Personalized Treasure Hunt Game for
Proactive Museum Appreciation by
Analyzing Guide App Operation Log
Jinsong Yu1 , Shio Takidaira2 , Tsukasa Sawaura3 ,Yoshiyuki Shoji1,4[0000−0002−7405−9270] , Takehiro Yamamoto5 ,Yusuke Yamamoto6 , Hiroaki Ohshima5 , Kenro Aihara7 , and Noriko Kando8
Aoyama Gakuin University,
Sagamihara, Kanagawa 252-5258, Japan{yu, takidaira, sawaura}@sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp
2
Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd.,
Shinjuku, Tokyo 162–0062, Japan
3
COLOPL, Inc.,
Shibuya, Tokyo 150–6032, Japan
4
Shizuoka University,
Hamamatsu, Shizuoka 432–8011, Japanshojiy@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp
5
University of Hyogo,
Kobe, Hyogo 651–2197, Japant.yamamoto@sis.u-hyogo.ac.jp, ohshima@ai.u-hyogo.ac.jp
6
Nagoya City University,
Nagoya, Aichi 467–8501, Japan
yusuke_yamamoto@acm.org
7
Tokyo Metropolitan University,
Hachioji, Tokyo 192–0397, Japankenro.aihara@tmu.ac.jp
8
National Institute of Informatics,
Chiyoda, Tokyo 101–0003, Japankando@nii.ac.jp
1

Abstract. This paper proposes a method for enhancing museum visits
by turning them into a personalized treasure hunt game. This approach
uses gamification to augment visitor experiences, explicitly addressing
the issue of retaining information during casual museum visits. This isachieved by creating quizzes customized to each visitor’s interests andproviding unique perspectives for appreciating exhibits. These quizzes,
developed through analyzing museum guide logs and individual visitor
preferences, encourage visitors to explore exhibits, thereby intensifying
their engagement proactively. The game entails visitors identifying specific exhibits, guided by hints like images and maps, and inputting theexhibit IDs to win in-game rewards. Field studies employing actual datafrom the National Museum of Ethnology in Japan evaluated this approach’s efficacy. Experimental results suggest that visitors are more
likely to remember exhibit details connected to quiz answers, even two

2

J. Yu et al.
weeks after their visit. Participants also enjoyed the impromptu exploration encouraged by the treasure hunt game.
Keywords: Gamification · Museum Guide · Personalization

1

Introduction

Visiting museums and viewing their exhibits is one of humankind’s most critical intellectual activities. For example, many international travel tours include
museum visits as part of the course to experience the region’s culture. Many
educational institutions also include museum studies as part of their curricula.
Despite visiting museums being recommended for learning purposes, not all
visitors necessarily approach them with a clear objective. Specifically, visitors
who arrive at museums for tours or extracurricular activities without particularmotivation tend to wander through the venue passively, simply following the setroute. Yenawine et al. [21] report a phenomenon where such passive museum
experiences do not result in lasting knowledge or memories for the visitors.
In a case study, Housen et al. conducted tours with curatorial explanations
at the Museum of Modern Art, New York, investigating visitor satisfaction andthe knowledge that remained in memory. Their findings suggest that, while increasing the amount of information presented through additional explanations
can raise satisfaction levels, it may not necessarily lead to knowledge acquisition
if the experience remains passive.
Such phenomena, where passive observation does not lead to learning, havebeen pointed out in museum studies to emphasize the importance of active andautonomous experiences. For instance, Folk [6] argues that “Free Choice Learning” is crucial in museum learning contexts. The concept of Free Choice Learning
posits that learners do not merely follow a predetermined route but learn by actively choosing what they are interested in.
For additional examples, Hein et al. [9] proposes a learning model basedon Constructivism, stating that visitors build knowledge internally rather than
through information from exhibits. Furthermore, Bain et al., within the conceptof “Object-Centered Learning,” argues that there is greater value in personallyinterpreting exhibits and connecting them to daily life than merely looking at
external knowledge presented through exhibits or explanatory text [13].
Indeed, an energetic and proactive appreciation is pivotal to ensuring thata museum experience is both meaningful and educational. However, catalyzing
such autonomous engagement can often present a challenge. As such, numerous
initiatives have been undertaken to facilitate proactive appreciation.
One traditional approach is the implementation of orienteering games, often embodied as stamp collecting, within the museum. In these games, museum
curators prepare a list of selected exhibits. They then generate stamp sheetsthat provide hints about these exhibits and distribute them among the participants. Guided by these hints, participants then embark on an exploratory
journey through the museum, seeking out the designated exhibits.

Personalized Treasure Hunt Game for Proactive Museum Appreciation
Stamp Collection Screen
Treasure Hunting Game

3

Quiz and Hints Screen
Quiz 1.

You saw several masks. There are also exhibits of masks in the Middle
East area. Find the masks below, paying attention to the diﬀerent colorsof the masks by region.

