Background: A lack of ability to inhibit prepotent responses, or more generally a lack of impulse control, is associated with several disorders such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and schizophrenia as well as general damage to the prefrontal cortex. A stop-signal task (SST) is a reliable and established measure of response inhibition. However, using the SST as an objective assessment in diagnostic or research-focused settings places significant stress on participants as the task itself requires concentration and cognitive effort and is not particularly engaging. This can lead to decreased motivation to follow task instructions and poor data quality, which can affect assessment efficacy and might increase drop-out rates. Gamification—the application of game-based elements in nongame settings—has shown to improve engaged attention to a cognitive task, thus increasing participant motivation and data quality. Objective: This study aims to design a gamified SST that improves participants’ engagement and validate this gamified SST against a standard SST. Methods: We described the design of our gamified SST and reported on 2 separate studies that aim to validate the gamified SST relative to a standard SST. In study 1, a within-subject design was used to compare the performance of the SST and a stop-signal game (SSG). In study 2, we added eye tracking to the procedure to determine if overt attention was affected and aimed to replicate the findings from study 1 in a between-subjects design. Furthermore, in both studies, flow and motivational experiences were measured. Results: In contrast, the behavioral performance was comparable between the tasks (P<.87; BF01=2.87), and the experience of flow and intrinsic motivation were rated higher in the SSG group, although this difference was not significant. Conclusions: Overall, our findings provide evidence that the gamification of SST is possible and that the SSG is enjoyed more. Thus, when participant engagement is critical, we recommend using the SSG instead of the SST.

Toxicity in multiplayer gaming is an ongoing problem that threatens the well-being of players, gaming communities, and game developers. Meanwhile, interventions that promote positive interactions and proactively create positive gaming spaces are still in their infancy; little is known about how players respond to positivity. In our study, 959 League of Legends players were presented with either 10 positive chat logs or 10 negative chat logs, and asked to reflect on the content and how representative such communication is of their own gaming experiences. We thematically coded participants' free-form answers (identifying the themes normalize, acknowledge, downplay, cope, blame, and make personal), and compared the positive and negative conditions in terms of theme prevalence. Our findings show that participants were more likely to normalize and acknowledge toxic negativity than positivity. Furthermore, the dominant response to positivity consisted of downplaying messages as not representative and rare, and even expressing suspicion that messages must have been fabricated or intended as sarcasm. Participants overwhelmingly cope by muting chat, protecting them from toxic interactions, but leaving them unexposed to positive communication and other beneficial social interactions within play.

For individuals with Social Anxiety (SA), interacting with others can be a challenging experience, a concern that extends into the virtual world. While technology has made significant strides in creating more realistic virtual human agents (VHA), the interplay of gaze and interpersonal distance when interacting with VHAs is often neglected. This paper investigates the effect of dynamic and static Gaze animations in VHAs on interpersonal distance and their relation to SA. A Bayesian analysis shows that static centered and dynamic centering gaze led participants to stand closer to VHAs than static averted and dynamic averting gaze, respectively. In the static gaze conditions, this pattern was found to be reversed in SA: participants with higher SA kept larger distances for static-centered gaze than for averted gaze VHAs. These findings update theory, elucidate how nuanced interactions with VHAs must be designed, and offer renewed guidelines for pleasant VHA interaction design.