| Literature DB >> 34975652 |
Martin Johannes Dechant1, Julian Frommel1, Regan Lee Mandryk1.
Abstract
Social relationships are essential for humans; neglecting our social needs can reduce wellbeing or even lead to the development of more severe issues such as depression or substance dependency. Although essential, some individuals face major challenges in forming and maintaining social relationships due to the experience of social anxiety. The burden of social anxiety can be reduced through accessible assessment that leads to treatment. However, socially anxious individuals who seek help face many barriers stemming from geography, fear, or disparities in access to systems of care. But recent research suggested digital behavioral markers as a way to deliver cheap and easily accessible digital assessment for social anxiety: As earlier work shows, players with social anxiety show similar behaviors in virtual worlds as in the physical world, including tending to walk farther around other avatars and standing farther away from other avatars. The characteristics of the movement behavior in-game can be harnessed for the development of digital behavioral markers for the assessment of social anxiety. In this paper, we investigate whether implicit as well as explicit digital behavioral markers, proposed by prior work, for social anxiety can be used for predicting the level of social anxiety. We show that both, explicit and implicit digital behavioral markers can be harnessed for the assessment. Our findings provide further insights about how game-based digital behavioral markers can be used for the assessment of social anxiety.Entities:
Keywords: assessment; behavioral markers; digital biomarkers; digital games; in-game movement; interpersonal distance; social anxiety
Year: 2021 PMID: 34975652 PMCID: PMC8715901 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.760850
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
FIGURE 1The character editor interface: First, participants selected the gender (A), then customized their avatar’s body (B) and outfit (C), and then selected their personality traits (D). Images of the character assets reproduced with permission from Alex Lenk.
FIGURE 2The setup of the of the assessment room: The avatar of the player stands at every trial on the purple point, the NPC on the orange point. Blockades (black) were used to guide the users’ movement toward the NPC.
FIGURE 3The task: First, participants have to approach the NPC and then ask for directions. Afterward they have to select the correct elevator. Images of the character assets reproduced with permission from Alex Lenk.
FIGURE 4The calculation of skew and kurtosis of the distribution per trial.
Overview of demographic information, LSAS and PIS measurements.
| Variable | Categories |
| % | M | SD | Min | Max |
| Age | 101 | 37.5 | 9.89 | 20 | 65 | ||
| Gender | Woman | 38 | 38.2 | ||||
| Man | 62 | 60.8 | |||||
| Non-binary | 1 | 1.0 | |||||
| LSAS Score | 102 | 58.7 | 28.65 | 1 | 126 | ||
| Similarity Identification | 102 | 3.015 | 0.7 | 0 | 4 | ||
| Embodied Identification | 102 | 2.65 | 0.87 | 0 | 4 | ||
| Wishful Identification | 102 | 2.27 | 0.95 | 0 | 4 |
Results of the MANCOVA.
| Effect | Value |
| Hypothesis df | Error df |
| Partial Eta Squared | ||
| Between Subjects | Intercept | Pillai’s Trace | 0.992 | 1,232.904 | 9 | 91 | 0.0 | 0.992 |
| Wilks’ Lambda | 0.008 | 1,232.904 | 9 | 91 | 0.0 | 0.992 | ||
| Hoteling’s Trace | 121.936 | 1,232.904 | 9 | 91 | 0.0 | 0.992 | ||
| Roy’s Largest Root | 121.936 | 1,232.904 | 9 | 91 | 0.0 | 0.992 | ||
| Age | Pillai’s Trace | 0.286 | 4.1 | 9 | 91 | 0.0 | 0.289 | |
| Wilks’ Lambda | 0.711 | 4.1 | 9 | 91 | 0.0 | 0.289 | ||
| Hoteling’s Trace | 0.406 | 4.1 | 9 | 91 | 0.0 | 0.289 | ||
| Roy’s Largest Root | 0.406 | 4.1 | 9 | 91 | 0.0 | 0.289 | ||
| Sex | Pillai’s Trace | 0.182 | 2.252 | 9 | 91 | 0.025 | 0.182 | |
| Wilks’ Lambda | 0.818 | 2.252 | 9 | 91 | 0.025 | 0.182 | ||
| Hoteling’s Trace | 0.223 | 2.252 | 9 | 91 | 0.025 | 0.182 | ||
| Roy’s Largest Root | 0.223 | 2.252 | 9 | 91 | 0.025 | 0.182 | ||
| Within Subjects | Emotion | Pillai’s Trace | 0.067 | 0.726 | 9 | 91 | 0.684 | 0.067 |
| Wilks’ Lambda | 0.933 | 0.726 | 9 | 91 | 0.684 | 0.067 | ||
| Hoteling’s Trace | 0.072 | 0.726 | 9 | 91 | 0.684 | 0.067 | ||
| Roy’s Largest Root | 0.072 | 0.726 | 9 | 91 | 0.684 | 0.067 | ||
| Side | Pillai’s Trace | 0.3 | 0.316 | 9 | 91 | 0.968 | 0.030 | |
| Wilks’ Lambda | 0.970 | 0.361 | 9 | 91 | 0.968 | 0.030 | ||
| Hoteling’s Trace | 0.31 | 0.361 | 9 | 91 | 0.968 | 0.030 | ||
| Roy’s Largest Root | 0.31 | 0.361 | 9 | 91 | 0.968 | 0.030 |
The regression results.
|
| β |
|
| |||
| Interpersonal Distance (IPD) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Time Spent in Room |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Kurtosis |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Skew |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Minimum Distance to NPC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Mean Distance to NPC | 4.571 | 0.068 | 0.507 | 0.244 | 0.59 | 0.113 |
| Path Length | 1.299 | 0.093 | 0.379 | 0.249 | 0.062 | 0.1 |
B denotes unstandardized regression coefficients.
β denotes standardized coefficients.
Significant results are bold.
FIGURE 5Scatter plots of the regression results for all proposed features.