Letʼs ﬁnd 4 exhibits perfect for [Player Name], and complete your stamp sheet!

Hint 1:

Appearance

Hint 2:

Location

Hint 3:

Tags

Area

Republic of Cameroon
Bamileke People

Usage

Art Dance
Religion

You founda treasure!!

Hint 4:

Description

Found !

Used 12/12 Hints

Quiz 2

Quiz 3

How to Play

Quiz 4
Get More Hints
4 times remaining

I Found It!

Go BackFig. 1. Screenshots of the treasure hunt game in the museum (Some parts are overwritten for translation). Player finds four treasures (designated exhibits) to collectfour stamps, aiming to complete with as few hints used as possible. The Quiz and
Hint screen shows information about the treasure. Photos, exhibit locations, tags, anddescriptions are displayed, but initially, they are blurred or hidden.

Such museum experiences utilizing orienteering aim to promote active observation by encouraging visitors to seek out items based on hints provided, turning
the game into a springboard for autonomous engagement. Furthermore, curators
often design much orienteering along a consistent theme.
In recent years, gamification that includes puzzle-solving has been increasingly adopted as an advanced mechanism to enhance museum experiences. For
instance, institutions such as the Tokyo National Museum and the Louvre Museum offer game-like experiences. Participants of these games navigate throughthe museum while solving puzzles and searching for exhibits, utilizing tools likesmartphones or puzzle sheets. Through these interactive game experiences, participants can develop an interest in and deepen their understanding of the exhibits.
While these game-based experiences can stimulate proactive appreciation,
they also entail substantial costs for creation. In the case of orienteering, experts
need to identify exhibits that align with a particular concept and decide which
exhibits the participants should visit. Similarly, for puzzle games, specialists in
riddles or quizzes must design the game according to the exhibits they want
to showcase and the messages they want to convey. As a result, it is challenging to offer multiple orientation or puzzle games simultaneously within a single
museum.
Consider an individual visiting a museum, without pre-established interests,
as part of a school activity. They may opt for a museum guide device’s orienteering function, potentially gaining knowledge about the rally’s themes and featured
exhibits. However, this knowledge might not align with their personal interests,
reducing the chance of it being used in the future. Engaging with a topic related
to their interests makes them more likely to recall the related exhibit, indicating
effective knowledge acquisition from the visit.

4

J. Yu et al.

In this study, we propose a method that dynamically generates a personalizedtreasure hunt game by analyzing the behavior logs of a museum guide device.
Figure 1 shows an example of an actual gameplay screen. A stamp card screen
appears when a player launches the game feature on the museum guide. Players
hunt for four exhibits to collect four stamps. After tapping the button under
the first stamp field, a quiz screen is generated dynamically by analyzing thevisitor’s operation log. The quiz screen includes a request for the treasure, i.e.,
exhibit to be found, as well as hints in the form of images, maps, tags, anddescriptions, which are initially obscured. Hidden hints can be revealed in a
step-by-step manner. The player can get a stamp when they find the correct
exhibit and inputs its ID. If incorrect, two hints are revealed. The player aims
to collect all four stamps with as few hints as possible.
The main novelty of our method is its ability to be personalized by connecting the game with the museum guide. Visitors at the museum often use theguide app to read detailed information about exhibits or to check the location of
their favorite exhibits. These actions are reflected in the operation logs, strongly
indicating their interests. It encompasses not only an individual’s conscious interests but also latent interests and unconscious actions. Our method analyzes
these logs and extracts common tags from the exhibits they viewed frequently.
Then, while retaining these tags, they seek out an unseen exhibit as “treasure”.
We implemented a prototype of a treasure hunt game that can actually be
used at a museum and conducted a subject experiment on-site. We evaluated
how the game experience was perceived and analyzed whether the exhibits theyfound were remembered two weeks later. During this process, we altered part of
the generated quizzes for experimental purposes, allowing us to verify the effectsof personalization and the impact of raising awareness of one’s interests.

2

Related Work

This study aims to enhance museum experiences through personalized treasurehunts. This section introduces prior research on learning support through treasure hunts, gamification in museums, and personalization, and discusses the
positioning and novelty of our study.
2.1

Treasure Hunt Game in Education

Treasure hunt games have been used since ancient times for education, mainly
for young children. In recent years, research has been progressing on computer
applications to facilitate the educational benefits of these games. For instance,
Farella et al. [7] argue for the effectiveness of treasure hunt games on mobile
devices when the game design is conducted by teachers themselves. Kohen-Vacs
et al. [11] have enabled a digital-supported treasure hunt game outside the school
using the location information of mobile devices.
Relevant to our research, Ng et al. [12] have realized a treasure hunt gameusing mobile devices in museums. Their study reports that gamification increases

