VIRTUAL REALITY 1
IMMERSION & PRESENCE 5
MEASURING PRESENCE 8
PRESENCE QUESTIONNAIRES 9
EVALUATIONS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRES 11
Presence Questionnaire (PQ) (1998) 11
Igroup Presence Questionnaire (IPQ) (2001) 11
Itc Sense Of Presence Inventory (ITC-SOPI) (2001) 12
MEC – Spatial Presence Questionnaire (MEC-SPQ) (2004) 13
The Temple Presence Inventory (TPI) (2009) 13
USER EXPERIMENTS 16
Analyzing ITC-SOPI Questionnaire 16
Analysing MEC-SPQ Questionnaire 17
Analyzing TPI 19
Virtual reality (VR), is a known concept since 1950’s. By the introduction of an head mounted display (HMD) which translates users experience in virtual environment. Despite of its first impression and technological inadequacy, development of the VR has inspired people who are concerned. By the enthusiasm of the early head mounted display, the development of the more advanced VR devices never lost the interest even nowadays. Technological advancement of the 21st century leads a hype in VR field. Based on the effort on this field, Oculus VR presented the accessible and affordable modern HMD in 2012 as a kickstarter campaign. Hereby, Oculus is a product ever could successfully promoted in consumer market. Also, Oculus is dedicated as a milestone of modern HMD’s.
Even though, mentioned virtual reality advancements was on process, VR as a term was always in focus of academic studies. As a matter of course, studies on VR argues two main familiar concepts as presence and immersion. The most basic definition of presence could be explained by telepresence. Also, telepresence is a psychological state which can be defined as a sense of being somewhere artificial. Detailed definition of this term is placed in the third section of this study. As the other referred concept immersion is also a psychological state which a consequence of becoming aware of an environment that provides continuous flow of stimuli and experiences (Witmer & Singer, 1998). Despite of the relationship of these terms this study focuses on presence term instead. While the purpose is measuring the sense of presence there are two accepted methods which are referred as subjective and objective. Questionnaires are mostly beneficial for subjective method. Also, subjective method is accepted because of the reason that presence is a psychological state and questionnaires should be more reliable. Due to the human factor, the modern HMD’s are presented to experiments and by the aid of questionnaires presence is aimed to be measured. Mainly, with this study HMD users experience three different VR environments by examination purpose. These environments are 360° video record, computer generated 3D animations and interactive gameplay.
The purpose of this study is to gather significant data to evaluate presence state between three different VR environments by usage of Oculus HMD and the chosen questionnaires. In addition, suitability of these questionnaires are testified by the aspect of modern VR environments.
Virtual reality as a term first coined by Jaron Lanier in 1987 during his intense research on virtual reality and similar technologies (Virtual Reality Society, 2018). But the history of this medium and term goes earlier than 1987. As Berkman (2018) suggest that, the earlier example of VR(virtual reality) can be taken back to 1793, as painter Robert Barker painted rotunda for the Leicester square palace with panoramic approach. The building designed exactly for creating a view for paintings on the inner facade of the building to support immersive feeling while navigating in the palace.
Later, Stereoscopes followed. Stereoscopes basically devices that let the user see two different drawings through lenses or mirror system to create false 3D imagery. The cinematic experiences called Cinèoramas appeared later in the 1900’s. 360° motion film pictures projected all around the walls of circular space where all the audience sit in the center of the place and see the film projected walls. These primitive methods can be given as an example of very early version of virtual reality (Berkman, 2018). Twentieth century was the decade of motion pictures. More immersive cinema systems have been testified and developed as well. First 3D film Power of Love screened in 1992. It was achieved by using anaglyph technique to create 3D imagery. Filmmakers were seeking for more immersive technics. Wide screens were one of that alternatives, Fred Waller developed eleven projector system called vitarama in 1939. For military training, during world war II era. But all these trials wasn’t succeed for creating more immersive experiences (Berkman, 2018)
However, Morton Heilig has designed a device called Stereoscopic Television Apparatus in 1960. Basically, the device was television with lenses that can fit on head. It had no tracking system or 3D visuals. But the HMD(Head Mounted Display) was equipped with headphones and air nozzles that can ventilate air to users face with variable temperatures. After Heilig learn things from Telesphere Mask, he focused on more Advanced system. Sensorama was video arcade like machine that patented in 1962. Sensorama was very immersive besides its fixed display, but it could create 3D visuals. Heilig has released five films for sensorama. One was motorcycle ride through New York city where users can feel the smell or feel the wind during the experience. Thus, users could feel vibrations, immersive audio and movement.
Figure 2.1: Sensorama
In 1967, engineers of Philco corporation has developed a first HMD know as Headsight, ever had head tracking feature. User could control the camera that exist in another room by the head movements. System was tracking the users head and moving camera by the direction of users’ sight. (Jerald, 2015). As Berkman (2018) suggests, For the head tracking capabilities of this HMD can be taken as milestone in virtual reality history.
In 1967, a helicopter manufacturing company has run tests. A pilot was wearing tracking HMD to control an infrared camera attached to a helicopter. Camera was tracking pilots head movement both augmenting his night vision and providing a level of immersion sufficient for the pilot to equate his field of vision with the images from the camera. (Fabri et al., 2008)
Following all these developments on the field, Ivan Sutherland demonstrated first HMD which was calling Sword of Damocles with computer generated graphics and head tracking feature. (Jerald, 2015) The name, sword of damocles was coming from its mechanical head tracking system. It was bulky and uncomfortable to use. Images were wire-frames instead of solid shapes and they were basic due to the needs of computational power for generating the images (Berkman, 2018).
Figure 2.2: Sword of Democles
However, the problem of the early adaptations of the VR technology was narrow field of view (FOV) of the head mounted displays. Gibson (1986) claims that, human field of view is about 200° horizontally, 135° vertically. Most of the early versions of HMD’s are giving 40° to 60° FOV. According to Alfano and Michel (1990), limited field of view can alter the perception and may cause to more disturbing experience by the result of misperceptions.
In 1985, NASA Ames researchers and Scott Fisher, developed the first commercially viable, stereoscopic head-tracked HMD with a wide field of view, called the Virtual Visual Environment Display (VIVED) which later evolved into VIEW (Virtual Visual Environment Display) (Jerald, 2015). The headset presented by wide-angle monochromatic lenses with 120° Field of view for each eye of the user. For stereoscopic view binocular parallax cues were used. With user activity, position and orientation data updated to create parallax effect.VIEW was also telepresence device with head and hand tracking device. (Fisher et al., 1987)
Figure 2.3: NASA VIEW System
Besides VR’s technological aspect, there are many modern definitions can be found in literature for virtual reality, but Jerald (2015) defines virtual reality as digital environment that generated by computer and can be experienced and interacted with it as its real. However, Steuer (1992) claims that technology driven explanation is not acceptable. For him, virtual reality can be explained as a real or simulated environment where user can experience as its real (Steuer, 1992).
Brooks (1999), defined virtual reality as an experience which user adequately immersed in an interactive virtual environment. According to Fitzgerald and Riva (2001), “the basis for the VR idea is that a computer can synthesize a three-dimensional (3D) graphical environment from numerical data. Using visual and auditory output devices, the human operator can experience the environment as if it were part of the world. This computer generated world may be either a model of a real world object, such as a house; or an abstract world that doesn’t exist in a real sense but is understood by humans, such as a chemical molecule or a
representation of a set of data; or it might be in a completely imaginary science fiction world” Burdea & Coiffet (2003), defines virtual reality as a simulation which create realistic world by computer hardware while the whole environment is interactive.
Since virtual reality ever mentioned, Researchers highly interested in virtual reality as a new research field (Loomis, 1992). Presence and immersion is one of the main topics for virtual reality’s research area. Since then, researchers are testifying the virtual reality environment field for gathering data about measuring these two concepts.
IMMERSION & PRESENCE
Presence and Immersion is the essential factors for virtual reality research field. These concepts are psychological phenomenons that explains how to virtual reality mechanics working in users mind.
According to Witmer & Singer (1998), immersion is a psychological state that encircle the user with interactive environment that provides continuous stream of stimuli and experiences.
According to Pimentel & Texeiria (1993), VR achieves immersion feeling with the help of stimulating sound, sight and touch perceptions, for creating immersive virtual reality experience user’s perception for real world should be blocked. Furthermore, isolating the user from physical environment and perception of self-inclusion are the agents that affects the immersion (Witmer & Singer, 1998).
Immersion in virtual reality requires responsive displays for the user, there should be correlation with users body movements with virtual reality environment (Slater, Linakis, Usoh, & Kooper, 1996). Therefore, VR needs body tracking or at least head tracking to create immersion. For example; VR system should respond users movement accordingly (Slater, Linakis, Usoh, & Kooper, 1996). Slater et al. (1996) believes, highly immersive experience could achieved by the generation of representation of human body in virtual environment. Therefore, Slater et al. (1997) believes immersion as a statement is more related with the technology and capability of the display systems.
According to Witmer & Singer (1998), virtual reality that can cause greater sense of immersion can produce more presence. As Slater et al. (1994) states; “Immersion can lead to presence” Therefore, immersion is the part of presence as well as presence is (Slater et al., 1997).
Presence as a scholarly concept first ever mentioned by André Bazin in his book called What is cinema?(1967) in “the concept of Presence” section. André Bazin defines the term with “time and space”. For the Bazin, experience has its own range for the senses. Later he argues, screen itself is not capable of passing the presence feeling to the audience. (Bazin, 1967).
But the best known definition telepresence is defined by the Minsky (1980) while explaining teleoperation experience;”Telepresence emphasizes the importance of high?quality sensory feedback and suggests future instruments that will feel and work so much like our own hands that we won’t notice any significant difference.” Minsky believes that telepresence is able to reduce the danger of risky works and environments and work more efficiently.
Telepresence concept later generalized by the Lombard and Ditton (1997) they created most known six conceptualized models for the presence definition which are Presence as social richness, Presence as realism, Presence as transportation, Presence as immersion, Presence as social actor within medium and Presence as medium as social actor. For further explanation, most familiar conceptualizations is going to be explained but for further reading, please see Lombard and Ditton (1997)’s study.
Presence as Realism: The second conceptualization of Lombard and Ditton (1997) study. This entry is related with accuracy of realistic representation of projected environment, with the help of sound and other environmental factors.
Presence as transportation: This conceptualization is explained under three factors which are related to being in somewhere feeling which can be most related with virtual reality environments. This factor can be explained with the feeling of taking user into another environment. In a virtual environment leading to make them feel that they are in another space while their body is into another. This can be explained with the transportation of presence as virtual reality does.
Presence as immersion: This conceptualization is based on the idea of perceptual and psychological immersion. (Lombard and Ditton, 1997) This explanation is also quite familiar with virtual reality environments. Immersiveness is explained as the key element by extending the users sense’s on well projected instruments in the virtual environment. Presence as immersion also includes psychological component. How user engaged and involved plays key role of this psychological side of presence as immersion.
Later on, presence-1 listserv board members during the spring of 2000 decided to develop comprehensive presence concept with the intellection of keeping it with contemporary definitions. (International Society for Presence Research, 2000) They mentioned the presence concept with many explanations but, the explanation statement begins with overview of the concept:
Presence (a shortened version of the term “telepresence”) is a psychological state or subjective perception in which even though part or all of an individual’s current experience is generated by and/or filtered through human-made technology, part or all of the individual’s perception fails to accurately acknowledge the role of the technology in the experience. Except in the most extreme cases, the individual can indicate correctly that s/he is using the technology, but at *some level* and to *some degree*, her/his perceptions overlook that knowledge and objects, events, entities, and environments are perceived as if the technology was not involved in the experience. Experience is defined as a person’s observation of and/or interaction with objects, entities, and/or events in her/his environment; perception, the result of perceiving, is defined as a meaningful interpretation of experience.
According to Witmer ; Singer (1998) focus is playing important part presence in virtual environments, by the help of involvement. Involvement depends on users focus. As users focus on duty they will involve more into virtual environment and focus on the task more. This will increase level on presence in VE. Fontainne (1992) suggests that, attention eliminates the distractions and let users gain more focus on subject. Therefore, more focus will increase the presence effect. However, involvement level may depends on user’s characteristics, devices and the virtual environment. If health of the user is affected somehow or the device that leads the virtual environment, such as head-mounted display(HMD), screen etc. is poor or not comfortably reflecting the experience, the involvement will be decreased. (Witmer & Singer, 1998)
Heim(1998) explains attentions of a user in Virtual Reality concept with three “I” factors which are interactivity, immersion and information intensity. Immersion is about, isolating user from real world transporting them to another space. Interaction is explained by Heim, Interacting with virtual objects can alter the physical position and perspective of the user. Lastly, Heim claims, information intensity is a notion that virtual environments can offer special experiences such as telepresence and artificial entities.
