pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.26925 · v1 · pith:KEGMWN2Wnew · submitted 2026-06-25 · 💻 cs.HC

Game Changers: Designing and Measuring Dynamic Feedback To Help Users Self-Regulate in a VR Pointing Game

Bastian Ils{\o} Hougaard , Scott Bateman , Iris Brunner , Lars Evald , Hendrik Knoche This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 02:56 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC
keywords dynamic feedbackvirtual realitypointing taskself-regulationperformance metricsgame designuser studyVR games
0
0 comments X

The pith

Dynamic feedback driven by performance metrics in a VR pointing task leads to straighter and faster pointing on average, though effects vary by individual.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper tests how feedback based on three performance metrics—short completion times, straight movements, or high peak speed—delivered continuously, at end-of-action, or end-of-task affects user behavior in a virtual reality pointing game. It aims to clarify how such feedback supports self-regulation toward better performance in core game actions like pointing. The main result is an average improvement in straightness and speed, with some users showing small or opposite effects. This supplies designers with evidence on matching feedback schemes to specific performance goals such as accuracy or velocity.

Core claim

By comparing dynamic feedback schemes in a VR pointing task where the feedback is driven by metrics for short completion times, straight movements, or high peak speed, and presented continuously, at end-of-action, or end-of-task, the study shows that on average the feedback leads to straighter and faster pointing, though individual responses vary.

What carries the argument

Performance-metric-driven dynamic feedback, where the chosen metric (completion time, straightness, or peak speed) shapes the form of the feedback delivered at one of three timings to encourage self-regulation.

If this is right

  • Aligning feedback with a straightness metric promotes straighter movements on average in pointing tasks.
  • Feedback based on peak speed can increase movement speed on average.
  • Feedback schemes should be selected to match the specific performance objectives of the game.
  • Individual differences in response require designers to account for users who may not benefit or may be hindered.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Personalized selection of which metric drives the feedback could reduce the cases of small or negative effects.
  • The same metric-driven approach might transfer to other motor control tasks such as steering or object manipulation in VR.
  • Testing the feedback inside complete games rather than isolated pointing trials could show whether the average gains persist during play.

Load-bearing premise

The three chosen performance metrics and three timing conditions are sufficient to represent the space of dynamic feedback relevant to self-regulation in pointing tasks.

What would settle it

A replication of the VR pointing experiment that finds no average improvement in straightness or speed across the dynamic feedback conditions compared to a baseline.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.26925 by Bastian Ils{\o} Hougaard, Hendrik Knoche, Iris Brunner, Lars Evald, Scott Bateman.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Our study explores the continuous self-regulatory loop in virtual reality between a player’s movement performance changing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Using our study’s pointing game as example, we created a conceptual design space, visually exemplifying [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: How a VR pointing game’s feedback (e.g. checkmarks) regulates a player’s movement performance. The player move their arm [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Whack-A-Mole VR consists of a large 6 × 3 meter wall, and a cursor controlled by the player from their spot (left). Three positive feedback types were tested (upper right) and were moderated by three different performance metrics (lower right). In Whack-A-Mole, players controlled a blue crosshair to hit round green targets on a 2D horizontal 5𝑚 × 9𝑚 grid shown in front of them in VR. Targets were activated… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Overview of the how the three performance metrics (peak speed, completion time, travel distance) combined with each [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Study timeline, showing the 3 × 3 design featuring three sessions with three counter-balanced conditions in each, and the occurrence of metric surveys (’M’), feedback surveys (’F’) and the post-experimental survey which included a short interview. 4.3 Participants Fifteen male and nine female participants between 22-41 years old (𝑀=27.2, 𝑆𝐷=3.9) volunteered their time. Almost all considered themselves expe… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Performance measurement comparison for each metric type, with significant pairs in the Bonferroni post hoc test highlighted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Measurement comparison for each feedback type, with significant pairs in the Friedman post hoc test highlighted with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The way games dynamically convey information through feedback is critical to players' ability to perform, learn, and improve. However, it is poorly understood how performance metrics impact player performance and perception in core game tasks like pointing or steering. With a virtual reality pointing task we systematically explored how three performance metrics driving the feedback affected players when rewarding short completion times, straight movements, or high peak speed. across different points in time - continuously, at end-of-action, or at end-of-task. On average the dynamic feedback helped people point more straight and faster, while for others it had small or opposite effect. The study quantitatively compared dynamic feedback across three forms with the metrics driving the form as the intended locus of quantitative comparison. Our work improves game designers basis for crafting dynamic feedback by helping them know when to employ feedback schemes that align with desirable game performance objectives.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper describes a VR user study on dynamic feedback in a pointing task. It explores three performance metrics (short completion times, straight movements, high peak speed) and three timing conditions (continuous, end-of-action, end-of-task) for feedback. The main finding is that on average, dynamic feedback helped users point more straight and faster, with some individual variation in effects. The goal is to provide guidance for game designers on using feedback aligned with performance objectives.

Significance. If supported by appropriate statistical analysis, this study offers empirical insights into how different feedback designs affect self-regulation in VR pointing tasks, which could inform the design of more effective game feedback mechanisms.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that 'On average the dynamic feedback helped people point more straight and faster' is presented without any mention of sample size, statistical tests, error bars, p-values, or exclusion criteria. This omission makes it difficult to assess the strength and reliability of the reported average improvement.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The sentence 'across different points in time - continuously, at end-of-action, or at end-of-task.' appears to be missing a verb or connector after 'time'.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: The phrasing 'The study quantitatively compared dynamic feedback across three forms with the metrics driving the form as the intended locus of quantitative comparison.' is somewhat unclear and could be rephrased for better readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their review and the opportunity to clarify the presentation of our results. We address the concern regarding the abstract below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that 'On average the dynamic feedback helped people point more straight and faster' is presented without any mention of sample size, statistical tests, error bars, p-values, or exclusion criteria. This omission makes it difficult to assess the strength and reliability of the reported average improvement.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract would benefit from additional statistical context to support the central claim. In the revised version we will add a concise clause noting the sample size, the use of appropriate statistical tests (with key p-values), and that the reported average effects are accompanied by individual variation. Due to typical abstract length limits we will keep the addition brief while ensuring the claim is better grounded. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Empirical user study; no derivations or self-citations reduce claims

full rationale

The paper reports results from a factorial VR pointing-task experiment comparing three performance metrics and three feedback timings. No equations, fitted parameters presented as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the abstract or described structure. Central claims rest on direct statistical comparison of collected participant data and are therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Empirical user study with no mathematical derivations, free parameters, or invented entities; relies on standard HCI experimental assumptions not detailed in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5692 in / 1049 out tokens · 38106 ms · 2026-06-26T02:56:02.566790+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Amina Adadi and Mohammed Berrada. 2018. Peeking Inside the Black-Box: A Survey on Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI). IEEE Access 6 (2018), 52138–52160. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2870052

    work page doi:10.1109/access.2018.2870052 2018

  2. [2]

    Scott Mackenzie, and Thierry Hasbrouq

    Motoyuki Akamatsu, I. Scott Mackenzie, and Thierry Hasbrouq. 1995. A comparison of tactile, auditory, and visual feedback in a pointing task using a mouse-type device. Ergonomics 38, 4 (April 1995), 816–827. doi:10.1080/00140139508925152

    work page doi:10.1080/00140139508925152 1995

  3. [3]

    Anil Ufuk Batmaz, Kangyou Yu, Hai-Ning Liang, and Wolfgang Stuerzlinger. 2022. Improving Effective Throughput Performance using Auditory Feedback in Virtual Reality. InProceedings of the 2022 ACM Symposium on Spatial User Interaction (SUI ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–11. doi:10.1145/3565970.3567702

    work page doi:10.1145/3565970.3567702 2022

  4. [4]

    Doug Bowman, Chadwick Wingrave, Joshua Campbell, and Vinh Ly. 2001. Using Pinch Gloves(TM) for both Natural and Abstract Interaction Techniques in Virtual Environments. Technical Report TR-01-23, Computer Science, Virginia Tech

    2001

  5. [5]

