The Neurobiology of Play Chris Bateman Lennart E

The Neurobiology of Play Chris Bateman Lennart E. Nacke International Hobo Ltd Department of Computer Science 8 Milton Road University of Saskatchewan Manchester 110 Science Place +44 161 864 3082 +1 306 966 2327 [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT ground of the authors is not in neurobiology, and therefore this A large volume of neurobiological research has been conducted paper should be understood as a cross-disciplinary literature re- in recent years, almost all of which has been considered solely view with the intent of identifying the foundations of future re- from the perspective of biology. However, most of the insights search. gained through this research are also valuable for the game re- The main observations discussed here relate to various key brain search field. This paper discusses the implications of existing structures in mammalian nervous systems: research in neurobiology to the play of games (including, but not restricted to digital games), and connects neurobiological pers- Nucleus accumbens and the dopaminergic reward sys- pectives with models of play aiming to construct superior player tem in general satisfaction models built upon biological foundations. Connec- Orbito-frontal cortex (OFC), and in particular its close tions are presented between already recognized patterns of play connection to the dopaminergic reward system and recent research on the brain (in particular, the limbic sys- Hippocampus and sensory cortices tem). By providing a framework for understanding how the brain The “fight-or-flight” response, consisting principally of responds to recurrent patterns inherent to play, we aim to provide the amygdala and the neurotransmitters epinephrine a platform for future experimental player-game interaction re- and norepinephrine search (for which possible directions are briefly explored), and a propaedeutic to biologically-grounded player satisfaction models. Testosterone Hypothalamus and the neurotransmitter oxytocin Categories and Subject Descriptors Mirror neurons located in the pre-motor cortex and the K.8.0 [General]: Games – Personal Computing; J.4 [Computer inferior parietal cortex. Applications]: Sociology, Psychology – Social and Behavioral This list may not be complete, and represents a first attempt at Sciences; J.3 [Life and Medical Sciences]. identifying the critical parts of the mammalian nervous system involved in play. While most of the research upon which this paper draws is in the context of human biology, the observations General Terms made could in principle extend to other animals. Design, Human Factors, Theory. Experimental work on exploring this subject has already begun, with a first step being an analysis of online survey data collected Keywords from game players (consisting of more than 25,000 data points; Play patterns, brain research, neurology, brain, player satisfaction the results will be presented in a future paper). This data is modeling. based on a questionnaire constructed to identify tangible distinc- tions in player preference. However, it should be noted that – 1. INTRODUCTION since self-assessment of play is a natural part of this process – In the last decade several models of player satisfaction [9] or both the provisional results of this study mentioned in this paper, emotion [38] have been discussed in light of helping game de- and the future statistical analysis, should primarily be considered signers to create better and more enjoyable games. While most of groundwork for future research. these models are based on observation of players and years of An ultimate goal of this research is to conduct specific neurobio- intricate research, none of them are directly linked to a neurobiological research studies that relate play to events in the human logical understanding of players. nervous system. Some possible directions for this currently pend- In this paper, we discuss relevant findings from neurobiological ing work are discussed at the end of this paper. research and how these findings can be tied to designing digital and other games. It is important to appreciate that the back- 2. RELATED FUNDAMENTAL WORK John von Neumann [51] was one of the first researchers to discuss a scientific theory of games by asking what the optimal Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are strategy would be to achieve a desirable result for a player. An not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies optimal strategy for each player according to his theory is to eva- bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise, or luate each game situation and choose the best move that is left. republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific Thus, a player will try to maximize his minimal payoff while permission and/or a fee. minimizing the maximal payoff of the other players. One of the ACM FuturePlay 2010, May 6-7, 2010, Vancouver, BC. Canada Copyright 2010 ACM 978-1-4503-0235-7 ...$5.00. 