Steuer (1992) claims that, presence has two determinants which are vividness and interactivity. Firstly vividness, refers to the ability of a producing a rich mediated environment. Steuer is also mentioned depth is important fact for the vividness. It is connected with the quality of a medium as well. Secondly interactivity, refers how the environment interaction and the content can affect medium and the users. As well as vividness, interactivity is also determined by the technological advancements of a medium. Steuer (1992) mentions that, three factors can be explained to determine interactivity as well. Which are speed, range and mapping.
According to Heeter (1992), for VR environments presence can be defined by three components. Personal presence, Social Presence and Environmental presence. Sense of personal presence is about gaining real world experience in Virtual Environment achieved by head-mounted displays(HMD) and supportive devices. When these devices are isolating user from sensory information of real environment sense of personal presence increases. Social presence as Heeter (1992) explains, is about users interaction with multi person agents in virtual environment. This can achieve by real users or computer controlled artificial intelligence (AI) units. Environmental presence is explained by Heeter (1992) with the sense of user’s actions to achieve creating an effect on virtual environment objects. More interchangeable environment creates more sense of presence.
Virtual Reality creates virtual environments which can establish users into intractable space or immersive environments. In this way, presence forged by the human brain with interaction of the virtual reality environment. These stimuli can gather from both virtual and physical environment. Riva, ; IJsselsteijn (2003) defines presence as a psychological process that depends on perceptual-motor abilities and experience of the user. Presence has connection with feeling, situation awareness or workload. Therefore, every virtual environment can generate different emotions and feelings to the user by the content as its projected in the virtual environment. As well as this feeling can be affected by the users social background.
According to Sheridan (1992), presence is a subjective impression therefore, developing an objective psychological result is not easily to achieve. However, Witmer ; Singer (1998) claims that Virtual Environment can affect the strength of the presence experience based on its characteristics and differences. VE may boost up or disengage the presence itself.
Presence measures can be categorized by the ways how we gather the data. Besides, there can be other methods for categorization. Such as the way we analyze the data. However, methods can be classified as Subjective measures and Objective measures (Lombard, Ditton, ; Weinstein, 2009). Though, we can not assume there is a strict distinction between subjective and objective methods. However, both classification is focused on different methodology (van Baren and Ijsselsteijn 2004).
We can assume all the questionnaires are subjective methods (van Baren and Ijsselsteijn 2004). With the usage of subjective methods participants describe their experiences. People suppose to aware of presence feeling all the time and the feeling of presence common for most people. If right conditions can be created, nearly all people can express their feeling of presence verbally. However, people can interpret things differently, they have tended to express their feeling in different ways than another.
Post-test Rating Scales/Questionnaires are commonly known as pen and paper questionnaires. They have been widely used for evaluating the presence. Questionnaires are usually very useful because users express their presence experience which can be used later for statistical comparisons. However, up to date objective measures are only useful for some contexts. (Lombard, Ditton, ; Weinstein, 2009) But also, Lombart et al.(2009) claims that, presence questionnaires capable of comparison for particular media contexts as well. This section will contain information about five questionnaires due to their multidimensional structure.
Presence Questionnaire (PQ) (Witmer ; Singer, 1998)
The study is one of the widely used and first of the multi-item questionnaire to measure presence. PQ is designed to measure people’s perception how different factors may have an effect on sense of presence. According to Witmer & Singer, involvement and immersion are playing very important role for experiencing presence. They have suggested factors as control, sensory, distraction and realism for determining the state of presence.
PQ has is tested in four experiments by Witmer & Singer (1998) with three subscales over 32 questions about: presence as realism and presence as immersion. For the authors PQ found reliable due to its positive results of the correlation with other measures such as Immersive Tendencies Questionnaire(ITQ). According to Witmer & Singer (1998) PQ is viable for measuring the presence in virtual environments.
