Advertisement

Dynamic Difficulty Adjustment in Cybersecurity Awareness Games

Analysis of Player Behavior and the Potential of Electroencephalography
  • David ThorntonEmail author
  • Falynn Turley
Chapter
  • 11 Downloads

Abstract

The promise of dynamic difficulty adjustment in personalized learning is discussed, along with the potential of low-cost electroencephalography (EEG) headsets to provide quick, continuous player feedback. This is followed by the results of a study involving these elements in the context of a cybersecurity educational video game. Player actions and EEG readings were recorded, along with a pretest and posttest of student knowledge and opinions regarding information security awareness and perceived immersion. This study employed Brute Force, a tower defense game that teaches players to choose strong, unique, and memorable passwords. Participants reported significantly more responsible attitudes regarding the importance of strong, unique passwords. More successful players who played the full 15 min tended to improve at identifying strong passwords from a list. After playing the game, participants were most likely to add password length and uniqueness as important password strategies.

Keywords

Serious games Electroencephalography Cybersecurity Dynamic difficulty adjustment Personalized learning 

References

  1. 1.
    R. Hunicke. The case for dynamic difficulty adjustment in games, in Proceedings of the 2005 ACM SIGCHI International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology, ACM, pp. 429–433, 2005Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    G. Francia III, D. Thornton, M. Trifas, T. Bowden, Gamification of information security awareness training, in Emerging Trends in ICT Security, (Morgan Kaufmann, Boston, 2014), pp. 85–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. Mayo, Games for science and engineering education. Commun. ACM 50(7), 30–35 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    P. Felicia, Developments in Current Game-Based Learning Design and Deployment (IGI Global, Hershey, PA, 2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. Smith, What the Public Knows About Cybersecurity (Pew Research Center on Internet and American Life, Washington, DC, 2017)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J.P. Gee, Good Video Games + Good Learning: Collected Essays on Video Games, Learning, and Literacy, vol 27 (Peter Lang, New York, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. Csíkszentmihályi, Finding Flow: The Psychology of Engagement with Everyday Life (Basic Books, New York, 1997)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    G. Andrade, G. Ramalho, H. Santana, V. Corruble, Extending reinforcement learning to provide dynamic game balancing, in Proceedings of the Workshop on Reasoning, Representation, and Learning in Computer Games, 19th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), (2005), pp. 7–12Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    P. Demasi, J. de O Adriano, On-line coevolution for action games. Int. J. Intellig. Games Simul. 2(2) (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    K. Blinowska, P. Durka, Electroencephalography (EEG), in Wiley Encyclopedia of Biomedical Engineering, (Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Emotiv, What Is Emotiv Insight? (December 2018). https://www.emotiv.com/knowledge-base/what-is-emotiv-insight/. Accessed 1 Apr 2020
  12. 12.
    D. Wheeler, zxcvbn: Realistic password strength estimation. Dropbox Tech Blog, 2012Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    C. Fox, J.H. Brockmyer, The development of the game engagement questionnaire: A measure of engagement in video game playing: Response to reviews. Interact. Comput. 25(4), 290–293 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    A. McCormac, D. Calic, M. Butavicius, K. Parsons, T. Zwaans, M. Pattinson, A reliable measure of information security awareness and the identification of bias in responses. Australas. J. Inf. Syst. 21 (2017)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    C. Heunis, Export and Analysis of Emotiv Insight EEG Data via EEGLab (2016)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    D. Afergan, E. Peck, E. Solovey, A. Jenkins, S. Hincks, E. Brown, R. Chang, R. Jacob. Dynamic difficulty using brain metrics of workload, in Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, pp. 3797—3806, 2014Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    K. Mikami, K. Kondo, et al. Adaptable game experience based on player’s performance and EEG, in Nicograph International (NicoInt), 2017, IEEE, pp. 1–8, 2017Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Jacksonville State UniversityJacksonvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations