Table 3 Included studies with perceived game experience variables as outcome measures reported by assessment and author

Feltz et al. 2012 [34]

1) persistence 2) ratings of perceived exertion (RPE)

EyeToy: Kinetic on PlayStation 2, 5 different plank positions

a) low discrepancy partnered (1:1.01 in persistence) b) moderate discrepancy partnered (1:1.4 in persistence) c) high discrepancy partnered (1:2 in persistence) d) individual control

1) significant gender effect in all conditions (a,b,c,d) in persistence; larger gain in persistence for all partnered conditions (a,b,c) than in the individual controls (d); gain significantly larger in the moderate-discrepancy condition (b) compared to other two partnered conditions (a,c) 2) RPE (ratings of perceived exertion) higher in partnered conditions (a,b,c) compared to individual control (d)

Ganesh et al. 2014 [27]

1) Did you realize what the connection forces were? 2) Did you perform better in the presence or absence of interaction forces? 3) Did you feel fatigue during the experiment?

tracking task

absence of connection forces vs. presence of connection forces appearing as (a,c,d,e,f), control group (b) a) novice-novice interaction (20 participants) b) solo (10) c) force-playback (10) d) trajectory-playback (14) e) expert connect (10) f) target connect (10)

1) in all non-target connected force fields (a,c,d,e) 2 of 54 realized representation of the forces; in target connected force fields (f) all realized representation of the forces 2) in (a,c,d,e) all subjects believed, that they performed worse in presence of forces; (f) all subjects believed, that they performed better in presence of forces 3) no fatigue felt by participants

Goršič et al. 2017 [31]

1) Intrinsic Motivation Inventory subscales interest/enjoyment, perceived competence, effort/importance, pressure/tension 2) overall experience

Pong

a) single-player game b) competitive game c) cooperative game with split field d) cooperative game with shared field

1) competitive game (b) more enjoyable and higher effort/importance than cooperative game with a split filed (c) 1,2) if competitive game (b) was favourite mode then competitive game (b) more enjoyable than single-player game (a)

Goršič et al. 2017 [32]

1) Intrinsic Motivation Inventory subscales interest/enjoyment, perceived competence, effort/importance, pressure/tension 2) preference 3) fun 4) tension 5) duration

Pong Game

a) competition session 1 b) competition session 2 c) competition session 3 d) single-player

home rehabilitation group: 1) effect of session regarding enjoyment/interest and perceived competence, in single-player (d) lower enjoyment/interest than in competition session (a) or (c), conversation level correlated with pressure/tension in competition sessions (a-c) 2) playing with someone else (a-c) more frequently preferred (11, 7 strongly, 4 weakly) than playing alone (d) (4), conversation level in competition session (a) correlated with preference 3) playing with someone else (a-c) was stated being more fun (11, 6 much, 3 moderately, 2 slightly) than playing alone (d) (1 much), conversation level in competition session (a) correlated with fun 4) playing with someone else (a-c) was stated being more tense (8, 3 moderately, 5 slightly) than playing alone (d) (2, 1 moderately, 1 slightly) 5) no difference regarding play duration clinical environment group: 1) effect of session regarding effort/importance 2) playing with someone else (a-c) more frequently preferred (9, 5 strongly, 4 weakly) than playing alone (d) (5, 2 stronly, 3 weakly) 3) playing with someone else (a-c) was stated being more fun (10, 5 much, 5 moderately, 2 slightly) than playing alone (d) (3, 2 much, 1 moderately) 4) playing with someone else (a-c) was stated being more tense (8, 3 moderately, 5 slightly) than playing alone (d) (2, 1 moderately, 1 slightly) 5) competition session 2 (b) longer play duration than competition session 1 (c) and single-player (d)

Goršič et al. 2017 [33]

1) Intrinsic Motivation Inventory subscales interest/enjoyment, perceived competence, effort/importance, pressure/tension 2) preference

Pong game

a) no difficulty adaptation b) manual difficulty adaptation c) automatic difficulty adaptation

uninpaired pairs: 1) manual adaptation (b) higher enjoyment/interest, effort/importance, pressure/tenstion than no adaptation (a); automatic adaptation (c) higher enjoyment/interest, effort/importance, pressure/tension than no adaptation 2) manual adaptation (b) more frequently preferred (18) to no adapation (a) (2), automatic adaptation (c) more frequently preferred (17) to no adaptation (a) (3), manual adaptation (b) more frequently preferred (13) to automatic adaptation (c) (3) impaired-unimpaired friends: 1) no statistical test on Intrinsic Motivatin Inventory 2) automatic adaptation (c) more frequently preferred (4, 3 strongly, 1 weakly) than manual adaptation

Johnson et al. 2008 [28]

1) experience 2) user preference 3) willingness to play

tic-tac-toe

a) single-player PC b) multiplayer robotic with aid of a game camera c) multiplayer robotic with aid of a game camera and audio d) multiplayer robotic with aid of a game camera, a user camera and audio

1) multiplayer robotic (b,c,d) more valuable, more interesting, more collaborative, requiring less effort, more choice, less tensing than single-player PC (a) 2) multiplayer robotic with aid of a game camera, a user camera and audio (d) preferred to multiplayer robotic with aid of a game camera and audio (c) which was preferred to multiplayer robotic with aid of a game camera (b) 3) participants are willing to player longer in the multiplayer robotic conditions (b,c,d) compared to single-player condition (a)

Mace et al. 2017 [29]

1) user preference 2) engagement

BalloonBuddies

a) single-player b) dual-player

healthy-healthy experiment: 1) dual-player (b) was preferred; increased perceived pressure and increased perceived effort in dual-player(b); correlation between perceived competence and performance measures in single-player (a); but not in dual-player (b) 2) enjoyment/interest (IMI) more positively in dual-player(b); no significant difference in perceived competence (IMI) or effort/importance (IMI) patient-expert experiment: 1) dual-player (b) was preferred, increased perceived competence, increased perceived effort and reduced perceived difficulty; correlation between perceived competence and performance measures in single-player (a), but not in dual-player (b) 2) enjoyment/interest (IMI), perceived competence (IMI) and effort/importance (IMI) more positively in dual-player (b)

Novak et al. 2014 [30]

1) experience with last game mode in subsets of intrinsic motivation (interest/enjoyment, perceived competence, effort/importance, pressure/tension) 2) overall game experience

Air hockey

a) single-player b) competitive Interaction c) cooperative Interaction

1) higher motivation in interest/enjoyment for competitive interaction (b) and cooperative interaction (c) compared to single-player (a); higher motivation in perceived competence for single-player (a) and competitive interaction (b) compared to cooperative interaction (c); higher motivation in effort/importance for competitive interaction (b) compared to single-player (b); higher motivation in pressure/tension for competitive interaction (c) compared to single-player (a) and cooperative interaction (c) 2) overall, players liked either the competitive mode (b) but not the cooperative (c) mode or vice versa

Peng and Crouse 2013 [35]

1) enjoyment 2) future game-play motivation

Space Pop mini-game in Kinetic Adventures

a) single-player b) cooperate with friend or stranger; same space c) compete with a friend or stranger; separate spaces

1) less enjoyment in single-player (a) as in cooperative (b) or competitive (c) group; 2) less future game-play motivation in single-player mode (a) as in cooperative (b) or competitive (c) group;

Peng and Hsieh 2012 [36]

1) manipulation check (perception of game mode) 2) motivation 3) goal commitment

Balloon Popping game

a) compete with friend b) compete with stranger c) cooperate with friend d) cooperate with stranger

1) 11 subjects did not pass the manipulation (wrong perception of game mode, e.g. subject perceived competition instead of cooperation) 2) higher motivation and level of effort in cooperative (c,d) compared to competitive mode (a,b);3) higher goal commitment in cooperative (c,d) compared to competitive mode (a,b); playing with a friend (c) resulted in greater goal commitment compared to playing with a stranger (d) in the cooperative goal structure context

Staiano et al. 2012 [25]

1) intrinsic motivation 2) psychological attractiveness of game design

Nintendo Wii Exergame: “The Wii Active game”

a) cooperative interaction b) competitive Interaction

1) favouring of the cooperative (a) over the competitive (b) exergame condition for motivation 2) favouring the cooperative (a) over the competitive (b) exergame condition for ratings of psychological attraction

Staiano et al. 2013 [26]

1) self-efficacy 2) self esteem 3) peer support

Nintendo Wii Active Exergame

a) competitive exergame b) cooperative exergame c) control group (no exergaming)

1) cooperative group (b) increased self-efficacy more than the control group (c); no difference between competitive (a) and cooperative (b) group or competitive (a) and control group (c) 2) no effects in self-esteem 3) cooperative (a) and competitive (b) group increased more in peer support than control group (c)

Verhoeven et al. 2015 [24]

1) game enjoyment

Kinect Sports (boxing, bowling, tennis, baseball, golf), Just Dance 3

a) single-player mode b) two-player mode

1) no difference between two-player mode (b) and single-player mode (a); no sex differences were found; higher game enjoyment for two-player mode (b) in baseball; no correlation between energy expenditure and game enjoyment for most exergames