Personalized Treasure Hunt Game for Proactive Museum Appreciation5

the learning effect compared to traditional guides. Ceipidor et al. [2] have also
realized a treasure hunt game in museums using QR codes. Cesário [3] propose
advanced gamification at the maritime museum that fits the museum’s theme.
The novelty of our work lies in its ability to personalize the treasure huntby integrating it with a museum guide. The museum guide is well-suited to estimating the user’s latent interests from queries input by the user and the exhibits
they viewed in detail. Additionally, although not utilized in this experiment, unconscious actions derived from scroll and acceleration sensors and the exhibits
viewed from beacons or location information can also be detected. Using theseto provide tailored treasure hunts must help individuals’ learning.
2.2

Gamification in Museum

Gamification in museums has long been a focus of attention, especially researchon mobile device learning support. Yatani et al. [20] propose learning with
PDAs in museums. In their study, the device is intended to help multiple people
solve questions collaboratively to better understand the exhibit content. Ueda etal. [18] also propose a system that encourages independent appreciation of eachexhibit by generating a three-choice quiz for each museum exhibit. Our researchsimilarly aims to aid learning in museums through gamification. To this end,
the technical challenge in this study is to make such gamification dynamicallygenerable and tailored to the individual.
In recent years, with the development of mobile technology, research on gamification using Augmented Reality (AR) has also been active [4] [5]. Methods for
estimating visitor location and enabling interaction with exhibits using Wi-Fi,
beacons, infrared communication, etc. are also being investigated [15]. As an
example of research that combines location information within a museum with
gamification, Rubino et al. [16] propose a viewing method based on storytelling.
The guide app used in our research also can estimate location using beacons
and read text using a camera, but at this time, it is not being utilized for games.
Based on these studies, enabling richer input and output based on location could
improve the gaming experience and make learning more meaningful.
2.3

Personalization of Museum Experience

Personalizing museum experiences and promoting individualized learning havebeen actively pursued in recent years. Wang et al. [19]propose a project thatallows visitors to design their own viewing plans at the museum by connecting
the local museum to the web. In their project, visitors can examine exhibits ona web application in advance, input exhibits of interest, and navigate a course
tailored to them on a PDA.
Shoji et al. [17] propose a method of personalizing not the museum experience
itself, but its souvenirs, to help secure personal memories when reviewing themlater. In their research, they analyze the logs of museum guide devices, estimate
the exhibits the visitor may have been interested in, and print them on postcards.

6

J. Yu et al.

As a study that personalizes the way each exhibit is viewed, Keil et al. [10]propose a method of displaying exhibits of interest in various ways using AR
technology. By pointing a tablet device at the exhibit, additional explanations
are added, or a synthesized narrative video is played. In the context of personalizing museum experiences, Pujol et al. [14] have researched personalized
storytelling in various museums. Our study applies such personalization in conjunction with gamification. The goal is not just to show a simple route, but toactively encourage searching, to firmly anchor personal interests in memory.
In research related to this study, Camps-Ortueta et al. [1] propose a methodof making games enjoyable by personalizing the gaming experience itself. Theirresearch also discusses that educational games are fundamentally dull and thefun found in regular games is limited during learning sessions. In our study, only
the exhibits targeted in the game are subject to personalization. Still, in the
future, the number of stamps collected, game rules, and difficulty levels should
also be personalized.

3

Personalized Treasure Hunt Game Generation

This section explains the mechanism of the application for supporting users’
proactive museum appreciation. As our method is closely linked to the actual
guide terminal, we use the implemented prototype as an example in the explanation. Our application operates on an iPad and can search and view detailed
information for over 4,000 exhibits in a the National Museum of Ethnology,
Japan.
3.1

System Overview

This section describes an outline and overall picture of the system. This application consists of front-end and back-end components. The front end aids viewing
exhibits by facilitating search and presenting detailed information. During this,the user’s activity logs are collected. On the server side, the received logs areanalyzed, and quizzes personalized to each individual are generated. The front
end is implemented as an iOS app in Swift. The back end is implemented in
Python, and the screens are displayed using Vue.js, a JavaScript framework.
The “Recommended Exhibits” screen is initially presented when launching
the guide app, where various exhibits are randomly arranged. From this list view,which also includes search results, users often tap on various exhibits to view
their detailed information. The application continually logs the extent to which
the detail screens of each exhibit are viewed.
Next, when “Treasure Hunt Game” is selected from the main menu, the builtin browser within iOS is launched. The operation logs are sent to the server,where they are analyzed, and a quiz tailored to the user is generated. Whenthe user starts the game, a stamp sheet without any stamps is displayed. On
this screen, users can view the game instructions. By pressing the “Question 1”

Personalized Treasure Hunt Game for Proactive Museum Appreciation

Museum Guide Functions

7

Treasure Hunting Game Functions

iOS App developed in SwiftWeb app accessed via embedded web browser

Whoops...

See more hints and ﬁnd the treasure

Startup Screen

Notiﬁcation ofwrong answer

Stamp Sheet

Input ID wasincorrect(input username)Tap how to play

Try again

Tap Quiz 1 button
Tap “I found it!” button

Close button

Quiz & Hints

Exhibits List

Input the exhibit ID

Exhibit ID input(Initial State)

Send
Send

Tap an exibit thumbnail

CancelInput ID wascorrect

Tap “Get more hints”

Congratulations!!
You found [exhibitʼs name]

Notiﬁcation ofcorrect answer

Quiz & Hints

Exhibits Detail(After disclosing
some hints)

Next

Tap next button

Push menu button

Museum Map
Beacon identiﬁes your current location

Main Menu
Treasure
Hunting

NearbySee a list of exhibits near you

SearchMyPageFind exhibits by
keywords, tags, etc...

Manage your favorites, notes, and photos taken!

CameraHow to play treasure hunting game

Notepad

How to play
guidance

Stamp Sheet(Getting stamps)

Tap “Treasure Huinting”

Fig. 2. Screen transition of actual gameplay on the app. Player access both the guide
screen and game screen to find exhibits in the museum. They can get a stamp when
they input the correct exhibit.

button under the stamp, users can navigate to the detail screen of the treasurehunt target.
The detail screen displays instructions and four hints about the treasure theuser should find. The instruction includes personal interests and viewpoints. For
example, “You were paying close attention to pots. While noticing the different
materials used in different regions, please find the following pot in the Africa
area.”The hints are a photo, a map, tags, and a description. Initially, these hints
are blurred and hard to see (top image in Figure 3). The photo is pixelated
and low resolution. The map is not narrowed down, so the search range covers
the entire museum. No tags are displayed. The description is also blurred andunreadable.
By tapping the “Get More Hints” button, users can gradually reduce theblur on any hints, as shown in Figure 3. Each hint can be clarified in four stages,
and since there are four items, users can get hints up to 12 times in total. Whenthe hint button is pressed, the image’s resolution gradually improves, and in theend, the original resolution of the exhibition image can be seen. The map also
gradually narrows the search range, eventually narrowing to about 10 meters.
The number of tags gradually increases. The text gradually becomes readable
as the blur is removed word by word.

8

J. Yu et al.

Initial State
Hint button has
never been tapped.
Photo resolution: 4px x 4px
Area: 100m x 100m
Tags: 0 percent showed
Description: unreadable

Intermediate
Disclosured 8 hintsof 12

Photo resolution: 10px x 10px
Area: 40m x 40m
Tags: 60 percent showed
Description: Some terms can
be clearly read.
Rest part is blurry
but barely
readable.

Final State

Disclosured all hints

Photo resolution: Same tooriginal
Area: 10m x 10m
Tags: all tags are showed
Description: Completely clear

Table 1. Questionnair results on usability. The average score of eight participants(from 1 to 5), and the standard deviationof each participant’s score.
Evaluation

AVG SD

Amusingness
4.3
Usability
3.1
Design
3.9
Serendipity
3.9Interests Expended
3.8
Fit Interests
3.9
Difficulty
3.4
Cost
3.5
Quality of Hints
2.6
Photo Usefulness
4.4
Map Usefulness
2.5
Tag Usefulness
4.1
Description Usefulness 3.5

0.5
1.3
0.7
1.0
0.5
0.7
1.4
0.9
1.1
0.6
2.0
0.7
0.9

Table 2. The number of players who remembered the treasure exhibits two weeks
later (out of 8). Each player solved onequestion from each of the four types ofquizzes. They were asked about recall,Fig. 3. Screenshots of hints to be disclosed recognition, and whether they liked thein stages. Each time a player presses the quiz.
‘‘Get More Hints” button, photo, map,tags, and description are displayed moreclearly, step by step. The player can press
the button 12 times.

methodQuality Only
Quality+ViewPoint
Interest Only
Interest+WiewPoint
Average# Recall # Recognition # Favorite
8
7
7
5

7
8
7
6

4
1
2
1

6.75

7.00

-

Using these gradually revealed hints as clues, the player searches for exhibitson the guide or on-site at the museum. Pressing the “I Found it!” button at thebottom of the treasure hunt target’s detail screen displays a dialog where they
can input the exhibit ID. The exhibit ID is a unique 8-letter string given to eachexhibit, composed of a Roman character and seven digits, such as “H0123456”.
This ID can be seen on-site exhibit signage and on the exhibit detail screen
within the guide app.
If the player inputs the correct ID, they can view detailed information aboutthat exhibit and receive a stamp on their sheet as a reward. At this point, thenumber of times the player presses the “Get More Hints” button before finding
the treasure is recorded. If an incorrect ID is entered, two levels of hints areforcibly disclosed. Players need to find the treasure with as few mistakes and as
few hints as possible.

