Back

Gamification Enhances User Engagement and Task Performance in Prosthetic Vision Testing

Turkstra, L. M.; Johnson, B. A.; Kartha, A.; Dagnelie, G.; Beyeler, M.

2025-12-22 rehabilitation medicine and physical therapy
10.64898/2025.12.20.25342740 medRxiv
Show abstract

PurposeVisual function testing in retinal prosthesis users relies on repetitive psychophysical tasks that are cognitively demanding and fatiguing. Gamification may increase engagement, but its effects on perceptual performance in implanted users remain unclear. MethodsThree Argus II users completed circle localization and motion direction discrimination in clinical and gamified versions. Visual stimuli, trial structure, and response requirements were matched within each participant; gamified versions added scoring, background music, and affectively framed end-of-trial auditory feedback. Difficulty and response format were calibrated to individual abilities (8AFC for two participants; 4AFC restricted to cardinal directions for one participant). ResultsGamification improved accuracy and reduced angular error in localization but did not improve motion discrimination. Effects were task-dependent and varied across participants, with reduced precision in the gamified motion task for one user. Participants preferred gamified localization and reported higher enjoyment and sustained attention; responses to gamified motion were mixed. ConclusionsGamification can influence measured performance and user experience in prosthetic vision testing, but benefits are not universal and depend on task demands and cognitive load, indicating that engagement can affect outcomes in tests often treated as objective. Translational relevancePersonalized, engagement-aware gamified tools with adaptive difficulty may improve the usability and scalability of prosthetic vision assessment and rehabilitation, including at-home training.

Published in Translational Vision Science & Technology · not in our set (fewer than 10 published preprints to learn from) · training set

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.