    Louise Brennan, Enrique Dorronzoro Zubiete, and Brian Caulfield. 2020. Feedback Design in Targeted Exercise Digital Biofeedback Systems for Home Rehabilitation: A Scoping Review. Sensors 20, 1 (Jan. 2020), 181. doi:10.3390/s20010181

    work page doi:10.3390/s20010181 2020

  6. [6]

    Butler and Philip H

    Deborah L. Butler and Philip H. Winne. 1995. Feedback and Self-Regulated Learning: A Theoretical Synthesis. Review of Educational Research 65, 3 (Sept. 1995), 245–281. doi:10.3102/00346543065003245

    work page doi:10.3102/00346543065003245 1995

  7. [7]

    Arthur Theil Cabreira and Faustina Hwang. 2018. Evaluating the Effects of Feedback Type on Older Adults’ Performance in Mid-Air Pointing and Target Selection. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Symposium on Spatial User Interaction (Berlin, Germany) (SUI ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 111–119. doi:10.1145/3267782.3267933

    work page doi:10.1145/3267782.3267933 2018

  8. [8]

    Loïc Caroux and Katherine Isbister. 2016. Influence of head-up displays’ characteristics on user experience in video games. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 87 (March 2016), 65–79. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2015.11.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2015.11.001 2016

  9. [9]

    Julian Felipe Villada Castillo, Maria Fernanda Montoya Vega, John Edison Muñoz Cardona, David Lopez, Leonardo Quiñones, Oscar Alberto Henao Gallo, and Jose Fernando Lopez. 2024. Design of Virtual Reality Exergames for Upper Limb Stroke Rehabilitation Following Iterative Design Methods: Usability Study. JMIR Serious Games 12, 1 (Jan. 2024), e48900. doi:10....

    work page doi:10.2196/48900 2024

  10. [10]

    Jean Côté. 2006. The Development of Coaching Knowledge. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching 1, 3 (Sept. 2006), 217–222. doi:10.1260/174795406778604609

    work page doi:10.1260/174795406778604609 2006

  11. [11]

    Sebastian Deterding. 2015. The Lens of Intrinsic Skill Atoms: A Method for Gameful Design. Human–Computer Interaction 30, 3–4 (May 2015), 294–335. doi:10.1080/07370024.2014.993471

    work page doi:10.1080/07370024.2014.993471 2015

  12. [12]

    Dillman, Terrance Tin Hoi Mok, Anthony Tang, Lora Oehlberg, and Alex Mitchell

    Kody R. Dillman, Terrance Tin Hoi Mok, Anthony Tang, Lora Oehlberg, and Alex Mitchell. 2018. A Visual Interaction Cue Framework from Video Game Environments for Augmented Reality. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–12. doi:10.1145/3173574.3173714

    work page doi:10.1145/3173574.3173714 2018

  13. [13]

    Marie Harkin, and Sebastian Pannasch

    Annika Dix, Clarissa Sabrina Arlinghaus, A. Marie Harkin, and Sebastian Pannasch. 2023. The Role of Audiovisual Feedback Delays and Bimodal Congruency for Visuomotor Performance in Human-Machine Interaction. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Multimodal Interaction (ICMI ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 555...

    work page doi:10.1145/3577190.3614111 2023

  14. [14]

    Paul M Fitts and James R Peterson. 1964. Information capacity of discrete motor responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 67, 2 (1964), 103–112

    1964

  15. [15]

    Beat Games. 2019. Beat Saber. Game [Windows, Playstation 4, Playstation 5, Meta Quest]. Designing and Measuring Dynamic Feedback To Help Users Self-Regulate 23

    2019

  16. [16]

    Andrea Gauthier, Laura Benton, Leona Bunting, Elisabeth Herbert, Emma Sumner, Manolis Mavrikis, Andrea Revesz, and Asimina Vasalou. 2022. I Don’t Usually Listen, I Read: How Different Learner Groups Process Game Feedback. InProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York...

    work page doi:10.1145/3491102.3517480 2022

  17. [17]

    Halfbrick. 2010. Fruit Ninja. Game [iOS, Android, PlayStation 4, PlayStation Vita, Web Browser, Xbox One]

    2010

  18. [18]

    Rex Hartson. 2003. Cognitive, physical, sensory, and functional affordances in interaction design. Behaviour & Information Technology 22, 5 (Sept. 2003), 315–338. doi:10.1080/01449290310001592587

    work page doi:10.1080/01449290310001592587 2003

  19. [19]

    Dean Herbert. 2007. Osu! https://osu.ppy.sh. Game [macOS, Windows, Linux, Android, iOS]

    2007

  20. [20]

    Kieran Hicks, Patrick Dickinson, Jussi Holopainen, and Kathrin Gerling. 2018. Good Game Feel: An Empirically Grounded Framework for Juicy Design. In Proceedings of DiGRA 2018 Conference: The Game is the Message. Digital Games Research Association, Finland, 1–17

    2018

  21. [21]

    Kieran Hicks, Kathrin Gerling, Patrick Dickinson, and Vero Vanden Abeele. 2019. Juicy Game Design: Understanding the Impact of Visual Embellishments on Player Experience. In Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (CHI PLAY ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 185–197

    2019

  22. [22]

    Bas Van Hooren, Jos Goudsmit, Juan Restrepo, and Steven Vos. 2020. Real-time feedback by wearables in running: Current approaches, challenges and suggestions for improvements. Journal of Sports Sciences 38, 2 (jan 2020), 14–230. https://www .tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/ 02640414.2019.1690960

    arXiv 2020

  23. [23]

    Britton Horn, Seth Cooper, and Sebastian Deterding. 2017. Adapting Cognitive Task Analysis to Elicit the Skill Chain of a Game. In Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (CHI PLAY ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 277–289. doi:10.1145/3116595.3116640

    work page doi:10.1145/3116595.3116640 2017

  24. [24]

    Bastian Ilsø Hougaard and Hendrik Knoche. 2024. Aiming, Pointing, Steering: A Core Task Analysis Framework for Gameplay. Proceedings of ACM Human-Computer Interaction 8 (Oct. 2024), 49. doi:10.1145/3677057 In Press

    work page doi:10.1145/3677057 2024

  25. [25]

    Bastian Ilsø Hougaard, Hendrik Knoche, Iris Charlotte Brunner, and Lars Evald. 2022. Whack-A-Mole VR: Demonstration of Accessible Virtual Reality Game Design for Stroke Rehabilitation. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 2022 Nordic Human-Computer Interaction Conference (Aarhus, Denmark) (NordiCHI ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Ar...

    work page doi:10.1145/3547522.3547723 2022

  26. [26]

    Hougaard, Hendrik Knoche, Lars Evald, and Iris Brunner

    Bastian I. Hougaard, Hendrik Knoche, Lars Evald, and Iris Brunner. 2019. Whack-A-Mole VR. https://github.com/med-material/Whack_A_Mole_VR. Game [Windows, macOS, Linux]

    2019

  27. [27]

    Bastian Ilsø Hougaard, Milo Marsfeldt Skovfoged, Lars Evald, Iris Brunner, and Hendrik Knoche. 2022. Virtual Motor Spaces: Exploring how to amplify movements in VR stroke rehabilitation to aid patients with upper limb hemiparesis. In Proceedings of the podium and poster presentations at the International Conference for Virtual Reality 2022. ICVR 2022, Rot...

    work page doi:10.17605/osf.io/b85x9 2022

  28. [28]

    Christos Ioannou, Patrick Archard, Eamonn O’Neill, and Christof Lutteroth. 2019. Virtual Performance Augmentation in an Immersive Jump & Run Exergame. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–15

    2019

  29. [29]

    Jackson and Herbert W

    Susan A. Jackson and Herbert W. Marsh. 1996. Development and Validation of a Scale to Measure Optimal Experience: The Flow State Scale.Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 18, 1 (March 1996), 17–35. doi:10.1123/jsep.18.1.17

    work page doi:10.1123/jsep.18.1.17 1996

  30. [30]

    Johnson, Shannon K

    Cheryl I. Johnson, Shannon K. T. Bailey, and Wendi L. Van Buskirk. 2017.Designing Effective Feedback Messages in Serious Games and Simulations: A Research Review. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 119–140. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-39298-1_7

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-39298-1_7 2017

  31. [31]

    Jesper Juul and Jason Scott Begy. 2016. Good Feedback for bad Players? A preliminary Study of ‘juicy’Interface feedback. InProceedings of first joint FDG/DiGRA Conference, Dundee. Digital Games Research Association, Finland, 1

