Instead of traditional free movement, node-based movement can be used in virtual reality (VR) games. In node-based movement systems, players navigate by jumping to set locations. Node-based movement is similar to hypertext navigation. We show that the hypertext lostness measure can be used as a game analytic to evaluate navigational efficiency. In a randomized controlled trial with 25 adolescent participants, an immersive desktop game environment and a VR game environment were compared on the transmission of in-game educational content and navigational efficiency. Results show that the hypertext lostness measure is also valuable outside its original hypertext domain: in VR. VR did not improve players' retention of factual knowledge, but did significantly improve players' spatial knowledge and navigational efficiency. We conclude (a) the hypertext lostness measure is also valuable for node-based VR games and (b) VR games add to spatial learning, even when compared with already immersive desktop games.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ThomsenASS, Bach-HolmD, KjærboH, et al.Operating room performance improves after proficiency-based virtual reality cataract surgery training. Ophthalmology, 2017; 124:524–531.
2.
van DoesburgW, HeuvelinkA, van den BroekEL. (2005) TACOP: A cognitive agent for a naval training simulation environment. In DignumF, DignumV, KoenigS, KrausS, SinghMP, WooldridgeM, eds. ACM Proceedings of the Industry Track of the Fourth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS–05). New York: ACM, pp. 35–42.
3.
NewbuttN, BradleyR, ConleyI. Using virtual reality head-mounted displays in schools with autistic children: views, experiences, and future directions. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 2020; 23:23–33.
4.
WiederholdBK. The next level of virtual reality isn't technology—it's storytelling. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 2018; 21:671.
5.
DarkenRP, SibertJL. (1993) A toolset for navigation in virtual environments. In HudsonS, PauschR, van der ZandenB, FoleyJ, eds. Proceedings of the 6th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST’93). New York: ACM, pp. 157–165.
6.
HabgoodJ, MooreD, WilsonD, et al. (2018) Rapid, continuous movement between nodes as an accessible virtual reality locomotion technique. In 2018 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR). Reutlingen, Germany: IEEE, pp. 371–378.
7.
MaloneTW, LepperMR. (1987) Making learning fun: A taxonomy of intrinsic motivations for learning. In SnowR, FarrMJ, eds. Aptitude, learning, and instruction volume 3: conative and affective process analyses. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, pp. 223–253.
8.
LesterJC, SpiresHA, NietfeldJL, et al.Designing game-based learning environments for elementary science education: a narrative-centered learning perspective. Information Sciences, 2014; 264:4–18.
9.
WassermanJA, BanksJ. Details and dynamics: mental models of complex systems in game-based learning. Simulation & Gaming, 2017; 48:603–624.
10.
FurloughCS, GillanDJ. Mental models: structural differences and the role of experience. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 2018; 12:269–287.
11.
AdamsDM, MayerRE, MacNamaraA, et al.Narrative games for learning: testing the discovery and narrative hypotheses. Journal of Educational Psychology, 2012; 104:235–249.
12.
SchankRC, AblesonRP. Knowledge and memory: The real story. In WyerRS, ed. Knowledge and memory: the real story. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 1–85.
BrunerJS. (1960) The process of education. Oxford: Harvard University Press.
15.
PapertS. (1980) Mindstorms: children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.
16.
BaddeleyA, LewisV, EldridgeM, et al.Attention and retrieval from long-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1984; 113:518–540.
17.
MurdockB, BennetB. Effects of a subsidiary task on short-term memory. British Journal of Psychology, 1965; 56:413–419.
18.
ParkinAJ, LewinsohnJ, FolkardS. The influence of emotion on immediate and delayed retention: Levinger & Clark reconsidered. British Journal of Psychology, 1982; 73:389–393.
19.
LeeKM, ParkN, JinS. (2006) Narrative and interactivity in computer games. In VordererP, BryantJ, eds. Playing video games: motives, responses, and consequences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, pp. 259–274.
20.
DickeyM. Game design narrative for learning: appropriating adventure game design narrative devices and techniques for the design of interactive learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 2006; 54:245–263.
21.
MarshT. (2010) Activity-based scenario design, development, and assessment in serious games. In van EckR, ed. Gaming and cognition: theories and practice from the learning sciences. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, pp. 214–227.
22.
BarnetB. (2020) Hypertext before the web—or, what the web could have been. In BrüggerN, MilliganI, eds. Sage handbook of web history. London: Sage, pp. 215–226.
23.
ConklinJ. Hypertext: an introduction and survey. Computer, 1987; 20:17–41.
24.
HeadM, ArcherN, YuanY. World wide web navigation aid. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 2000; 53:301–330.
25.
GwizdkaJ, SpenceI. (2005) Indirect assessment of web navigation success. In van der VeerG, GaleC, eds. CHI’05 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA’05). New York: ACM, pp. 1427–1430.
26.
ChenF, ZhouJ, WangY, et al. (2016) Robust multimodal cognitive load measurement. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
27.
MakranskyG, MayerRE, VeitchN, et al.Equivalence of using a desktop virtual reality science simulation at home and in class. PLoS One, 2019; 14:e0214944.
28.
AndersenSA, MikkelsenPT, KongeL, et al.The effect of implementing cognitive load theory-based design principles in virtual reality simulation training of surgical skills: a randomized controlled trial. Advances in Simulation, 2016; 1:20.
29.
AndersenSA, MikkelsenPT, KongeL, et al.Cognitive load in distributed and massed practice in virtual reality mastoidectomy simulation. The Laryngoscope, 2016; 126:E74–E79.
30.
SwellerJ, AyresP, KalyugaS. (2011) Cognitive load theory. New York: Springer.
31.
BolterJD. (2001) Writing space. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
32.
SharplesM. (1999) How we write: writing as creative design. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.
33.
SmithPA. Towards a practical measure of hypertext usability. Interacting with Computers, 1996; 8:365–381.
34.
HerderE. (2003) Revisitation Patterns and Disorientation. In Proceedings of the German Workshop on Adaptivity and User Modeling in Interactive Systems ABIS 2003. Karlsruhe: University of Karlsruhe, pp. 291–294.
35.
McEneaneyJE. Graphic and numerical methods to assess navigation in hypertext. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 2001; 55:761–786.
36.
OtterM, JohnsonH. Lost in hyperspace: metrics and mental models. Interacting with Computers, 2000; 13:1–40.
37.
van den BroekEL, MeijerF, LandmanRB. Augmenting mental models. Journal of Cybertherapy and Rehabilitation, 2010; 3:19–21.
38.
DesaiP, DesaiP, AjmeraK, et al.A review paper on oculus rift-a virtual reality headset. International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology, 2014; 13:175–179.
39.
SchuemieMJ, van der StraatenP, KrijnM, et al.Research on presence in virtual reality: a survey. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 2001; 4:183–201.
40.
SlaterM. Presence and the sixth sense. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 2002; 11:435–439.
41.
Ai-Lim LeeE, WongKW, FungCC. How does desktop virtual reality enhance learning outcomes? A structural equation modeling approach. Computers & Education, 2010; 55:1424–1442.
42.
van den BroekEL. (2012) On making engagement tangible. In SpinkAJ, GriecoF, KripsOE, LoijensLWS, NoldusLPJJ, ZimmermanPH, eds. Proceedings of Measuring Behavior 2012: 8th International Conference on Methods and Techniques in Behavioral Research. Wageningen, Netherlands: Noldus Information Technology, pp. 90–93.
43.
KimS, SongK, LockeeB, et al. (2018) Gamification in learning and education: enjoy learning like gaming. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
44.
Abdul JabbarAI, FeliciaP. Gameplay engagement and learning in game-based learning: a systematic review. Review of Educational Research, 2015; 85:740–779.
45.
Imlig-ItenN, PetkoD. Comparing serious games and educational simulations: effects on enjoyment, deep thinking, interest and cognitive learning gains. Simulation & Gaming, 2018; 49:401–422.
46.
ParongJ, MayerRE. Learning science in immersive virtual reality. Journal of Educational Psychology, 2018; 110:785–797.
47.
HarpSF, MayerRE. The role of interest in learning from scientific text and illustrations: on the distinction between emotional interest and cognitive interest. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1997; 89:92–102.
48.
van der SluisF, van den BroekEL, GlasseyRJ, et al.When complexity becomes interesting. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2014; 65:1478–1500.
49.
ChecaD, BustilloA. A review of immersive virtual reality serious games to enhance learning and training. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 2020; 79:5501–27.
50.
MeijerF, van den BroekEL. Representing 3D virtual objects: evidence for an interaction between visuo-spatial ability and the nature of exploration. Vision Research, 2010; 50:600–635.
