skip to main content
10.1145/3424636.3426899acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmigConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Foldit Drug Design Game Usability Study: Comparison of Citizen and Expert Scientists

Authors Info & Claims
Published:22 November 2020Publication History

ABSTRACT

In building a new drug design mode for the popular citizen scientist game Foldit, we focus on creating an easy-to-use and intuitive interface to confer complex scientific concepts to citizen scientist players. We hypothesize that to be efficient in the hands of citizen scientists such an interface will look different from well-established drug-design software used by experts. We used the relaxed think-aloud method to compare citizen and expert scientists working with our prototype interface for Foldit Drug Design Mode (FDDM). First, we tested if the two groups are providing different feedback when it comes to the usability of the prototype interface. Second, we investigated how the difference between the two groups might inform a new game design. As expected, the results confirm that experienced scientists differ from citizen scientists in engaging their background knowledge when interacting with the game. We then provided a prioritization list of background knowledge employed by the expert scientists to derive design suggestions for FDDM.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

References

  1. Rick Bonney, Jennifer L. Shirk, Tina B. Phillips, Andrea Wiggins, Heidi L. Ballard, Abraham J. Miller-Rushing, and Julia K. Parrish. 2014. Next Steps for Citizen Science. Science 343, 6178 (2014), 1436–1437. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1251554 arXiv:https://science.sciencemag.org/content/343/6178/1436.full.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Anne Bowser, Derek Hansen, Yurong He, Carol Boston, Matthew Reid, Logan Gunnell, and Jennifer Preece. 2013. Using Gamification to Inspire New Citizen Science Volunteers. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Gameful Design, Research, and Applications(Toronto, Ontario, Canada) (Gamification ’13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 18–25. https://doi.org/10.1145/2583008.2583011Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Seth Cooper, Firas Khatib, Adrien Treuille, Janos Barbero, Jeehyung Lee, Michael Beenen, Andrew Leaver-Fay, David Baker, Zoran Popović, 2010. Predicting protein structures with a multiplayer online game. Nature 466, 7307 (2010), 756–760.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. K. Crowston and N. R. Prestopnik. 2013. Motivation and Data Quality in a Citizen Science Game: A Design Science Evaluation. In 2013 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. 450–459. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2013.413Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. J A DiMasi, L Feldman, A Seckler, and A Wilson. 2010. Trends in Risks Associated With New Drug Development: Success Rates for Investigational Drugs. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics 87, 3 (2010), 272–277. https://doi.org/10.1038/clpt.2009.295 arXiv:https://ascpt.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1038/clpt.2009.295Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Christopher B Eiben, Justin B Siegel, Jacob B Bale, Seth Cooper, Firas Khatib, Betty W Shen, Barry L Stoddard, Zoran Popovic, and David Baker. 2012. Increased Diels-Alderase activity through backbone remodeling guided by Foldit players. Nature biotechnology 30, 2 (2012), 190–192.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. K Anders Ericsson and Herbert A Simon. 1984. Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data.the MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Robert Heck, Oana Vuculescu, Jens Jakob Sørensen, Jonathan Zoller, Morten G. Andreasen, Mark G. Bason, Poul Ejlertsen, Ottó Elíasson, Pinja Haikka, Jens S. Laustsen, Lærke L. Nielsen, Andrew Mao, Romain Müller, Mario Napolitano, Mads K. Pedersen, Aske R. Thorsen, Carsten Bergenholtz, Tommaso Calarco, Simone Montangero, and Jacob F. Sherson. 2018. Remote optimization of an ultracold atoms experiment by experts and citizen scientists. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115, 48(2018), E11231–E11237. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1716869115 arXiv:https://www.pnas.org/content/115/48/E11231.full.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Scott Horowitz, Brian Koepnick, Raoul Martin, Agnes Tymieniecki, Amanda A Winburn, Seth Cooper, Jeff Flatten, David S Rogawski, Nicole M Koropatkin, Tsinatkeab T Hailu, 2016. Determining crystal structures through crowdsourcing and coursework. Nature communications 7, 1 (2016), 1–11.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Ioanna Iacovides, Charlene Jennett, Cassandra Cornish-Trestrail, and Anna L. Cox. 2013. Do Games Attract or Sustain Engagement in Citizen Science? A Study of Volunteer Motivations. In CHI ’13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Paris, France) (CHI EA ’13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1101–1106. https://doi.org/10.1145/2468356.2468553Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Monique W.M. Jaspers. 2009. A comparison of usability methods for testing interactive health technologies: Methodological aspects and empirical evidence. International Journal of Medical Informatics 78, 5(2009), 340 – 353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2008.10.002Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Monique W.M. Jaspers, Thiemo Steen, Cor van den Bos, and Maud Geenen. 2004. The think aloud method: a guide to user interface design. International Journal of Medical Informatics 73, 11(2004), 781 – 795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2004.08.003Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Victor Jupp. 2006. The Sage dictionary of social research methods. Sage.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Firas Khatib, Seth Cooper, Michael D. Tyka, Kefan Xu, Ilya Makedon, Zoran Popović, David Baker, and Foldit Players. 