Personalized Treasure Hunt Game for Proactive Museum Appreciation

3.2

9

Estimate Player’s Interest from Operating Log

The system generates a personalized quiz when a player opens a new Quiz and
Hints screen for the first time. The system estimates their interests from theuploaded log. It counts the tags on the exhibits they have viewed in detail.
An individual’s interests are expressed as a set of multiple tags. For example, pairs like “Art, Dance” or several tags like “Hunting, Religion, Ceremony,
Wooden Products” represent individual interests. These combinations of tags
are scored based on their count and how many times they appear in the log. The
system treats several top tag sets as the player’s interests.
3.3

Ranking Treasure Candidates by Generating Quizzes with
Templates

Next, the system seeks out exhibits that align with the player’s estimated interests, and that the player has not yet seen, to present them as treasures. The
system extracts all exhibits tagged with the tag sets of the player’s interests.
The system removes exhibits from the extracted ones the player has seen before,
and those displayed physically close to those already seen. This encourages theplayer to walk around and see more related exhibits while searching.
These exhibits are candidates for treasures, and the system generates multiple quizzes using templates. Depending on the metadata and type of exhibit,
some templates may be applicable while others may not. Therefore, we preparedmultiple quiz templates in advance and manually scored them for quiz-like characteristics. Then, the system applies the templates for all treasure candidates
and presents the quiz with the highest score.
Our prepared templates are basically in the form of “Let’s look for [treasurecategory] in the [display area]”. To this template, we add a part that expresses
interest, such as “It seems you are interested in [one interest tag],” and a feature that provides a viewpoint, such as “Let’s search while paying attention to[viewpoint name]”.
In the ethnographic museum we used for this case, each exhibit is taggedwith multiple OCM (Outline of Cultural Materials) tags, which indicate what
the exhibit has been used for, and OWC (Outline of World Cultures) tags, whichindicate where the exhibit has been used. These tags are valuable resources forgenerating personalized quizzes and providing hints to guide the players’ treasure
hunt.
Only certain tags can be used as [treasure category] or [interest]. For example,
tags that indicate a type, such as “534: MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS”, can beused, but abstract tags like “805: ORDERING OF TIME” are unsuitable forquizzes. Therefore, we manually prepared templates for each tag that is easy
to search for as a noun. Moreover, for abstract tags that appear frequently, we
have prepared a template for each tag, like “Let’s look for exhibits related to[abstract topic]”.
Similarly, the template corresponding to the viewpoint differs depending on
the tag. For example, drawing attention to “differences in color by region” When10

J. Yu et al.

drawing attention to “differences in shape by use”, the target exhibit can only
be a tool, and only if their usages are different. To address such situations,
we prepared many templates for specific combinations of OCM included in a
candidate’s interest tags and OCM. For instance, if the interested OCM is 222,
223, 224, or 227, and the OCM of the treasure starts with 28, a template thatcreates a quiz sentence focusing on “differences in materials by use” can beapplied.
Such a rule and the combination of actual sentence patterns are generally
considered more specific when there are fewer applicable candidates for the template. Therefore, scores were manually assigned to the templates in order of strict
conditions. The system applies the templates to the candidates, and selects thecandidate that fits the template with the highest score as the treasure for theplayer to seek.

3.4

Design to Facilitate Gamification

We’ve designed and improved the reward system to make this treasure hunt gameenjoyable. Firstly, we have designed the game interface, using the metaphor oftreasure hunt and stamp collecting. In line with the theme of the treasure hunt,
we gave it a look of a parchment on a wooden desk. Additionally, we have added
a metallic texture to each component.
Next, we designed the gaming experience always to display progress andstages. Generally, in gamification, it is said to be crucial for the progress andachievements to be visualized [8]. Therefore, we adopted a format in which hints
for the quiz are gradually disclosed. A stamp is collected on the sheet when
the player finishes a quiz. This way, they can check how far their learning has
progressed.
In addition, stamps served not merely as a visualization of progress, but also
as rewards that users were delighted to obtain. The appearance of the stamps
resembles the stamp traditionally used in Japan on high-scoring test papers(i.e.,). Furthermore, the design of the stamps became increasingly elaborate
as users accumulated more of them. The screen effects at the moment of stampacquisition were also striking, with a glowing ring pressing the stamp and ashaking screen effect.
Moreover, we provided a clear objective for the game. By specifying thenumber of hints used and ensuring hints are forcibly disclosed upon failure, wecreated gameplay aimed at completing the game with as few hints as possible.
To facilitate this, the system recorded the number of hints disclosed so far incompleting the treasure hunt, allowing for future review. This process may allow for more vital impressions of exhibits by recognizing failures that caused
additional hint disclosure. It is also likely to stimulate the incentive for revisits by inciting an ambition to attempt the game with fewer disclosed hints insubsequent attempts.

Personalized Treasure Hunt Game for Proactive Museum Appreciation

4

11

Evaluation

A prototype system was implemented and field-tested in an actual museum toverify the efficacy of the proposed application. This experiment was conducted
on-site at an actual museum, using images and metadata of its exhibits, under
the collaboration of the museum authorities.
4.1

Evaluation Task

We had participants play the treasure hunt game on-site at the museum and later
investigated whether they remembered the exhibits they searched for and thosethey saw along the way. The participants consisted of eight university students.
Initially, participants received an operation explanation for the museum guideapp, and freely appreciated the exhibits at the museum site for 30 minutes. After
that, we gathered the participants and generated a treasure hunt game basedon each person’s log up to that point. They then started playing the treasurehunt, moving around the exhibition hall until they collected four stamps. Afterthey finished collecting all stamps, they returned to the preparation room andanswered a questionnaire regarding the usability evaluation.
Specifically, the questions first asked if the participant was personally interested in the museum itself, the cultural anthropology that was the subject of
the experiment, and puzzle-solving games. On a five-point scale, they were thenasked to provide an overall rating for fun, usability, design, etc.. Similarly, they
were asked to rate whether the image, map, tags, and description were usefulin the quiz. Lastly, they were asked to give free-form answers on points such as
what they liked, what quizzes they enjoyed, what they disliked, what they would
like to see improved, and any other comments.
In addition, all participants were asked two weeks later what exhibits they
remembered. For the memory survey, participants were first asked to write on
paper what exhibits were answers to the quiz and quiz sentences they remembered, to confirm their recall ability. Next, in a recognition task, seen and unseen
exhibits were mixed and presented to see if they could correctly discriminate.
4.2

Compared Methods

Four methods were compared within the participants to measure the effect of theinterest in the exhibits themselves, personalization, and showing the viewpoint
on memory consolidation. In the game, players need to search for four exhibits.
During the experiment, these four exhibits were split into two that would beinteresting for anyone and two that were tailored to the individual. Then, foreach, they searched with and without a given viewpoint. To prevent order effects,
the sequence of questions is randomized for each individual.
4.3

Experimental Result

This section verifies whether the proposed system was accepted and whether it
affected memory consolidation. Firstly, as an evaluation of whether gamification

12

J. Yu et al.

was accepted, Table 1 shows the results of a usability survey immediately after
the actual experiment. The results showed that while the fun of the treasure huntgame itself was highly rated, usability was not rated as highly. It was found thatthe quality of the hints was particularly low-rated. Also, map-based hints seem
unhelpful.
Next, to measure whether gamification helped learning, table 2 shows thedegree of memory retention after two weeks. Searching for exhibits in a treasurehunt leads to stronger memories than just viewing them. Personalization andshowing viewpoints have limited effects, but searching for catchy exhibits helped
memorization.

5

Discussion

Firstly, the results of the usability evaluation are discussed. Nearly all participants expressed that they found the treasure hunt game enjoyable. Especially
noteworthy were comments relating to enjoyment, which suggested that gradually revealing hints and walking around the location, while examining all possible
candidates, was considered fun.
Regarding usability, the overall evaluation was not high. Among the freely
written comments related to usability, the first notable issue was dissatisfaction
with the guide app itself, used as a platform for the treasure hunt game. Specifically, participants pointed out the inconvenience of having to search for eachexhibit in the guide while in front of it, even if they thought they had the correct
keyword in the search function, and the exhibit did not appear. This suggests
a need for a feature that allows finding “the exhibit in front of you” without
keyword searching, potentially using a beacon or AR technologies.
Additionally, numerous comments were observed about integrating the guideapp and the treasure hunt system. Specifically, even though the ID was displayedin the guide, the need to manually note it and then re-enter it was identified as
one reason for the low rating. Also mentioned was the difficulty in reading andinputting the small exhibit ID displayed at the museum site. The exhibit IDs atthe site are often written small at the bottom right of the description plate in adimly lit venue, which might not have been suitable for users to input.
Improvements such as recognizing the location using beacon technology orimage recognition, and considering the exhibit found if the user is in front of itor takes a picture of it, could be considered for these input-related issues.
Regarding the effectiveness of hints, some participants found the map-based
hints unhelpful. This is generally because museums organize their exhibit spaces
according to specific themes. Once a tag is visible, it is possible to predict theexact location of an exhibit more accurately than using a map. Therefore, when
operating such a system, it is crucial to consider the granularity of hints anddevise ways to ensure that tags related to regions are not revealed before themap.
The difficulty of the treasure hunt showed variability among individuals(which was expected, as two of the quiz questions were tailored to the indi-Personalized Treasure Hunt Game for Proactive Museum Appreciation

