMS OF FUN

 

One final approach to considering fun in brain games was to add up the total number of
forms of fun that was strongly present in each individual game. If a game was coded 1(not
present) or 2 (slightly present), then that form of fun was re-coded to zero and if the game
was coded 3 (strongly present) then that form of fun was re-coded to 1. So, zero means not

present and 1 means strongly present.

69

Total forms of fun ranged from a low ofl (for 15% of the games) to a high of 10 (for one

game).

Total Forms of Fun (By Brain Domain)

Table 44: Total Forms of Fun by brain domain

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average Standard Deviation
Memory games (n= 9) 4.44 2.96
Visual Spatial (n= 8) 4.75 3.01
Attention Games (n= 8) 4.25 1.58
Language Games (n= 8) 4.63 2.56
Overall (n = 33) 4.52 2.49
F = 0.056 p = 0.982 df = 3

There was no significant difference in total forms of fun by brain domain.

Total Forms of Fun (By Company)

Table 45: Total Forms of Fun by Company

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average Standard Deviation

Happy Neuron (n = 8) 2.50 1.69
FitBrains (n = 8) 6.13 1.13
Lumosity (n = 7) 4.43 2.94
Brainversity (n = 3) 3.00 1.00
Brain Challenge (n = 3) 3.00 1.73
Big Fish (n = 4) 7.75 0.50
Overall (n = 33) 4.52 2.49
F = 6.583 p = 0.000 df = 5

70

Total forms of fun was significantly different by company. The four Big Fish causal games
averaged 7.75 forms of fun, with a small standard deviation of only 0.5. FitBrains games
were the next most fun, averaging 6.13 different forms per game. Lumosity was next, with
4.43 forms of fun per game. Lumosity games were the least consistent — some had a large
number of forms of fun and some had one or a few, resulting in a standard deviation of

2.94. Brainiversity and Brain Challenge each averaged 3 forms of fun, and Happy Neuron

2.5.
Total Forms of Fun (By Service Type)

Table 46: Total Forms of Fun by Service Type

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average Standard Deviation
Brain Game Service (n = 23) 4.35 2.46
Casual Games (n = 10) 4.90 2.64
Overall (n = 33) 4.52 ‘ 2.49
F = 0.336 p = 0.566 df = 1

There was no significant difference in forms of fun by service type.

Additional Considerations
Flow

When measuring flow for games we wanted to make sure that the games the players played
were challenging them enough to keep them playing but not making it so hard for the player
that they would give up in frustration. This was coded as too easy indicated by 1, just right

indicated by 2 and too hard indicated by 3. Ideally if a game had an average score closer to or

71

equal to 2 would make the game most suited for players, a score closer to one would indicate
the game was too easy for the players risking the players getting bored easily and a score
closer to three would indicate that the chances ofa player getting frustrated were higher.
When we analyzed the 33 games 67% of the games were just right for the players indicating
they had a good flow for the games, 18% of the games were too easy for the players and

15% of the games were too hard for the players.

Flow (By Brain Domain)

Table 47: Flow by brain domain

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average Standard Deviation
Memory games (n= 9) 2.00 0.50
Visual Spatial (n= 8) 2.13 0.64
Attention Games (n= 8) 2.00 0.54
Language Games (n= 8) 1.75 0.71
Overall (n = 33) 1.97 0.59
F = 0.554 p = 0.650 df = 3

As seen from the table when games were compared by brain domains, almost all of the
games performed satisfactorily, Memory and Attention games both had a perfect average
score of two. Visual spatial games with an average of 2.13 indicates that there was one of the
games in that domain that was a little difficult for players and Language games with an

average of 1.75 indicates there was a game that was a little too easy for players.

72

Flow (By Company)

Table 48: Flow by Company

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average Standard Deviation

Happy Neuron (n = 8) 1.88 0.84
FitBrains (n = 8) 2.00 0.54
Lumosity (n = 7) 1.71 0.49
Brainversity (n = 3) 2.00 0.00
Brain Challenge (n = 3) 2.00 0.00
Big Fish (n = 4) 2.50 0.58
Overall (n = 33) 1.97 0.59
F = 0.967 p = 0.455 df = 5

When compared by different companies hosting the games, FitBrains, Brain Challenge and
Brainiversity all achieved perfect averages of 2.0 indicating most of their games had a good
flow. Big Fish with a score of 2.5 indicates that two out of their four games were a little
difficult for players. Happy Neuron and Lumosity with averages of 1.88 and 1.71 indicate

that they had a couple of games which were a little easier.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Flow (By Service Type)
Table 49: Flow by Service Type
Average Standard Deviation
Brain Game Service (n = 23) 1.87 0.63
Casual Games (n = 10) 2.20 0.42
Overall (n = 33) 1.97 0.59
F=2.311 p=0.139 df=1

73

When compared by service type there was no significant difference so games hosted on
casual gaming website as well as games hosted on brain game companies both had a good

sense of flow for the games.