2011a. Algorithm discovery by protein folding game players. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108, 47(2011), 18949–18953. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1115898108Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Firas Khatib, Frank DiMaio, Seth Cooper, Maciej Kazmierczyk, Miroslaw Gilski, Szymon Krzywda, Helena Zabranska, Iva Pichova, James Thompson, Zoran Popović, 2011b. Crystal structure of a monomeric retroviral protease solved by protein folding game players. Nature structural & molecular biology 18, 10 (2011), 1175–1177.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Brian Koepnick, Jeff Flatten, Tamir Husain, Alex Ford, Daniel-Adriano Silva, Matthew J Bick, Aaron Bauer, Gaohua Liu, Yojiro Ishida, Alexander Boykov, 2019. De novo protein design by citizen scientists. Nature 570, 7761 (2019), 390–394.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. E. Korpela, D. Werthimer, D. Anderson, J. Cobb, and M. Leboisky. 2001. SETI@home-massively distributed computing for SETI. Computing in Science Engineering 3, 1 (Jan 2001), 78–83. https://doi.org/10.1109/5992.895191Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Andrew Leaver-Fay, Michael Tyka, Steven M. Lewis, Oliver F. Lange, James Thompson, Ron Jacak, Kristian W. Kaufman, P. Douglas Renfrew, Colin A. Smith, Will Sheffler, Ian W. Davis, Seth Cooper, Adrien Treuille, Daniel J. Mandell, Florian Richter, Yih-En Andrew Ban, Sarel J. Fleishman, Jacob E. Corn, David E. Kim, Sergey Lyskov, Monica Berrondo, Stuart Mentzer, Zoran Popović, James J. Havranek, John Karanicolas, Rhiju Das, Jens Meiler, Tanja Kortemme, Jeffrey J. Gray, Brian Kuhlman, David Baker, and Philip Bradley. 2011. Chapter nineteen - Rosetta3: An Object-Oriented Software Suite for the Simulation and Design of Macromolecules. In Computer Methods, Part C, Michael L. Johnson and Ludwig Brand (Eds.). Methods in Enzymology, Vol. 487. Academic Press, 545 – 574. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-381270-4.00019-6Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Jens Meiler and David Baker. 2006. ROSETTALIGAND: Protein–small molecule docking with full side-chain flexibility. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics 65, 3(2006), 538–548. https://doi.org/10.1002/prot.21086Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Josh Aaron Miller, Vivian Lee, Seth Cooper, and Magy Seif El-Nasr. 2019. Large-Scale Analysis of Visualization Options in a Citizen Science Game. In Extended Abstracts of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play Companion Extended Abstracts (Barcelona, Spain) (CHI PLAY ’19 Extended Abstracts). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 535–542. https://doi.org/10.1145/3341215.3356274Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Garrett M. Morris, Ruth Huey, William Lindstrom, Michel F. Sanner, Richard K. Belew, David S. Goodsell, and Arthur J. Olson. 2009. AutoDock4 and AutoDockTools4: Automated docking with selective receptor flexibility. Journal of Computational Chemistry 30, 16 (2009), 2785–2791. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcc.21256Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Michael Shirts and Vijay S. Pande. 2000. Screen Savers of the World Unite!Science 290, 5498 (2000), 1903–1904. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.290.5498.1903Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Jonathan Silvertown. 2009. A new dawn for citizen science. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 24, 9 (2009), 467 – 471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.03.017Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Kristin Siu, Alexander Zook, and Mark O. Riedl. 2017. A Framework for Exploring and Evaluating Mechanics in Human Computation Games. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games (Hyannis, Massachusetts) (FDG ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New Yorkk NYk USA, Article 38, 4 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3102071.3106344Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Joanna Stanczyk, Caroline Ospelt, and Steffen Gay. 2008. Is there a future for small molecule drugs in the treatment of rheumatic diseases?Current opinion in rheumatology 20, 3 (2008), 257–262.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Brian L. Sullivan, Christopher L. Wood, Marshall J. Iliff, Rick E. Bonney, Daniel Fink, and Steve Kelling. 2009. eBird: A citizen-based bird observation network in the biological sciences. Biological Conservation 142, 10 (2009), 2282 – 2292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.05.006Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Marcel L. Verdonk, Jason C. Cole, Michael J. Hartshorn, Christopher W. Murray, and Richard D. Taylor. 2003. Improved protein–ligand docking using GOLD. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics 52, 4(2003), 609–623. https://doi.org/10.1002/prot.10465 arXiv:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/prot.10465Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. L. von Ahn. 2006. Games with a purpose. Computer 39, 6 (June 2006), 92–94. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2006.196Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Luis Von Ahn and Laura Dabbish. 2008. Designing games with a purpose. Commun. ACM 51, 8 (2008), 58–67.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Conferences
    MIG '20: Proceedings of the 13th ACM SIGGRAPH Conference on Motion, Interaction and Games
    October 2020
    190 pages
    ISBN:9781450381710
    DOI:10.1145/3424636

    Copyright © 2020 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 22 November 2020

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate-9of-9submissions,100%

    Upcoming Conference

    MIG '24
  • Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)25
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)3

    Other Metrics

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format .

View HTML Format