51.
HuangK, BallC, FrancisJ, et al.Augmented versus virtual reality in education: an exploratory study examining science knowledge retention when using augmented reality/virtual reality mobile applications. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 2019; 22:105–110.
52.
MeadeME, MeadeJG, SauzeonH, et al.Active navigation in virtual environments benefits spatial memory in older adults. Brain Sciences, 2019; 9:47.
53.
AnB, MatteoF, EpsteinM, et al. (2018) Comparing the performance of an immersive virtual reality and traditional desktop cultural game. In SilvaHP, ConstantineL, EscalonaMJ, RamirezAJ, HelfertM, eds. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Computer-Human Interaction Research and Applications (CHIRA2018). Funchal, Madeira, Portugal: INSTICC, pp. 54–61.
54.
MikropoulosTA, NatsisA. Educational virtual environments: a ten-year review of empirical research (1999–2009). Computers & Education, 2011; 56:769–780.
55.
FowlerC. Virtual reality and learning: where is the pedagogy?. British Journal of Educational Technology, 2015; 46:412–422.
56.
PierceMB, YoungPA, DohertySM. Engagement and competence in VR and non-VR environments. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 2017; 61:2082–2085.
57.
ZhdanovAD, ZhdanovDD, BogdanovNN, et al.Discomfort of visual perception in virtual and mixed reality systems. Programming and Computer Software, 2019; 45:147–155.
58.
ChenQ, LuoD. (2019) The comparison and analysis of several common VR panoramic display methods. In 3rd International Conference on Mechatronics Engineering and Information Technology (ICMEIT 2019). Dalian, China: Atlantis Press, pp. 357–363.
59.
FergusonC, van den BroekEL, van OostendorpH. On the role of interaction mode and story structure in virtual reality serious games. Computers & Education, 2020; 143:103671.
60.
Steel Minions. (2018) The Chantry. https://store.playstation.com/en-gb/product/EP4325-CUSA12254_00-DRJENNERSMALLPOX (accessed Apr.12, 2020).
61.
Puerta MelguizoMC, VidyaU, van OostendorpH. Seeking information online: the influence of menu type, navigation path complexity and spatial ability on information gathering tasks. Behaviour & Information Technology, 2012; 31:59–70.
62.
BrockmyerJH, FoxCM, CurtissKA, et al.The development of the game engagement questionnaire: a measure of engagement in video game-playing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2009; 45:624–634.
63.
SchubertT, FriedmannF, RegenbrechtH. The Experience of Presence: factor analytic insights. Presence Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 2001; 10:266–281.
64.
SchrawG, BruningR, SvobodaC. Sources of situational interest. Journal of Reading Behavior, 1995; 27:1–17.
65.
van OostendorpH, van der SpekED, LinssenJM. Adapting the complexity level of a serious game to the proficiency of players. EAI Endorsed Transactions on Serious Games, 2014; 14:e5:1–e5:8.
66.
Caballero-HernándezJA, Palomo-DuarteM, DoderoJM. Skill assessment in learning experiences based on serious games: a systematic mapping study. Computers & Education, 2017; 113:42–60.
67.
ShuteV, KeF, WangL. (2017) Assessment and adaptation in games. In WoutersP, van OostendorpH, eds. Instructional techniques to facilitate learning and motivation of serious games. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, pp. 59–78.
68.
van OostendorpH, KaranamS. (2013) Navigating in a virtual environment with model-generated support. In PalanqueP, DétienneF, TricotA, eds. Proceedings of the 31st European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics (ECCE’13). New York: ACM, pp. 1–8.
69.
JuvinaI, van OostendorpH. Modeling semantic and structural knowledge in web navigation. Discourse Processes, 2008; 45:346–364.
70.
GarnerR, GillinghamMG. Topic Knowledge, Cognitive Interest, and Text Recall: a Microanalysis. The Journal of Experimental Education, 1991; 59:310–319.
71.
FredricksJA, BlumenfeldPC, ParisAH. School engagement: potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 2004; 74:59–109.
72.
PerakakisM, PotamianosA. (2008) Multimodal system evaluation using modality efficiency and synergy metrics. In DigalakisV, PotamianosA, TurkMA, eds. Proceedings of the 10th international Conference on Multimodal Interfaces (ICMI’08). New York: ACM, pp. 9–16.