Engag ement

Engagement in games was coded with three different values, 1 indicated not engaging at all,
2 indicated the game was somewhat engaging and 3 indicated that the game was very

engaging. Hence the games had an average score between 1 and 3. Out of the 33 games that
were analyzed 27% of the games were not engaging at all, 43% of the games were somewhat

engaging and 30% of the games were very engaging.

Engagement (By Brain Domain)

Table 50: Engagement by brain domain

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average Standard Deviation
Memory games (n= 9) 2.00 0.71
Visual Spatial (n= 8) 2.00 0.93
Attention Games (n= 8) 2.00 0.54
Language Games (n= 8) 2.13 0.99
Overall (n = 33) 2.03 0.77
F = 0.048 p = 0.986 df = 3

There was no significant difference in the engagement value of the game when they were

compared by the different brain domains.

74

Engagement (By Company)

Table 51: Engagement by Company

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average Standard Deviation

Happy Neuron (n = 8) 1.38 0.52
FitBrains (n = 8) 2.13 0.64
Lumosity (n = 7) 2.29 0.76
Brainversity (n = 3) 1.67 0.58
Brain Challenge (n = 3) 2.00 1.00
Big Fish (n = 4) 3.00 0.00
Overall (n = 33) 2.03 0.77
F = 4.045 p = 0.007 df = 5

There was a significant difference when the games were compared by different companies
hosting the games; all the four games from Big Fish were consistently very engaging, where
as Happy neuron had the least engaging games. Most of the games from Lumosity, FitBrains
and Brain Challenge were somewhat engaging and one of the games from the three

Brainiversity games was not engaging.

Engagement (By Service Type)

Table 52: Engagement by Service Type

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average Standard Deviation
Brain Game Service (n = 23) 1.91 0.73
Casual Games (n = 10) 2.30 0.82
Overall (n = 33) 2.03 0.77
F = 1.805 p = 0.189 df = 1

75

When the games were compared by the service type there was no significant difference as to
whether the games were engaging if they were hosted on a casual gaming company’s website

or a brain game company’s website

76

CONCLUSIONS

So what does this tell us about brain games? Overall, more than half of the brain games
coded were rated pleasing along 8 of 12 categories coded, ranging from 58% with pleasing
in—game feedback to 76% with a pleasing demo. The other four categories (fonts, tutorial,
instructions, and sound effects), were pleasing in between 39% and 45% of the brain games.
In contrast, considering the four big fish casual games that happened to exercise a specific
brain function, 100% of those games were pleasing along 9 categories, and no category had
lower than 67% pleasing games. While this study is not structured to answer the question,
are brain games less pleasing than non—brain games, this small sample would support that
conclusion. We cannot say why brain games are less fun. They probably have lower
production budgets. It may be that exercising an isolated cognitive function is by nature not
as fun. Or it may be that to conform to the cognitive requirements for brain exercise, the

pleasingness found in other games must be to some extent suppressed.

When we take a look at the summary of results for plain vs. pleasing data there is no
significant difference across the four brain domains, games were as pleasing or plain if they
exercised one domain as compared to any of the other three domains. Similarly baring the
one variable regarding in—game feedback there was no significant difference when the games
were compared by service type, so games belonging to brain games companies were as plain
or pleasing as compared to games that were hosted by casual gaming companies. However,
across all the categories coded there was a significant difference when they are compared by
the different companies that host the game. FitBrains had consistently high game production
values. Happy Neuron’s games were more like exercises than games. Lumosity offered a

mix of both approaches in different games. The two casual game brain game companies

77

(Brain Challenge and Brainiversity) were also very exercise—like, albeit with some polish in
presentation. The Big Fish games that were not part of any brain game company were

similar to and sometimes exceeded Fit Brains in pleasingness.

The above trend also continues when we consider the different forms of fun and which
games have the most forms of fun. There was no significant difference when games are
compared by brain domains or service type but a big difference in the number of forms of

fun when they are compared by the companies that host these games.

State of the art of brain game design

Brain games are an emerging market with no specific set standards, including how they are
defined. During the initial phase while defining the universe of brain games we came across a
lot of companies that gave their own nomenclature to the different brain domains and there
was little consistency from company to company. This gives an idea as to how fragmented

the market is with a lot of room for improvement and growth.

Among the various games analyzed sound effects used in the games were the most neglected
elements within games often times games had default system sounds and buzzer like beeps
which did not add any polish, style, or pleasingness to the game. Most of the sound effects
were generic, almost obligatory feedback. When comparing overall data for all games, only
non-brain game suite games distributed on Big Fish casual games stood out and performed
well across all the various parameters. Games hosted by FitBrains were the only ones from a

brain games company that managed to come closer in terms of overall quality to Big Fish.

78

While coding for forms of fun it was observed that many forms of fun did not appear at all
in any game coded. These included Love, Social interaction, Physical Activity or application
ofa physical ability and Power. For forms of fun, the casual gaming games on Big Fish
scored the highest in terms of the number of different forms of fun incorporated in the

games with FitBrains again coming a close second.

Given the initial assumption that brain games are not as polished as compared to other
casual games it was pleasantly surprising to see that there were no significant difference in
the quality of the games when they were compared by the service type. A conclusion is that

it is possible for brain games to employ high production values.

Differences by company

The biggest differences noticed when comparing games for plain vs. pleasing and the
number of forms of fun was when they were compared by companies, almost every category
showed a significant difference. Games from casual gaming distributor Big Fish, among the
companies measured, stood out as having the highest pleasing and fun scores. From the

brain game companies, FitBrains fared markedly better that the other companies.

An interesting point observed was even though a particular company was performing far
better than other companies within a particular service type (Big Fish and FitBrains) when
the games were compared overall by service type these differences cancelled each other out,
indicating that within the two service types there was a greater divide. Thus the initial idea
that brain game companies do not pay attention to the design and have weak production

values does not necessarily hold true. On the other hand, Brainiversity and Brain Challenge

79

were suits of brain games distributed on Big Fish which focused on brain exercises. Each
made use of a virtual trainer or guide. Their games often incorporated a pleasing style, but

used one or two forms of fun.

Future of brain game design

There is a great deal of room for improvement; the key areas where I felt the game designs
could be improved were story, immersion and social interaction. The games from the casual
gaming companies and brain game companies mostly did not exhibit these kinds of fun.
Adding a more immersive and story rich environment allows the player to be transported to
a different setting and also allows the designer to be a lot more creative with the kind of
visuals, audio and game play mechanics that could be implemented. It would also allow the
players to feel a sense of progression if the story and the setting in which the game is based
changes with time. Adding social interaction either within the game in the form of allowing
multi—player versions of the games where possible or creating a community on the website
where the games were hosted would allow players to either cooperate or compete with each

other, leading to a greater level of enjoyment of the games.

From the games we analyzed, as mentioned earlier, the quality of audio used within the
games especially with related to various sound effects associated with different events within

the games can be made to be more consistent and appealing to the players.

80

Further research and analysis

The approach taken in thus study coded and analyzed individual brain games. In doing so,
we did not take into account the surrounding information, statistics, charts, and advice that
comprise the bigger picture and overall service offered by companies like Happy Neuron,
Lumosity, and FitBrains. Players’ ability to track progress over time and compare their play
to other players, external trophies and awards, and brain trainer advice were all outside of the
scope of a game by game comparison. These areas are important, and should be considered,

along with the effectiveness of the games, in future studies.

The two main criteria we used to analyzed games (plain vs. pleasing and forms of fun) are
qualities of any game and thus do not apply to brain games alone. Thus, we could use the
same coding system to analyze games which fill up different niches and where we are trying
to determine the quality of production in games. Almost any kind of game regardless of
platform or whether it is a serious game or game for entertainment could be analyzed using

this kind of framework.

This study only looked at web-delivered online games, mostly from brain game companies.
These criteria excluded the popular commercial Nintendo game, Brain Age, playable on the
DS and the W’ii. It would be interesting to apply the pleasing versus plain and forms of fun

frameworks to Brain Age. How would Brain Age compare to the games in our study?

Specific to this research while I have used a quantitative approach while analyzing the brain
games, a lot of the data collected was qualitative and it needs to be analyzed further
especially the details of the game play of the different games and how rich and varied they

are to add a sense of newness to the games.

81

Also given that the brain games market is still nascent it would also be beneficial to allow the
market to grow a little and do a similar analysis down the line to get an idea whether there
are significant differences again between companies and if overall more forms of fun are

included.

