Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment Science

Study Compares Brain Activity In Games Against Humans and AI 37

Posted by Soulskill from the guaging-an-opponent's-wisdom dept.
Ars Technica covers research done using an fMRI machine to map brain activity game players. The study compares brain patterns in players competing against what they think are other humans against what they think is AI. It also goes into the differences in how games affect the male and female brain. "The human brain appears to try to parse the intentions of others by engaging its own decision-making process; in short, it appears to model another person's mind by seeing what it would do if it were in that other person's skull. The three areas of the brain that the authors identify are involved, in part, in making executive decisions for that brain's owner, in addition to evaluating other people's executive decisions. So, the fact that they're busier when a person thinks they're playing another human could also be interpreted as them focusing harder on an identical decision making process."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Study Compares Brain Activity In Games Against Humans and AI More

Study Compares Brain Activity In Games Against Humans and AI

Comments Filter:

  • With a notable exception. (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 08, 2009 @12:18AM (#26769799)
    "So, the fact that they're busier when a person thinks they're playing another human could also be interpreted as them focusing harder on an identical decision making process."
    See n00bs. The player won't need to focus harder on playing, but at telling them to STFU.
    But n00bs might not be considered human.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by arogier ( 1250960 )
      Its like playing chess against a child versus playing chess against a grandmaster. Of course you are going to play much harder against the kid. Loosing to the kid would be so much more embarrassing.

      • Re:With a notable exception. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Ceriel Nosforit ( 682174 ) on Sunday February 08, 2009 @12:14PM (#26773425)

        You get used to embarrassing losses. Heck, I've even lost at arm wrestling to a girl after three shots of the Sauce and... Well the rest is a blur.

        Also, the conclusion of this study applies to every situation where you try to guess the motivations of others. And I would like to add, it reveals a lot about the 'accuser' when they confront you on something they think motivated you. Say for example Bob consoles Alice after her breakup with her BFF Jill, at which point Cockead C accuses Bob of trying to get into Alice's pants. This shows that Cockhead C has assumed that is what motivates B, since that is what C would have done. Provided that B isn't shocked for having been found out, his motivation being something else, he now knows that C is a terrible person.

        • So every time you accuse Nigerian Princess Amufu of trying to scam you out of your savings, that shows you to be a phisher at heart?

        • It's only an assumption if there is no evidence to base the decision off of. If "Cockhead C" knows that Bob has a history of such behavior, then your point is moot. This has been more cleverly quoted as "Assume makes and ass out of u and me".

        • And I would like to add, it reveals a lot about the 'accuser' when they confront you on something they think motivated you. Say for example Bob consoles Alice after her breakup with her BFF Jill, at which point Cockead C accuses Bob of trying to get into Alice's pants. This shows that Cockhead C has assumed that is what motivates B, since that is what C would have done. Provided that B isn't shocked for having been found out, his motivation being something else, he now knows that C is a terrible person.

          Or that C believes B to be a terrible person. All that it really shows is that C has some reason to believe that B is motivated by wanting to have sex with A, and that C has the capacity (read experience) to be able to conceive of someone motivated as such. It's possible to be able to conceive of someone being motivated by something without actually being motivated as such yourself.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by DavoMan ( 759653 )

      But n00bs might not be considered human.

      It's because the n00bs are the ones with the bots :P

  • Dire Wolves (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    When battling dire wolves, it is advantageous to think what they might do. It's not surprising that we have this ability, and apply it to what an idiot ahead of us on the freeway might do.

  • Could have chosen a better game (Score:3, Interesting)

    by falckon ( 1015637 ) on Sunday February 08, 2009 @01:07AM (#26770057)

    I think it's interesting that they chose the Prisoner's Dilemma for the game - a 2 choice discrete turn game. While not everyone knows the algorithms computers use for such games, people generally consider computers to be quite good at turn-by-turn games (like chess) and should be regarded as more formidable opponents. Not to mention playing a computer at this game should provoke our minds to attempt to decipher the pattern if we believe we are playing a computer so that we can beat it.

    But the main reason I find it interesting is that it is very easy to get into an always defect loop. If you opponent has been defecting every turn, what incentive is there for you to defect? In this sense playing a human is an almost random process as to when to stop defecting, and when you do you will most likely lose the turn anyways. If I were playing a human I would think less about my opponents thoughts and fall into a tit-for-tat play style (repeating the last move), starting cooperatively.

    I think it would be more interesting to see the effect of thinking you are playing a computer vs a human in a game with more information. For example, in chess you may leave a piece open when playing a human if you believe your opponent will not see it given the large number of possible moves, whereas with a computer you know at least every immediate move will be considered.

    • Re:Could have chosen a better game (Score:5, Informative)

      by artor3 ( 1344997 ) on Sunday February 08, 2009 @02:06AM (#26770337)

      I recall reading years ago that one of the most simple, common, and effective Prisoner Dilemma strategies, used by both humans and computers, was "tit for tat with random forgiveness". Basically, start by cooperating, then always repeat the other player's last move, except sometimes cooperate even if they defected last move. It doesn't really matter whether your playing with a computer or a human. The rules are simple enough to negate the ability of the computer to consider all possible moves (there are only two!), and the interaction is so limited as to negate the advantage humans normally have in reading each other. Heck, it would probably be impossible to determine whether it was a computer or a human you were playing with.

      I can't help but wonder why they chose such a simple game. Maybe they wanted something non-competitive?

      • Basically, start by cooperating, then always repeat the other player's last move, except sometimes cooperate even if they defected last move.

        I know this. My ex drew me crazy with this.

        Damn bitch!

      • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        The article makes it sound like their computer's strategy was just, "random." Bad procedure to begin with; consider the Milgram shock experiments; the responses were kept standard, even though they were simulated.

        Further, if I knew I was playing a computer, I'd have the "always random" possibility in mind right off the bat; after 10-20 shots with no discernible pattern, I MIGHT go into overdrive attempting to analyze it, but more likely, I'd just start giving random answers myself -- or, now that I'm actua

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by dangle ( 1381879 )
      I think the investigators had to choose the game based on the fMRI technique they chose to use. fMRI studies require multiple trials of similar mental activities from multiple subjects, then an attempt is made to identify a signal emerging from the averaged noise of the multiple subjects and trials. Since subjects have to be lying still in the MRI machine during the study, the complexity of gameplay is limited. PD was probably chosen partly because of this limitation.

  • Where do the sex differences come in? It turns out that, if you bin the data based on sex and then perform a similar subtraction, male brains seem to be more active than their female peers, which the authors interpret in light of the female gender's reputation for being more empathetic.

    .

    If females were more empathic, you'd think their brain might be more focused on what the other person was thinking.

    Sounds to me more like the female subjects didn't care and just weren't trying.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by plasmacutter ( 901737 )

      Where do the sex differences come in? It turns out that, if you bin the data based on sex and then perform a similar subtraction, male brains seem to be more active than their female peers, which the authors interpret in light of the female gender's reputation for being more empathetic.

      .

      If females were more empathic, you'd think their brain might be more focused on what the other person was thinking.

      Sounds to me more like the female subjects didn't care and just weren't trying.

      I remember seeing documentaries on problem solving, and people who tend to solve problems more efficiently tend to show less neural activity when faced with a problem.

      The increased activity in male brains indicates more second-guessing, and possibly more error.

      Empathy is a very powerful tool in guessing the potential responses of others correctly.

  • Modelling your opponents behaviour is something game AI programmers have done for some time. I studied AI for Games at University, and artificial players designed to be truely competitive (rather than for commercial games where they have to merely be challenging) usually attempt to model their opponents behaviour. In turn-based games many AI players choose moves through forecasting the future based on what they guess their oppponent will do. So in relation to the article I guess that means humans modellin
  • They chose prisoner's dilemma as game, instead of a first person shooter! I mean, PC gaming doesn't really make me think about things simpler than tic-tac-toe. I thought this was going to be about playing versus a bot or a human in a FPS game, which would have been much more interesting. There you really place yourself in the mind of the opponent: "he's heading towards the center of deck 16, he'll probably jump down and take the shield belt there now", or the psychology of someone who keeps dying, or who ju

Slashdot Top Deals

The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its credibility. And vice versa.

Close