I walk, therefore I am: a multidimensional study on the influence of the locomotion method upon presence in virtual reality

[EN] A defining virtual reality (VR) metric is the sense of presence, a complex, multidimensional psychophysical construct that represents how intense is the sensation of actually being there, inside the virtual environment (VE), forgetting how technology mediates the experience. Our paper explores how locomotion influences presence, studying two different ways of artificial movement along the VE: walking-in-place (through head bobbing detection) and indirect walking (through touchpad). To evaluate that influence, a narrative-neutral maze was created, from where 41 participants (N=41) had to escape. Measuring presence is a controversial topic since there is not a single, objective measure but a wide range of metrics depending on the different theoretical basis. For this reason, we have used for the first time, representative metrics from all three traditional dimensions of presence: subjective presence (SP) (self-reported through questionnaires), behavioral presence (BP) (obtained from unconscious reactions while inside the VE), and physiological presence (PP) [usually measured using heart rate or electrodermal activity (EDA)]. SP was measured with the ITC-SOPI questionnaire, BP by collecting the participants' reactions, and PP by using a bracelet that registered EDA. The results show two main findings: (i) There is no correlation between the different presence metrics. This opens the door to a simpler way of measuring presence in an objective, reliable way. (ii) There is no significant difference between the two locomotion techniques for any of the three metrics, which shows that the authenticity of VR does not rely on how you move within the VE.Soler-Domínguez, JL.; Juan-Ripoll, CD.; Contero, M.; Alcañiz Raya, ML. (2020). I walk, therefore I am: a multidimensional study on the influence of the locomotion method upon presence in virtual reality. Journal of Computational Design and Engineering. 7(5):577-590. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcde/qwaa040S57759075Baños, R. M., Botella, C., Garcia-Palacios, A., Villa, H., Perpiña, C., & Alcañiz, M. (2000). Presence and Reality Judgment in Virtual Environments: A Unitary Construct? CyberPsychology & Behavior, 3(3), 327-335. doi:10.1089/10949310050078760Biocca, F. (1992). Will Simulation Sickness Slow Down the Diffusion of Virtual Environment Technology? Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 1(3), 334-343. doi:10.1162/pres.1992.1.3.334Biocca, F., Harms, C., & Burgoon, J. K. (2003). Toward a More Robust Theory and Measure of Social Presence: Review and Suggested Criteria. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 12(5), 456-480. doi:10.1162/105474603322761270Boletsis, C. (2017). The New Era of Virtual Reality Locomotion: A Systematic Literature Review of Techniques and a Proposed Typology. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 1(4), 24. doi:10.3390/mti1040024Boletsis, C., & Cedergren, J. E. (2019). VR Locomotion in the New Era of Virtual Reality: An Empirical Comparison of Prevalent Techniques. Advances in Human-Computer Interaction, 2019, 1-15. doi:10.1155/2019/7420781Bowman, D. A., Koller, D., & Hodges, L. F. (1998). A methodology for the evaluation of travel techniques for immersive virtual environments. Virtual Reality, 3(2), 120-131. doi:10.1007/bf01417673Bozgeyikli, E., Raij, A., Katkoori, S., & Dubey, R. (2016). Point & Teleport Locomotion Technique for Virtual Reality. Proceedings of the 2016 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play. doi:10.1145/2967934.2968105Bozgeyikli, E., Raij, A., Katkoori, S., & Dubey, R. (2019). Locomotion in virtual reality for room scale tracked areas. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 122, 38-49. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2018.08.002BRESLOW, N. (1970). A generalized Kruskal-Wallis test for comparing K samples subject to unequal patterns of censorship. Biometrika, 57(3), 579-594. doi:10.1093/biomet/57.3.579Chertoff, D. B., Goldiez, B., & LaViola, J. J. (2010). Virtual Experience Test: A virtual environment evaluation questionnaire. 2010 IEEE Virtual Reality Conference (VR). doi:10.1109/vr.2010.5444804Cohen, J. (1992). Statistical Power Analysis. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1(3), 98-101. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.ep10768783Critchley, H. D. (2002). Review: Electrodermal Responses: What Happens in the Brain. The Neuroscientist, 8(2), 132-142. doi:10.1177/107385840200800209Hale, K. S., & Stanney, K. M. (Eds.). (2014). Handbook of Virtual Environments. doi:10.1201/b17360Larsson, P., Västfjäll, D., & Kleiner, M. (2001). The Actor-Observer Effect in Virtual Reality Presentations. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 4(2), 239-246. doi:10.1089/109493101300117929Lee, K. M. (2004). Presence, Explicated. Communication Theory, 14(1), 27-50. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2004.tb00302.xLessiter, J., Freeman, J., Keogh, E., & Davidoff, J. (2001). A Cross-Media Presence Questionnaire: The ITC-Sense of Presence Inventory. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 10(3), 282-297. doi:10.1162/105474601300343612Lilliefors, H. W. (1967). On the Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test for Normality with Mean and Variance Unknown. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 62(318), 399-402. doi:10.1080/01621459.1967.10482916Mantovani, G., & Riva, G. (1999). «Real» Presence: How Different Ontologies Generate Different Criteria for Presence, Telepresence, and Virtual Presence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 8(5), 540-550. doi:10.1162/105474699566459Meehan, M., Razzaque, S., Insko, B., Whitton, M., & Brooks, F. P. (2005). Review of Four Studies on the Use of Physiological Reaction as a Measure of Presence in StressfulVirtual Environments. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 30(3), 239-258. doi:10.1007/s10484-005-6381-3Peck, T. C., Fuchs, H., & Whitton, M. C. (2011). An evaluation of navigational ability comparing Redirected Free Exploration with Distractors to Walking-in-Place and joystick locomotio interfaces. 2011 IEEE Virtual Reality Conference. doi:10.1109/vr.2011.5759437Riva, G., Wiederhold, B. K., & Mantovani, F. (2019). Neuroscience of Virtual Reality: From Virtual Exposure to Embodied Medicine. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 22(1), 82-96. doi:10.1089/cyber.2017.29099.griSanchez-Vives, M. V., & Slater, M. (2005). From presence to consciousness through virtual reality. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 6(4), 332-339. doi:10.1038/nrn1651Sano, A., Picard, R. W., & Stickgold, R. (2014). Quantitative analysis of wrist electrodermal activity during sleep. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 94(3), 382-389. doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2014.09.011Schloerb, D. W. (1995). A Quantitative Measure of Telepresence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 4(1), 64-80. doi:10.1162/pres.1995.4.1.64Schubert, T., Friedmann, F., & Regenbrecht, H. (2001). The Experience of Presence: Factor Analytic Insights. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 10(3), 266-281. doi:10.1162/105474601300343603Schuemie, M. J., van der Straaten, P., Krijn, M., & van der Mast, C. A. P. G. (2001). Research on Presence in Virtual Reality: A Survey. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 4(2), 183-201. doi:10.1089/109493101300117884Sheridan, T. B. (1992). Musings on Telepresence and Virtual Presence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 1(1), 120-126. doi:10.1162/pres.1992.1.1.120Sheridan, T. B. (1996). Further Musings on the Psychophysics of Presence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 5(2), 241-246. doi:10.1162/pres.1996.5.2.241Slater, M. (2004). How Colorful Was Your Day? Why Questionnaires Cannot Assess Presence in Virtual Environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 13(4), 484-493. doi:10.1162/1054746041944849Slater, M., & Steed, A. (2000). A Virtual Presence Counter. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 9(5), 413-434. doi:10.1162/105474600566925Slater, M., & Usoh, M. (1993). Representations Systems, Perceptual Position, and Presence in Immersive Virtual Environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 2(3), 221-233. doi:10.1162/pres.1993.2.3.221SLATER, M., USOH, M., & STEED, A. (1994). STEPS AND LADDERS IN VIRTUAL REALITY. Virtual Reality Software and Technology. doi:10.1142/9789814350938_0005Slater, M., Steed, A., & Usoh, M. (1995). The Virtual Treadmill: A Naturalistic Metaphor for Navigation in Immersive Virtual Environments. Virtual Environments ’95, 135-148. doi:10.1007/978-3-7091-9433-1_12Slater, M., Usoh, M., & Steed, A. (1995). Taking steps. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 2(3), 201-219. doi:10.1145/210079.210084Slater, M., McCarthy, J., & Maringelli, F. (1998). The Influence of Body Movement on Subjective Presence in Virtual Environments. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 40(3), 469-477. doi:10.1518/001872098779591368So, R. H. Y., Lo, W. T., & Ho, A. T. K. (2001). Effects of Navigation Speed on Motion Sickness Caused by an Immersive Virtual Environment. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 43(3), 452-461. doi:10.1518/001872001775898223Steuer, J. (1992). Defining Virtual Reality: Dimensions Determining Telepresence. Journal of Communication, 42(4), 73-93. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1992.tb00812.xSullivan, G. M., & Feinn, R. (2012). Using Effect Size—or Why the P Value Is Not Enough. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 4(3), 279-282. doi:10.4300/jgme-d-12-00156.1Takatalo, J., Nyman, G., & Laaksonen, L. (2008). Components of human experience in virtual environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(1), 1-15. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2006.11.003Usoh, M., Catena, E., Arman, S., & Slater, M. (2000). Using Presence Questionnaires in Reality. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 9(5), 497-503. doi:10.1162/105474600566989Welch, R. B., Blackmon, T. T., Liu, A., Mellers, B. A., & Stark, L. W. (1996). The Effects of Pictorial Realism, Delay of Visual Feedback, and Observer Interactivity on the Subjective Sense of Presence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 5(3), 263-273. doi:10.1162/pres.1996.5.3.263Witmer, B. G., Jerome, C. J., & Singer, M. J. (2005). The Factor Structure of the Presence Questionnaire. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 14(3), 298-312. doi:10.1162/105474605323384654Zanbaka, C., Babu, S., Xiao, D., Ulinski, A., Hodges, L. F., & Lok, B. (s. f.). Effects of travel technique on cognition in virtual environments. IEEE Virtual Reality 2004. doi:10.1109/vr.2004.131006

Teaming at a Distance: The Work Experience on Global Virtual Teams

Global Virtual Teams (GVTs) enable organizations to become more flexible, and to adapt and react to turbulent, complex and dynamic environments. These teams span boundaries such as space, time, and geography, working collaboratively to achieve a shared purpose. Due to their reliance on technology for communication, knowledge sharing, and project management, structural and nonstructural components of their design must exist to enable these teams to exist and flourish at the edge of innovation. The human experience of working in virtual teams remains insufficiently observed, yet crucial to their sustainability. This dissertation study employed an exploratory sequential mixed methods design to provide insights into the experience of working as a member or leader on a GVT. In phase one, a theoretical framework was developed to identify themes and sub-themes that emerged from 21 interviews with GVT practitioners from seven nations and multiple time zones across many sectors. The data revealed that experiences of working on a GVT are best expressed by four major themes: team design (both structural and nonstructural) components, cross-cultural communication, human dynamics, and technology. One meta-theme emerged, adaptability, which is well supported by the chosen guiding theoretical framework, adaptive structuration theory (AST), as well as extant research. The results of phase one informed development of a survey instrument; a pilot test of this instrument showed promise for future validation of a scale that accurately depicts the experiences of working on a GVT. The current findings support practical applications toward better understanding team functioning, essential human needs, and best practices for team awareness and functioning. This dissertation is available in open access at AURA: Antioch University Repository and Archive, http://aura.antioch.edu/and OhioLINK ETD Center, https://etd.ohiolink.edu/

THE METAVERSE: A VIRTUAL WORLD IN THE PALM OF YOUR HAND

This paper explores the actual and future impact of the Metaverse as a virtual space. Thus, it focuses the probe on the technical challenges that face this everlasting emerging technology. Today, the Metaverse presents a digital environment to build collective architecture and historical heritage in a virtual space. In this digital world, the modeling and design methodology is based on individual archetypes that can puzzle new elements. Currently, traditional methods require change and adaptation in both the education and work market, especially due to the remote-work integration in the last few years. For example, many components are required to build a Virtual Reality (VR) laboratory or a VR museum. Virtual environments present us with novel opportunities to bring together the real world with a virtual extension or duplication. This technology will remove physical boundaries and design constraints and consequently will open a gate to a metaphysical world. Imagine a world with limitless space where gravity doesn’t exist, and water can float upward. There is no limit for art and architecture but even this magic has its limitation related to computer technology. Therefore, this paper surveys the state-of-the-art computational technologies and the ecosystems of the Metaverse. The paper covers the fields of Computer Vision, Human-Computer Interaction, Artificial Intelligence, Robotics, Internet of Things (IoT), Cloud Computing, and future mobile networks. In application, the Metaverse will allow users to have a fantastic experience being part of worldwide entertainment and socio-economic network

Virtual reality: Theoretical basis, practical applications

Virtual reality (VR) is a powerful multimedia visualization technique offering a range of mechanisms by which many new experiences can be made available. This paper deals with the basic nature of VR, the technologies needed to create it, and its potential, especially for helping disabled people. It also offers an overview of some examples of existing VR systems

A conceptual architecture for interactive educational multimedia

Learning is more than knowledge acquisition; it often involves the active participation of the learner in a variety of knowledge- and skills-based learning and training activities. Interactive multimedia technology can support the variety of interaction channels and languages required to facilitate interactive learning and teaching. A conceptual architecture for interactive educational multimedia can support the development of such multimedia systems. Such an architecture needs to embed multimedia technology into a coherent educational context. A framework based on an integrated interaction model is needed to capture learning and training activities in an online setting from an educational perspective, to describe them in the human-computer context, and to integrate them with mechanisms and principles of multimedia interaction

Toward a Semiotic Framework for Using Technology in Mathematics Education: The Case of Learning 3D Geometry

This paper proposes and examines a semiotic framework to inform the use of technology in mathematics education. Semiotics asserts that all cognition is irreducibly triadic, of the nature of a sign, fallible, and thoroughly immersed in a continuing process of interpretation (Halton, 1992). Mathematical meaning-making or meaningful knowledge construction is a continuing process of interpretation within multiple semiotic resources including typological, topological, and social-actional resources. Based on this semiotic framework, an application named VRMath has been developed to facilitate the learning of 3D geometry. VRMath utilises innovative virtual reality (VR) technology and integrates many semiotic resources to form a virtual reality learning environment (VRLE) as well as a mathematical microworld (Edwards, 1995) for learning 3D geometry. The semiotic framework and VRMath are both now being evaluated and will be re-examined continuously