Finally I think a different question to ask would also be relevant, do brain games have to be
bad to be effective? In other words, might adding lots of forms of fun interfere with
achieving the intended brain exercise? Does more fun enhance brain exercise, or is fun
irrelevant? The largest differences in both fun and pleasing/ plain variables was found
between Happy Neuron games, which more closely resembled exercises, and Fit Brains,
which more closely resembled games for entertainment. A study that compares the
neurological effects of games from Happy Neuron vs. FitBrains (the ones that exercise the

same brain functions) could address that question.

82

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Crawford, C. (2003). Chris Crawford on Game Design. Indianapolis, IN: New Riders
Davidson D. et al. (2008) Beyond Fun: Serious Games and Media. ETC Press

Fernandez, A. (2009, October 18). Update: 15 FAQ’S on N europlasticity and Brain Fitness.
Retrieved December 14, 2009 from SharpBrains website:
http: / / www.5harpbrains.com / blog/ category/ industry/ page / 2/

Fortugno, N. (October 2008). The Play of Persuasion: W’hy “Serious: Isn’t the Opposite of
Fun. Meaningful Play Conference.

Garneau A. P. (2001, December 10). Fourteen Forms of Fun. Retrieved on October 10,
2009 from Gamasutra website:

http: / / www.gamasutra.com / features / 20011012 / gameau_01.htm

Heeter, C., Chu, K., Maniar, A., Mishra, P., and Egidio, R (2003) Comparing 14 Forms of
Fun (and Learning and Gender Issues) In Commercial Versus Educational Space
Exploration Digital Games. International Conference on Digital Games Research
conference, Netherlands

Jenkins, D. (2008, September 25). Study: Brain Age Boosts Student Math Performance By 50
Percent. Retrieved December 14, 2009 from Gamasutra website:
http: / / www.gamasutra.com / php-bin / news_index.php?story= 20395

Koster, R. (2005). A Theory of Fun for Game Design. Scottsdale, AZ: Paraglyph Press

Lazzaro, N. (March 8, 2004) Why W’e Play Games: Four Keys to More Emotion without
Story. Game Developers Conference

Mobygames (accessed December 10, 2009) httpz/ /www.mobygames.com/game-
group / carmen-sandiego-series

N utt, C. (2008, December 17). Gamasutra’s Top 20 Trends of 2008, Retrieved December
14, 2009 from Gamasutra website:
http: / / www.gamasutra.com / view / feature / 3884 / gamasutras_top_20_trends_of_2008

.php?page=9
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Game—Based Learning, New York, NY: McGraw—Hill

Robinson, E. A. (2006, September 25). Happy Neuron Exercises your brain [Vi/eb Log
message]. Retrieved from http:/ / brainreserves.blogspot.com/ 2006 / 09/ happy-neuron-
exercises-your-brain.html

Rollings, A. and Adams, E. (2003). Andrew Rollings and Ernest Adams on Game Design.
Indianapolis, IN: New Riders

83

Verghese,J., Lipton, R. B., Katz, M. J., Hall, C. B., Derby, C. A., Kuslansky, G. (2003)
Leisure Activities and the Risk of Dementia. New EnglandJournal of Medicine 348:2508-
2516

Willis, S. L., Tennstedt, S. I.., Marsiske, M., Ball, K., Elias,J., Koepke K. M. (2006) Long-
term effects of cognitive training on everyday functional outcomes in older adults: The
ACTIVE Study. f/Irl/L/I. 296:2805-2814.

SharpBrains (accessed December 1, 2009) http://www.sharpbrains.com/

Shen, C., W'ang, H., and Ritterfeld, U. (2009). Serious Games and Seriously Fun Games: Can
They Be One and the Same? In Ritterfield, U.,(Ed.) Cody, M.,(Ed.) and Vorderer, P. (Ed),
Serious Games Mechanisms and Effects. (pp. 71-85) Florence, KY: Routledge

Small, G. and Vorgan, G. (2004). The Memory Prescription: Dr. Gary Small's 14-Day Plan
to Keep Your Brain and Body Young, New York, NY: Hyperion

Snowdon, D. (2001). Aging with Grace. New York, NY: Bantam Books

Stein, D. G., and Hoffman S. W’. (2003). Concepts of CNS Plasticity in the Context of Brain
Damage and Repair. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation 18: 317-41.

Stern, Y. (2006) Cognitive Reserve and Alzheimer Disease. Alzheimer Disease 8: Associated
Disorders 202112—117

Surette, T. (2006, August 10). Brain Age reaches sales milestone. Retrieved December 12,
2009 from Gamespot website:

http: / / www.gamespot.com / ds / puzzle / brainagetrainyourbraininminutesaday / news
.html?sid=6155576

84

         

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

ll)lllllllljjlllllllll/

93 3063

S

31