13

viduals), and the average rating was not high. Comments regarding the quiz
quality were largely positive, such as “Indeed, it accurately captured my interests”. There were also opinions like “It’s recognizable even without hints”, “Thephoto doesn’t resemble the actual object”, and “The regional name tag narrows
down the target too much”.
Feedback was also received regarding the appreciation experience itself throughthe treasure hunt game. Comments about the effort required. Such as, the museum is too large, so after collecting logs for 30 minutes, solving four quiz questions was tiring, and they got tired because they had to move to an area they
had already visited.
To operate such gamification in the museum, estimating interest in advancethrough preliminary questions or personalizing the game based on logs collectedduring gameplay might be beneficial. Additionally, considerations should bemade for adjusting the number of stamps to collect or considering the proximity of the exhibits for the treasure hunt.
Next, the impact of the treasure hunt game on the retention of the target
exhibits in memory is discussed. Overall, it was found that the exhibits targetedin the treasure hunt left a strong impression, with 84 % of the participants able
to recall those exhibits. Prompting participants to search for exhibits using hints
might increase the possibility of those exhibits remaining in memory.
Next, we will focus on the order effects for analysis. In this experiment, theorder was changed depending on the person, so the order effects should notappear between the methods. However, it is conceivable that the memory consolidation effect of the treasure hunt may decrease with familiarity. We counted
how many exhibits the subjects remembered in the treasure hunt, which theysolved in different orders. Seven participants could recall the answers to the first,
second, and third questions, and six participants could recall the answer to thefourth question (out of eight participants). Completing four consecutive treasurehunts requires walking around the museum for an hour. Therefore, the degree ofmemory retention may decrease because participants get tired and accustomed
to the game.
Next, we verified the effects of personalization and explicit presentation of
viewpoints. Overall, they tended not to remember when asked to find exhibits
considering personal interests compared to when they were asked to find manually selected exhibits. One potential reason could be the difference in the effecton memory between the intrinsic interest of the exhibit and the alignment withpersonal interest. The exhibits selected manually were exciting and surprising(for example, food samples not typically found in museums, cute animal statues,etc.).
On the other hand, the personalized treasures were similar to the exhibitsthat the participants had repeatedly seen in the early stages. They might havestruggled to recall exhibits that felt repetitive or lacked novelty. Furthermore,
many personalized treasures were understated, reflecting the nature of manymuseum exhibits. Therefore, it’s essential to consider the inherent charm of theexhibits when designing the treasure hunt.

14

J. Yu et al.

Next, we analyze the effect of highlighting a viewpoint suggested. Many participants in the interview survey reported not noticing the guidance about these
critical viewpoints. Our game’s rules focus on finding the target exhibits withas few clues as possible, causing participants to concentrate solely on the hints
and ignore the given directives. This issue suggests a flaw in game design: thestructure that encourages productive viewing is not synchronized with the reward system. To fix this, it might be necessary to adopt a system where rewards
are granted only when they view the exhibit with attention to the highlighted
viewpoint (e.g., they must take pictures of different parts of the treasure andthe exhibits they have seen to get a stamp).
Lastly, we discuss the importance of difficulty level. In the interviews, mostparticipants mentioned the difficulty of the quiz. For example, one participant
stated that the exhibit was difficult to find and remained in their memory because
it was displayed in a different area than they had imagined. Another participant
mentioned that they could not remember the exhibit because they accidentallyfound the correct exhibit in one try with a tag search, without even looking at
the actual object. To make it an enjoyable and educational game, it would benecessary to keep it easy enough for anyone to clear, yet challenging enough to
be memorable.

6

Conclusion

In this study, we proposed a method to enable proactive museum appreciation by
gamifying museums with a personalized treasure hunt format. We implemented a
prototype that integrates with an actual museum guide app, analyzes individual
logs, and generates quizzes. The experimental results showed that such a game
experience was enjoyable for users, and the exhibits they sought remained intheir memory more than those they simply viewed.
However, the effect of personalization was limited, and there was a tendency
for eye-catching exhibits sought out simply to be more easily remembered. Roomfor improvement was found in the method of presenting desired viewpoints andin how hints are provided. Future modifications are being planned to make thetreasure hunt more practical, including adjustments to the difficulty level andselecting catchy exhibits.

Acknowledgements
This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grants Number 21H03775, 21H03774,
and 22H03905. The research was also supported by ROIS NII Open Collaborative Research 2023 (Grant Number 22S1001).

References
1. Camps-Ortueta, I., González-Calero, P.A., Quiroga, M.A., Gómez-Martín, P.P.:
Measuring preferences in game mechanics: Towards personalized chocolate-covered

Personalized Treasure Hunt Game for Proactive Museum Appreciation15

broccoli. In: Entertainment Computing and Serious Games: First IFIP TC 14 Joint
International Conference, ICEC-JCSG 2019, Arequipa, Peru, November 11–15,
2019, Proceedings 1. pp. 15–27. Springer (2019)
2. Ceipidor, U.B., Medaglia, C.M., Perrone, A., De Marsico, M., Di Romano, G.:
A museum mobile game for children using qr-codes. In: Proceedings of the 8thinternational conference on interaction design and children. pp. 282–283 (2009)
3. Cesário, V., Radeta, M., Matos, S., Nisi, V.: The ocean game: Assessing children’s
engagement and learning in a museum setting using a treasure-hunt game. In:
Extended Abstracts Publication of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human
Interaction in Play. p. 99–109 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/3130859.3131435
4. Damala, A., Cubaud, P., Bationo, A., Houlier, P., Marchal, I.: Bridging the gap
between the digital and the physical: design and evaluation of a mobile augmented
reality guide for the museum visit. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on Digital Interactive Media in Entertainment and Arts. pp. 120–127 (2008)
5. Damala, A., Marchal, I., Houlier, P.: Merging augmented reality based featuresin mobile multimedia museum guides. In: Anticipating the Future of the Cultural
Past, CIPA Conference 2007, 1-6 October 2007,. pp. 259–264 (2007)
6. Falk, J.H., Dierking, L.D.: Learning from museums. Rowman & Littlefield (2018)
7. Farella, M., Taibi, D., Arrigo, M., Todaro, G., Fulantelli, G., Chiazzese, G.: An
augmented reality mobile learning experience based on treasure hunt serious game.
In: ECEL 2021 20th European Conference on e-Learning. pp. 148 – 154. Academic
Conferences International limited (2021)
8. Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., Sarsa, H.: Does gamification work?–a literature review of
empirical studies on gamification. In: 2014 47th Hawaii international conferenceon system sciences. pp. 3025–3034. Ieee (2014)
9. Hein, G.E.: Learning in the Museum. routledge (2002)
10. Keil, J., Pujol, L., Roussou, M., Engelke, T., Schmitt, M., Bockholt, U., Eleftheratou, S.: A digital look at physical museum exhibits: Designing personalized
stories with handheld augmented reality in museums. In: 2013 Digital Heritage
International Congress (DigitalHeritage). vol. 2, pp. 685–688. IEEE (2013)
11. Kohen-Vacs, D., Ronen, M., Cohen, S.: Mobile treasure hunt games for outdoor
learning. Bulletin of the IEEE Technical Committee on Learning Technology 14(4),24–26 (2012)
12. Ng, K.H., Huang, H., O’malley, C.: Treasure codes: augmenting learning from physical museum exhibits through treasure hunting. Personal and ubiquitous computing
22, 739–750 (2018)13. Paris, S.G.: Perspectives on object-centered learning in museums. Routledge (2002)
14. Pujol, L., Roussou, M., Poulou, S., Balet, O., Vayanou, M., Ioannidis, Y.: Personalizing interactive digital storytelling in archaeological museums: the chess project.
In: 40th annual conference of computer applications and quantitative methods inarchaeology. Amsterdam University Press. pp. 93–100 (2012)
15. Raptis, D., Tselios, N., Avouris, N.: Context-based design of mobile applications formuseums: a survey of existing practices. In: Proceedings of the 7th international
conference on Human computer interaction with mobile devices & services. pp.
153–160 (2005)
16. Rubino, I., Barberis, C., Xhembulla, J., Malnati, G.: Integrating a location-based
mobile game in the museum visit: Evaluating visitors’ behaviour and learning.
Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage (JOCCH) 8(3), 1–18 (2015)17. Shoji, Y., Aihara, K., Kando, N., Nakashima, Y., Ohshima, H., Takidaira,S., Ueta, M., Yamamoto, T., Yamamoto, Y.: Museum experience into a souvenir: Generating memorable postcards from guide device behavior log. In: 2021

16

J. Yu et al.

ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL). pp. 120–129 (2021).
https://doi.org/10.1109/JCDL52503.2021.00024
18. Ueta, M., Hashiguchi, T., Pham, H.L., Shoji, Y., Kando, N., Yamamoto, Y., Yamamoto, T., Ohshima, H.: Quiz generation on the electronic guide application forimproving learning experience in the museum. In: BIRDS+ WEPIR@ CHIIR. pp.
96–104 (2021)
19. Wang, Y., Stash, N., Sambeek, R., Schuurmans, Y., Aroyo, L., Schreiber, G.,
Gorgels, P.: Cultivating personalized museum tours online and on-site. Interdisciplinary science reviews 34(2-3), 139–153 (2009)
20. Yatani, K., Onuma, M., Sugimoto, M., Kusunoki, F.: Musex: A system for supporting children’s collaborative learning in a museum with pdas. Systems andComputers in Japan 35(14), 54–63 (2004)
21. Yenawine, P.: Visual thinking strategies: Using art to deepen learning across school
disciplines. Harvard Education Press (2013)