1 factors not taken into account by this early game theory is the fuzzy human component of play. A key to understanding the design of digital games is to understand how games affect human emotion and cognition. Hence, we argue here that we need to take into account neurobiological findings to understand game design and players, and that we need to examine play as an emo- tional and cognitive activity. In his fundamental work, Roger Caillois [17] defined four differ- ent elemental forms of playful behavior, which we refer to in this context as patterns of play based on the discussion by Bateman [8]: agon (i.e., conflict or competition), alea (i.e., chance), mimi- cry (i.e., imitation or role-playing), and ilinx (i.e., vertigo or sud- den shock). Caillois also classified games along an activity di- mension with two extremes, ranging from structured ludus (i.e., a rule-based playing activity) to unstructured paida (i.e., spontane- ous playful activity). We will go on to discuss how these patterns can be linked to brain mechanisms and the nervous system for explaining why these patterns of play are noticeable. The question of what constitutes play is of critical importance to Figure 1. Bartle’s four player types (i.e., Killers, Achievers, any attempt to study this aspect of behavior, and in this regard Socializers, and Explorers) created from observing players of there is considerable ambiguity, as surveyed comprehensively by MUDs [7]. Sutton-Smith [64]. The play definition provided by Malaby [42] fits the purposes of our paper, namely that play is a dispositional While the brain regions discussed here do not correspond directly attitude characterized by a readiness to improvise in the face of to Bartle’s system, there are nonetheless important debts owed to contingency. This in turn leads to Malaby’s definition of game as this foundational model. In particular, Bartle’s Achievers and “a semibounded and socially legitimate domain of contrived con- Socializers appear to correspond to a preference for activation of tingency that generates interpretable outcomes” [41]. On this specific brain regions, while Bartle’s Explorers may conflate two reading, play is a state of mind that individuals enter into, and distinct neurobiological systems. However, Bartle’s Killer type games are socially grounded practices that contrive to allow par- does not appear to implicitly relate to any given brain region, ticipants to enter into a state of play. although may relate to testosterone. On the anthropological perspective advanced by Malaby (which Similar observations could be made in respect of other genera- is thoroughly compatible with Caillois’ despite Malaby’s skeptic- lized as well as specific player satisfaction models, such as those ism in this regard), a neurobiology of play must account for any of Bateman [9] or Yee [73], but the widespread discussion of playful situation relating to the circumstances of any arbitrary Bartle’s system [7] in the existing literature warrants explicit game (i.e., gameplay) and also to any situation of play, indepen- discussion in the context of identifying related work, while the dent of a formal game system (i.e., toyplay [9] or paidia [17]). specifics concerning the relationship with other systems lies Almost all necessary neurobiological mechanisms for such an beyond the scope of this paper. account are already available, and will be discussed later in this Before proceeding to discuss specific observations, we will paper. We acknowledge that alternative perspectives on play quickly introduce a few important brain areas. could be equally compatible with the observations presented in this paper. Therefore, our decision to ground the definitions of 2.1 Important Brain Areas play and game with Malaby makes no claim of objective supe- riority, but were chosen to fit the taxonomical purposes of this paper. For a better understanding of our theoretical foundation, making the connection between the patterns discussed here (in the context of neurobiology of play) and the first player model deployed in this field, Richard Bartle’s typology [7], is necessary (four types: Killers, Achievers, Socializers, Explorers, see Figure 1). His model was constructed on an ad-hoc basis, based solely upon informal observations of players of early massively multiplayer games collectively referred to as MUDs (multi-user dungeons or domains). However, these observations retain a certain anthropological validity, whatever the limitations of the approach. Figure 2. Major brain regions and their corresponding func- tionality (as depicted in [8]) 2 The cortex of the human brain is conventionally divided into 4 with rewards [19], pleasures [12], and addiction [68]. We will key areas known as lobes (see Figure 2): call it the pleasure center. 1. Activity in the frontal lobe is commonly associated with The amygdala plays a key role in emotion-related learning, cognitive functioning and decision making, in particu- memory, attention, perception, and prediction [10].

Load more