fA few years ago, just before the first Covid lockdown, I wrote an article exploring a rather niche query. Most gamers press down on the controller, gazing at the characters on their screens as they look up. However, controlling avatars like pilots represents a significant minority who handle their characters as if they were piloting, returning to control the plane and ascend. In many modern games, this necessitates diving into settings to adjust the default controls. Why has this practice persisted?

I figured some hardcore gamers might find this topic intriguing. To my surprise, the article resonated with over a million readers, drawing the attention of Dr. Jennifer Corbett (cited in the original piece) and Dr. Jap Munneke.

At that time, the two were investigating vision science and cognitive neuroscience, but the lockdown meant they could no longer conduct lab experiments with volunteers. The issue of controller inversion presented an ideal chance to analyze the neuroscience behind human-computer interactions using remote participants. They reached out to gamers who contributed insights into the motivations behind their controller preferences, garnering hundreds of responses.

Interestingly, it wasn’t just gamers who were engaged. “Machinists, equipment operators, pilots, designers, and surgeons — individuals from diverse fields reached out,” Corbett noted. “The variety of responses signaled a wealth of scientific literature to examine for structuring optimal research. The feedback from readers prompted us to refine how users customize their controllers.”

This month, the duo released their findings in a paper titled “Why Axis Inversion? Optimizing the Interaction Between Users, Interfaces and Visual Displays in a 3D Environment.” Why do some people choose to invert their controls? It’s a complex issue.

The study commenced with participants completing a survey detailing their background and gaming experiences. “Numerous individuals indicated that their preference for flipping controls stemmed from their early experiences with flight simulators or the first console games they played,” Corbett explained. “Many reported changing their preferences over time, prompting us to include an entirely new section in our research based on this input.”

However, Corbett and Munneke, currently based at MIT, were convinced that critical cognitive aspects of inversion could only be assessed through behavioral reactions. They developed a sequence of four experiments, in which participants were monitored via Zoom. Corbett elaborated, “They had to mentally rotate random shapes, adopt the perspective of the ‘avatar’ in the scenario, judge the tilt of an object against a differing background, and navigate the typical ‘Simon effect’ when responding to targets while using a machine. These varied tasks clarified whether an individual tends to invert.”

The outcomes of the cognitive evaluations revealed that many assumptions surrounding controller preferences were indeed incorrect. “There was no discernible reason provided by participants [for inverting controls],” Corbett stated. “It was linked to their actual inversion habits. The quicker participants were, the less inclined they were to invert. Conversely, those who identified as occasional invertors were significantly slower in these tasks.” Does this imply that non-inverters excel at gaming?

In essence, gamers believe they are inverters or non-inverters based on their initial exposure to game controls. Many flight simulators from the 1980s may have conditioned players to instinctively turn themselves around. Conversely, gamers raised in the 2000s might assume they are inherently non-inverted, given that non-reverse controls became the norm. Yet cognitive testing suggests otherwise. Depending on how your brain perceives 3D objects, you may be predisposed to either invert or not.

Consequently, Corbett suggests that trying out a controller configuration you’re not accustomed to might enhance your gaming skills. “Non-inverters should experiment with inverting. Inverters should consider giving non-inversion a fair shot,” she suggests. “You might want to commit to it for a few hours. People have learned one way, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they can’t excel with the alternative. A parallel can be drawn with left-handed children who are compelled to write with their right hand, potentially leading to long-term handwriting difficulties and learning challenges.”

Through their research, Corbett and Munneke established that complex, often subconscious cognitive processes govern how individuals utilize controllers, affecting not just gaming hardware but also human-computer interfaces across various fields, from aviation to surgical technology. They crafted a framework for assessing how to optimally tailor controls for individuals, now detailed in their published research.

“This research has significant potential for optimizing inverted settings to enhance human-machine collaboration,” Corbett stated. “Many technologies blend human capabilities with AI and various machines to amplify performance. It allows individuals to tailor a specific configuration for tasks—whether aiming for a target or avoiding a mistake—such as in laparoscopic surgery.”

What began as a casual, almost nerdy inquiry has evolved into a published cognitive research document. One scientific publication has already referenced it, and interview requests have surged from podcasts and YouTube channels. What’s my takeaway? “The most remarkable discoveries for gamers [who don’t invert],” Corbett remarked: