Presence and Immersion in Virtual Reality

Berkman, Mehmet İlker; Akan, Ecehan

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-08234-9_162-1

Cited by 49 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These studies and their predecessors (see Buttussi & Chittaro, 2018 for a detailed review) mainly focus on performance measures with a little bit of interest in user experience. On the other hand, there is a long tradition of comparing 2D screens to 3D immersive technologies in studies that aim to measure presence (Berkman & Akan, 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of VR and Desktop Game User Experience in a Puzzle Game: “Keep Talking and Nobody Explodes”

Berkman¹,

Çatak²,

Eremektar³

2020

AJIT-e

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the contemporary game production process is based on the Integrated Development Environment (IDE) applications, it is easier for developers to create multiple versions of their game for both VR and desktop platforms. This provided a great opportunity for researchers to conduct comparative studies to explore the user experience of the relatively novel virtual reality applications In this study, we evaluated a puzzle game through a within-subjects experiment design using objective measures of game success and gameplay duration, as well as plenty of subjective measures in order to assess game user experience, comparing desktop and VR. In addition to selected dimensions of GUESS (Game User Experience Satisfaction Scale), we employed MEC-SPQ (Measurement Effects Conditions - Spatial Presence Questionnaire) to measure presence. Furthermore, we employed NASA-TLX (NASA Task Load Index) to compare the perceived task complexity of the same task executed in VR and desktop gaming environments. Results revealed that there is not a significant difference in objective measures of player performance, comparing the VR and desktop gameplay. The Game User Experience Satisfaction Scale did not reveal any significant difference between the mean scores of VR and desktop experiences. The spatial presence related dimensions of MEC-SPQ revealed significantly higher scores of VR, for Possible Actions and Self Location dimensions. NASA-TLX weighted scores were significantly higher for VR in physical load and for desktop in frustration. Our results show that a puzzle-based game experienced in VR does not lead to a higher level of satisfaction in terms of game user experience but triggers a sense of spatial presence. Due to the different control schemes, players perceive that HMD based gameplay demands more physical task load. However, the gameplay duration and game success rate are not significantly different. The failure in desktop gameplay might have led to higher frustration, since the experience seems more familiar to players. Since the results are partially concordant with previous studies, it is not possible to make a strict conclusion on the effect caused by different immersive technologies on game user experience. Further studies are required through a more consistent methodology with a focus on game design components rather than game genre.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of VR and Desktop Game User Experience in a Puzzle Game: “Keep Talking and Nobody Explodes”

Berkman¹,

Çatak²,

Eremektar³

2020

AJIT-e

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the implicit assumption of these examples seems to be that IE is only to do with INV, and PP is purely a sensory phenomenon. The importance of considering both perceptual (sensory) and cognitive (narrative) aspects in the conceptualisation and evaluation of IE has been pointed out in previous studies [7], [8], [26]. Based on the current model, the dance music example is a case of an IE with a high level of INV and a low level of PP.…”

Section: Presence and Involvement As The Main Attributes Of Iementioning

confidence: 90%

A Conceptual Model of Immersive Experience in Extended Reality

Lee

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The term immersion or immersive is popularly used when describing and evaluating technologies in the area of extended reality (i.e., virtual/augmented/mixed reality). Much research been conducted on immersion over the last few decades. However, there is still a lack of consistency in how the term is defined in the literature. Presence and involvement are other prominent concepts studied in the field of extended reality. However, there is currently no consensus on their relationship with immersion among researchers. This paper first discusses different dimensions of immersion as well as those of presence and involvement, aiming to resolve potential confusion around the terms and synthesise a relationship among them. From this, a new conceptual model of immersive experience for future studies in extended reality is proposed. The model defines physical presence, social/self presence and involvement as the main high-level attributes that collectively lead to an immersive experience. Each pair of the three attributes shares a common lower-level attribute of sensory, narrative or task/motor engagement, which is an initial step towards the higher-level experience. Plausibility, interactivity and interestingness are defined as the main properties of immersive system and content, each of which is biased by a subjective factor: internal reference, skills/knowledge and personal preference, respectively.

show abstract

“…‘Immersion’ here stands for the objective level of sensory fidelity provided by a VR system [ 15 ] which is a direct measure of simulation fidelity. ‘Presence’ describes the subjective psychological response of a user experiencing a VR system as ‘being in the virtual world’ (see [ 7 , 21 ] for further discussion of these terms). For successful transfer of training from virtual into real environments, it therefore seems essential that the cues presented during the training in VR are representative of those encountered in reality.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transfer of training—Virtual reality training with augmented multisensory cues improves user experience during training and task performance in the real world

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Virtual reality (VR) can create safe, cost-effective, and engaging learning environments. It is commonly assumed that improvements in simulation fidelity lead to better learning outcomes. Some aspects of real environments, for example vestibular or haptic cues, are difficult to recreate in VR, but VR offers a wealth of opportunities to provide additional sensory cues in arbitrary modalities that provide task relevant information. The aim of this study was to investigate whether these cues improve user experience and learning outcomes, and, specifically, whether learning using augmented sensory cues translates into performance improvements in real environments. Participants were randomly allocated into three matched groups: Group 1 (control) was asked to perform a real tyre change only. The remaining two groups were trained in VR before performance was evaluated on the same, real tyre change task. Group 2 was trained using a conventional VR system, while Group 3 was trained in VR with augmented, task relevant, multisensory cues. Objective performance, time to completion and error number, subjective ratings of presence, perceived workload, and discomfort were recorded. The results show that both VR training paradigms improved performance for the real task. Providing additional, task-relevant cues during VR training resulted in higher objective performance during the real task. We propose a novel method to quantify the relative performance gains between training paradigms that estimates the relative gain in terms of training time. Systematic differences in subjective ratings that show comparable workload ratings, higher presence ratings and lower discomfort ratings, mirroring objective performance measures, were also observed. These findings further support the use of augmented multisensory cues in VR environments as an efficient method to enhance performance, user experience and, critically, the transfer of training from virtual to real environment scenarios.

show abstract

Presence and Immersion in Virtual Reality

Cited by 49 publications

References 53 publications

Comparison of VR and Desktop Game User Experience in a Puzzle Game: “Keep Talking and Nobody Explodes”

Comparison of VR and Desktop Game User Experience in a Puzzle Game: “Keep Talking and Nobody Explodes”

A Conceptual Model of Immersive Experience in Extended Reality

Transfer of training—Virtual reality training with augmented multisensory cues improves user experience during training and task performance in the real world

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About