4. Results

Table 3 and Figure 10 give the results of the SD method. Table 3 lists the average for each question for each participant role, as well as the difference between the groups. The fields shown in gray indicate a response that implies a positive impression. The left/right distribution of the response fields is the same as on the questionnaire sheet provided to the participants. Averages and average differences with an absolute value greater than 1 are also shown in gray. We also conducted semantic profiling based on the results, as shown in Figure 10.

From the group differences indicated by this table and graph, we observed no great differences between the impressions of the supporters and players. The average values in gray show that "substantial," "cooperative," "enjoyable," "happy," "cute," "friendly," and "lively" were evaluated highly by both players and supporters, with "cooperative" evaluated particularly highly. Moreover, the players highly evaluated "satisfying" and "new."

Table 5 lists the sums of the percentages of "strongly agree" and "agree" responses to each question, as well as the results of the chi-square test. The percentages in gray indicate values above 80%, while the statistical significances in gray indicate a significant statistic at the 5% significance level. The analysis shows that "Would you recommend it?" had a significant result at the 5% level, while the results of the remaining six questions were significant at a significance

A Cooperative Game Using the P300 EEG-Based Brain-Computer Interface

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.84621

Finally, we will discuss the participants' free responses, including particularly common responses and useful minority opinions. First, out of the people who responded that "it was interesting", 9 out of the 12 supporters and 8 out

For "Other future uses," 6 out of 12 supporters offered "use as an icebreaker" as a response, as did 4 out of 13 players. In addition, notable minority opinions

of the 13 players gave "cooperative play" as a reason.

level of 10%.

185

Table 3. SD method results.

Because all the data fell within one standard deviation, we could conclude that it was a good set of low-variance data. In the grayed averages, we also see that both supporters and players rated "Was it interesting?" and "Interacting with a child" highly. Players alone rated "Game design" and "Would recommend" highly.

Table 4 and Figure 11 show the five-point scale responses, organized by the participants' roles, in terms of averages and standard deviations (Table 4) and percentages (Figure 11). Table 4 shows averages greater than 4 in gray. In addition,


A Cooperative Game Using the P300 EEG-Based Brain-Computer Interface DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.84621

#### Table 3. SD method results.

were asked to wear the EEG headset and appear to the player as if they were controlling the game through brain waves. The supporters were then taken to the separate rooms in which the players were waiting, and each was seated in the "Supporter's chair" shown in Figure 9. As soon as we had confirmed that the player and supporter were both seated, a brief explanation was once again provided to both of them. At this time, the participants were instructed to communicate regarding the color of the block when the player wanted a certain block cleared,

After this instruction, the participants began playing the game. After they had completed it, they returned to the room where the initial explanation had been provided, and they filled out the questionnaires. Once they had completed the questionnaires, the experiment was over. At this point, they were instructed not to

Finally, we explain our analysis methods for the experimental data. For the SD method in which pairs of words were displayed side by side (e.g., easy vs. difficult) to assess the impression of the participants, they were asked to assign a score in the range of 3 and 3, with 0 representing "neither", 3 representing "extremely leaning to the left word", and 3 representing "extremely leaning to the right word".

Next, the five-point scale was tallied with "strongly agree" as 5 points, "agree" as 4 points, "neither" as 3 points, "disagree" as 2 points, and "strongly disagree" as

Finally, for the free responses, we counted experiences and keywords shared among participants and collected them into overall viewpoints. We also collected

Table 3 and Figure 10 give the results of the SD method. Table 3 lists the average for each question for each participant role, as well as the difference between the groups. The fields shown in gray indicate a response that implies a positive impression. The left/right distribution of the response fields is the same as on the questionnaire sheet provided to the participants. Averages and average differences with an absolute value greater than 1 are also shown in gray. We also conducted

From the group differences indicated by this table and graph, we observed no great differences between the impressions of the supporters and players. The average values in gray show that "substantial," "cooperative," "enjoyable," "happy," "cute," "friendly," and "lively" were evaluated highly by both players and supporters, with "cooperative" evaluated particularly highly. Moreover, the players

Because all the data fell within one standard deviation, we could conclude that it was a good set of low-variance data. In the grayed averages, we also see that both supporters and players rated "Was it interesting?" and "Interacting with a child" highly. Players alone rated "Game design" and "Would recommend"

Table 4 and Figure 11 show the five-point scale responses, organized by the participants' roles, in terms of averages and standard deviations (Table 4) and percentages (Figure 11). Table 4 shows averages greater than 4 in gray. In addition,

semantic profiling based on the results, as shown in Figure 10.

We then compiled descriptive statistics and plotted a semantic profile.

1 point. After compiling descriptive statistics for this data, we performed a

when the supporter was trying to clear a block, and so on.

reveal the details of the experiment.

Assistive and Rehabilitation Engineering

strongly held minority opinions as necessary.

highly evaluated "satisfying" and "new."

chi-square test.

4. Results

highly.

184

Table 5 lists the sums of the percentages of "strongly agree" and "agree" responses to each question, as well as the results of the chi-square test. The percentages in gray indicate values above 80%, while the statistical significances in gray indicate a significant statistic at the 5% significance level. The analysis shows that "Would you recommend it?" had a significant result at the 5% level, while the results of the remaining six questions were significant at a significance level of 10%.

Finally, we will discuss the participants' free responses, including particularly common responses and useful minority opinions. First, out of the people who responded that "it was interesting", 9 out of the 12 supporters and 8 out of the 13 players gave "cooperative play" as a reason.

For "Other future uses," 6 out of 12 supporters offered "use as an icebreaker" as a response, as did 4 out of 13 players. In addition, notable minority opinions

Figure 10.

Semantic profile of the SD method.


#### Table 4.

Averages and standard deviations for the five-point scale method.

included "use in brain training," "communication with foreigners," and "prevention of dementia in the elderly."

As for "Points for improvement," 2 out of 12 supporters mentioned the addition of more complex features and the ability to actually play using brain waves. Of the 13 players, 2 mentioned the ability to use items and the appearance of enemies in the game as points for improvement. Additionally, one minority opinion suggested the capability of the player, too, to use brain waves to control the game.

Finally, for "Any other opinions or feelings," many supporters and players

Percentage sums of the players' "strongly agree" and "agree" responses and chi-square test results.

mentioned that the game was interesting and fun.

Figure 11.

Table 5.

187

Percentage results for the five-point scale method.

A Cooperative Game Using the P300 EEG-Based Brain-Computer Interface

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.84621

A Cooperative Game Using the P300 EEG-Based Brain-Computer Interface DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.84621

#### Figure 11.

Percentage results for the five-point scale method.


#### Table 5.

included "use in brain training," "communication with foreigners," and

the capability of the player, too, to use brain waves to control the game.

As for "Points for improvement," 2 out of 12 supporters mentioned the addition of more complex features and the ability to actually play using brain waves. Of the 13 players, 2 mentioned the ability to use items and the appearance of enemies in the game as points for improvement. Additionally, one minority opinion suggested

"prevention of dementia in the elderly."

Averages and standard deviations for the five-point scale method.

Figure 10.

Table 4.

186

Semantic profile of the SD method.

Assistive and Rehabilitation Engineering

Percentage sums of the players' "strongly agree" and "agree" responses and chi-square test results.

Finally, for "Any other opinions or feelings," many supporters and players mentioned that the game was interesting and fun.
