| Literature DB >> 31395802 |
Hodam Kim1, Laehyun Kim2, Chang-Hwan Im3.
Abstract
Internet gaming disorder in adolescents and young adults has become an increasing public concern because of its high prevalence rate and potential risk of alteration of brain functions and organizations. Cue exposure therapy is designed for reducing or maintaining craving, a core factor of relapse of addiction, and is extensively employed in addiction treatment. In a previous study, we proposed a machine-learning-based method to detect craving for gaming using multimodal physiological signals including photoplethysmogram, galvanic skin response, and electrooculogram. Our previous study demonstrated that a craving for gaming could be detected with a fairly high accuracy; however, as the feature vectors for the machine-learning-based detection of the craving of a user were selected based on the physiological data of the user that were recorded on the same day, the effectiveness of the reuse of the machine learning model constructed during the previous experiments, without any further calibration sessions, was still questionable. This "high test-retest reliability" characteristic is of importance for the practical use of the craving detection system because the system needs to be repeatedly applied to the treatment processes as a tool to monitor the efficacy of the treatment. We presented short video clips of three addictive games to nine participants, during which various physiological signals were recorded. This experiment was repeated with different video clips on three different days. Initially, we investigated the test-retest reliability of 14 features used in a craving detection system by computing the intraclass correlation coefficient. Then, we classified whether each participant experienced a craving for gaming in the third experiment using various classifiers-the support vector machine, k-nearest neighbors (kNN), centroid displacement-based kNN, linear discriminant analysis, and random forest-trained with the physiological signals recorded during the first or second experiment. Consequently, the craving/non-craving states in the third experiment were classified with an accuracy that was comparable to that achieved using the data of the same day; thus, demonstrating a high test-retest reliability and the practicality of our craving detection method. In addition, the classification performance was further enhanced by using both datasets of the first and second experiments to train the classifiers, suggesting that an individually customized game craving detection system with high accuracy can be implemented by accumulating datasets recorded on different days under different experimental conditions.Entities:
Keywords: biosignal analysis; craving for gaming; internet gaming disorder; machine learning; test-retest reliability
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31395802 PMCID: PMC6719101 DOI: 10.3390/s19163475
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Schematic diagram of the experimental paradigms. We alternately presented video clips that were irrelevant (mostly natural scenery) and relevant (FIFA Online, League of Legends, and Battlegrounds) to online games. A total of 36 videos were presented to each participant, all of which were different from each other and counterbalanced.
Demographic and median (interquartile range) of self-reported craving scores of participants.
| Subj. | Age | Young Scale | Self-Reported Craving Score | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Day 1 | Day 2 | Day 3 | |||||||||
| Wo | S | Sig. | Wo | S | Sig. | Wo | S | Sig. | |||
| S1 | 19 | 64 | 1 (1) | 4 (1) | ** | 1 (1) | 4.5 (1) | ** | 1 (1) | 4.5 (2) | ** |
| S2 | 20 | 62 | 1 (1) | 4 (2) | ** | 1 (1) | 4 (1) | ** | 1 (0) | 3 (2) | ** |
| S3 | 21 | 55 | 2.5 (1) | 3 (1) | * | 2 (0) | 3 (1) | * | 2 (0) | 3 (1) | ** |
| S4 | 21 | 81 | 2 (1) | 4 (2) | ** | 1 (1) | 4 (1) | ** | 2 (1) | 4.5 (1) | ** |
| S5 | 22 | 66 | 1 (1) | 3 (1) | ** | 1.5 (1) | 4 (1) | ** | 1 (0) | 3 (1) | ** |
| S6 | 23 | 71 | 2 (1) | 3.5 (1) | ** | 2 (0) | 3 (0) | ** | 2 (1) | 3 (0) | ** |
| S7 | 20 | 56 | 2 (1) | 4 (0) | ** | 2 (0) | 4 (0) | ** | 2 (1) | 4 (0) | ** |
| S8 | 21 | 49 | 1 (0) | 4 (3) | ** | 2 (1) | 4 (1) | ** | 2 (1) | 4 (1) | ** |
| S9 | 19 | 53 | 1.5 (1) | 3.5 (1) | ** | 2 (0) | 3 (1) | ** | 2 (1) | 4 (2) | ** |
Subj.: Subject; Wo: Wash-off trial; S: Stimulation trial; Sig.: Significance; * p < 0.003; ** p < 0.001.
Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 14 features.
| Feature Number | Wash-Off Trial | Stimulation Trial | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ICC | ICC | |||
| 1 | 0.80 | 0.00 | 0.65 | 0.00 |
| 2 | 0.50 | 0.01 | 0.56 | 0.00 |
| 3 | 0.68 | 0.00 | 0.32 | 0.07 |
| 4 | 0.53 | 0.01 | 0.21 | 0.18 |
| 5 | 0.39 | 0.05 | 0.01 | 0.45 |
| 6 | 0.17 | 0.20 | 0.11 | 0.31 |
| 7 | 0.54 | 0.01 | 0.47 | 0.02 |
| 8 | 0.70 | 0.00 | 0.70 | 0.00 |
| 9 | 0.50 | 0.02 | 0.58 | 0.01 |
| 10 | 0.70 | 0.00 | 0.72 | 0.00 |
| 11 | 0.70 | 0.00 | 0.72 | 0.00 |
| 12 | 0.62 | 0.00 | 0.56 | 0.01 |
| 13 | 0.46 | 0.01 | 0.61 | 0.00 |
| 14 | 0.51 | 0.02 | 0.14 | 0.26 |
Feature number: 1 = stdHR; 2 = mHR; 3 = stdRR; 4 = mRR; 5 = mNSC; 6 = minNSC; 7 = NE; 8 = DHSM; 9 = DVSM; 10 = mDHV; 11 = DSM; 12 = CHV; 13 = CHP; 14 = CVP.
Figure 2Accuracy in classifying craving states using multimodal biosignals measured during “Day 3” experiments. “Cross-validation” represents the 6-fold cross validation using the “Day 3” data. “Tr: Day 1” implies that the “Day 1” dataset was used as training data. “Tr: Day 2” implies that “Day 2” dataset was used as training data. “Tr: Day 1 + Day 2” implies that both “Day 1” and “Day 2” datasets were simultaneously used as training data. The error bars of median accuracies indicate the first and third quartile of the classification accuracies of all subjects. The red dashed line represents the median classification accuracy for “Tr: Day 1 + Day 2”.
Median and interquartile range of classification accuracies using various classifiers.
| Classifier | Median (Interquartile Range) of Classification Accuracy (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cross-Validation | Tr: Day 1 | Tr: Day 2 | Tr: Day 1 + Day 2 | |
| SVM | 66.67 (20.83) | 63.89 (25.69) | 66.67 (11.11) | 72.22 (7.64) |
| LDA | 75.00 (17.36) | 63.89 (31.25) | 61.11 (23.61) | 72.22 (15.97) |
| kNN | 69.44 (20.14) | 58.33 (19.44) | 69.44 (20.83) | 69.44 (13.89)) |
| CDNN | 75.00 (17.36) | 63.89 (31.25) | 61.11 (23.61) | 72.22 (15.97) |
| Random forest | 66.67 (14.58) | 55.56 (17.36) | 58.33 (11.81) | 72.22 (12.50) |