    2016

  32. [32]

    Dominic Kao, Nick Ballou, Kathrin Gerling, Heiko Breitsohl, and Sebastian Deterding. 2024. How does Juicy Game Feedback Motivate? Testing Curiosity, Competence, and Effectance. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–16. doi:10.1145/3613904.3642656

    work page doi:10.1145/3613904.3642656 2024

  33. [33]

    Sukran Karaosmanoglu, Moritz Wegner, Sebastian Cmentowski, and Frank Steinicke. 2024. Move, React, Repeat! The Role of Continuous Cues in Immersive Exergames. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 8, CHI PLAY (Oct. 2024), 326:1–326:23. doi:10.1145/3677091

    work page doi:10.1145/3677091 2024

  34. [34]

    Kim, Aaron R

    Robyn S. Kim, Aaron R. Seitz, and Ladan Shams. 2008. Benefits of Stimulus Congruency for Multisensory Facilitation of Visual Learning. PLOS ONE 3, 1 (Jan. 2008), e1532. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0001532

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0001532 2008

  35. [35]

    Christoph Klimmt, Tilo Hartmann, and Andreas Frey. 2007. Effectance and Control as Determinants of Video Game Enjoyment. CyberPsychology & Behavior 10, 6 (Dec. 2007), 845–848. doi:10.1089/cpb.2007.9942

    work page doi:10.1089/cpb.2007.9942 2007

  36. [36]

    Michael Lankes and Argenis Ramirez Gomez. 2022. GazeCues: Exploring the Effects of Gaze-based Visual Cues in Virtual Reality Exploration Games. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 6, CHI PLAY (Oct. 2022), 237:1–237:25. doi:10.1145/3549500

    work page doi:10.1145/3549500 2022

  37. [37]

    Mandryk and Calvin Lough

    Regan L. Mandryk and Calvin Lough. 2011. The effects of intended use on target acquisition. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1649–1652. doi:10.1145/1978942.1979182

    work page doi:10.1145/1978942.1979182 2011

  38. [38]

    Jana Maresch and Opher Donchin. 2022. Prolonged Feedback Duration Does Not Affect Implicit Recalibration in a Visuomotor Rotation Task. eNeuro 9, 2 (March 2022). doi:10.1523/ENEURO.0447-21.2022

    work page doi:10.1523/eneuro.0447-21.2022 2022

  39. [39]

    Mitchell McEwan, Alethea Blackler, Peta Wyeth, and Daniel Johnson. 2020. Intuitive Interaction with Motion Controls in a Tennis Video Game. In Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (CHI PLAY ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 321–333. doi:10.1145/3410404.3414242

    work page doi:10.1145/3410404.3414242 2020

  40. [40]

    Meyer, J

    David E. Meyer, J. E. Keith Smith, Sylvan Kornblum, Richard A. Abrams, and Charles E. Wright. 1990. Speed—Accuracy Tradeoffs in Aimed Movements: Toward a Theory of Rapid Voluntary Action. In Attention and Performance Xiii. Psychology Press, Sussex, UK. 24 Hougaard et al

    1990

  41. [41]

    Vera and Xiao, Ziang , title =

    Josh Aaron Miller, Kutub Gandhi, Matthew Alexander Whitby, Mehmet Kosa, Seth Cooper, Elisa D. Mekler, and Ioanna Iacovides. 2024. A Design Framework for Reflective Play. In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–21. doi:10.1145/3613904.3642455

    work page doi:10.1145/3613904.3642455 2024

  42. [42]

    Lennart Erik Nacke, Michael Kalyn, Calvin Lough, and Regan Lee Mandryk. 2011. Biofeedback game design: using direct and indirect physiological control to enhance game interaction. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 103–112. doi:10.1145/1978942.1978958

    work page doi:10.1145/1978942.1978958 2011

  43. [43]

    Allen Newell. 1994. Unified Theories of Cognition. Harvard University Press

    1994

  44. [44]

    Donald A. Norman. 1988. The psychology of everyday things. Basic Books, New York, NY, US. xi, 257 pages

    1988

  45. [45]

    Ernesto Panadero. 2017. A Review of Self-regulated Learning: Six Models and Four Directions for Research. Frontiers in Psychology 8 (April 2017). doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00422

    work page doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00422 2017

  46. [46]

    Elissa Phillips, Damian Farrow, Kevin Ball, and Richard Helmer. 2013. Harnessing and Understanding Feedback Technology in Applied Settings. Sports Medicine 43, 10 (Oct. 2013), 919–925. doi:10.1007/s40279-013-0072-7

    work page doi:10.1007/s40279-013-0072-7 2013

  47. [47]

    Scott Rigby and Richard M. Ryan. 2011. Glued to Games: How Video Games Draw Us In and Hold Us Spellbound. Bloomsbury Publishing USA

    2011

  48. [48]

    Jesse Schell. 2019. The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Third Edition. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida

    2019

  49. [49]

    Schmidt, Timothy D

    Richard A. Schmidt, Timothy D. Lee, Carolee Winstein, Gabriele Wulf, and Howard N. Zelaznik. 2018. Motor Control and Learning: A Behavioral Emphasis. Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL

    2018

  50. [50]

    Bianca G. S. Schor, Chris Norval, Ellen Charlesworth, and Jatinder Singh. 2024. Mind The Gap: Designers and Standards on Algorithmic System Transparency for Users. In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–16. doi:10.1145/3613904.3642531

    work page doi:10.1145/3613904.3642531 2024

  51. [51]

    Ben Shneiderman. 2020. Bridging the Gap Between Ethics and Practice: Guidelines for Reliable, Safe, and Trustworthy Human-centered AI Systems. ACM Trans. Interact. Intell. Syst. 10, 4 (Oct. 2020), 26:1–26:31. doi:10.1145/3419764

    work page doi:10.1145/3419764 2020

  52. [52]

    Valerie J. Shute. 2008. Focus on Formative Feedback. Review of Educational Research 78, 1 (March 2008), 153–189. doi:10 .3102/0034654307313795

    2008

  53. [53]

    Roland Sigrist, Georg Rauter, Robert Riener, and Peter Wolf. 2013. Augmented visual, auditory, haptic, and multimodal feedback in motor learning: A review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 20, 1 (Feb. 2013), 21–53. doi:10.3758/s13423-012-0333-8

    work page doi:10.3758/s13423-012-0333-8 2013

  54. [54]

    Paul Skalski, Ron Tamborini, Ashleigh Shelton, Michael Buncher, and Pete Lindmark. 2011. Mapping the road to fun: Natural video game controllers, presence, and game enjoyment. New Media & Society 13, 2 (March 2011), 224–242. doi:10.1177/1461444810370949

    work page doi:10.1177/1461444810370949 2011

  55. [55]

    William Soukoreff and I

    R. William Soukoreff and I. Scott MacKenzie. 2004. Towards a standard for pointing device evaluation, perspectives on 27 years of Fitts’ law research in HCI. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 61, 6 (Dec. 2004), 751–789. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2004.09.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2004.09.001 2004

  56. [56]

    Steve Swink. 2014. Game Feel: A Game Designer’sGuide to Virtual Sensation. CRC Press, Boca Raton. doi:10.1201/9781482267334

    work page doi:10.1201/9781482267334 2014

  57. [57]

    Taylor, Robert Bogdan, and Marjorie DeVault

    Steven J. Taylor, Robert Bogdan, and Marjorie DeVault. 2015.Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods: A Guidebook and Resource (4th edition ed.). Wiley, Hoboken, New Jersey

    2015

  58. [58]

    Trotter, Emmanuel A

    Michael G. Trotter, Emmanuel A. C. Obine, and Benjamin T. Sharpe. 2023. Self-regulation, stress appraisal, and esport action performance.Frontiers in Psychology 14 (Oct. 2023). doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1265778

    work page doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1265778 2023

  59. [59]

    S. A. G. Wensveen, J. P. Djajadiningrat, and C. J. Overbeeke. 2004. Interaction frogger: a design framework to couple action and function through feedback and feedforward. In Proceedings of the 5th conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques (DIS ’04). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1...

    work page doi:10.1145/1013115.1013140 2004