Igroup Presence Questionnaire (IPQ) (Schubert et al., 2001)
IPQ is another high reliable questionnaire based on embodied cognition framework (e.g., Glenberg 1997) with combination of several existing presence questionnaires. (Slater, Usoh, & Steed, 1994; Witmer & Singer, 1994; Hendrix, 1994; Carlin, Hoffman, & Weghorst, 1997) New questions have been developed as well. According to Schubert et al. (2001), presence has two factors: sense of being located in VE, and the sense of being so attached to a virtual world. This questionnaire is targeting three concepts of presence: Spatial presence, immersion, and realism.
IPQ is highly reliable with 14 questions of it. The analytic structure supports the validity of the questionnaire. Ancillary factor analysis gave additional support for it. This questionnaire created to measure sense of presence in virtual environments for the user.
ITC Sense of Presence Inventory (ITC-SOPI) (Lessiter et al., 2001)
Lessiter et al. (2001) aimed to develop these questionnaires to be able to apply on broad range of media environments for measuring state of presence of users. ITC-SOPI focused on four factors which are Sense of physical space, Engagement, Ecological validity and Negative effects.
Sense of physical space is related with the quality of the VE but also can be affected by high interactivity such as games; engagement is highly related with users involvement to the VE and ability to have fun from the content; ecological validity is related to realism of the content, how natural the experience is; and negative effects are related to showing adverse psychological or physical reactions after exposed (Lessiter et al., 2001).
According to study the reliability of the scales was quite high (Lessiter et al., 2001) Many correlational studies can be found as evidence of the validity of the scale (e.g. Brogni et al., 2006; Gorini et al., 2011; Lin, Maejima, & Morishima, 2008; IJsselsteijn et al., 2004).
MEC – Spatial Presence Questionnaire (MEC-SPQ) (Vorderer et al., 2004)
MEC-SPQ is developed by Two-Level Model of Spatial Presence by the help of MEC framework. The questionnaire is related with process factors which are Attention Allocation, Spatial Situation Model, Spatial Presence: Self Location, Spatial Presence: Possible Actions (Vorderer et al., 2004) There are also two factors referring to states and actions (Higher Cognitive Involvement, Suspension of Disbelief) and three factors that addressing enduring personality factors (i.e. the trait-like constructs Domain Specific Interest, Visual Spatial Imagery, and Absorption).
MEC-SPQ has total 103 items each with 4, 6, 8 item scale. Consistency of the questionnaire is high. (Vorderer et al., 2004) Some empirical studies(e.g. Tussyadiah, Wang, & Jia, 2017; Gysbers et al., 2004) provide reliability on some of the MEC-SPQ scales.
The Temple Presence Inventory (TPI) (Lombard et al., 2009)
TPI has developed by Lombard et al. with 42 questionnaires which are selected from presence theory and research. According to Lombard et al. (2009), TPI questionnaires is 8 factor structured scale and it gives a chance to the researchers to use selective dimensions of the questionnaire such as realism, spatial, engagement aspects. As Lombard et al. (2009) says “TPI shows sensitivity to more immersive virtual environments and interactive media systems.”
Lombard et al. (2009) also claims that TPI is correlating with subscales of other presence questionnaires such as SUS, PQ IPQ MEC-SPQ and ITC-SOPI as well. Therefore, Lombard et al. (2009) demonstrates reliability of the scale in his paper.
EVALUATIONS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRES
In this section, five questionnaires will be considered to evaluate with the aspect of similar virtual reality environments. These five questionnaires explained basically in the section 1.1.1. These questionnaires have been used because of their multidimensional aspect.
Because of the short history of presence measurements and when the date they have been developed is considered, published evidence is quite low for the validity of the measurements on similar virtual reality environments. In addition, virtual reality technologies used in this researches has changed massively by the development of technology. Therefore, significant differences may occur about different experiences.
Overall, presence is subjective, mental phenomenon, and it is possible to measure it by questionnaires. Following questionnaire evaluations can be applied to measure for different but similar virtual reality environments by their multidimensional aspect.
Presence Questionnaire (PQ) (1998)
Three version of this questionnaire exist. Therefore viability of the scale can be trustable. Bob G Witmer & Singer (1998), used basic virtual environments but some tasks were hard to complete. They used Virtual Research Flight Helmet for the research to reflect virtual environment (VE). Witmer et al. (1996) used the FAKESPACEBOOM2C as display and controller. Besides Witmer & Bailey were using joystick to control. Experiments were designed to learning performance of the users in virtual environment rather than presence.
Witmer & Singer (1998), conducted tests with 152 students with 32 questions (Appendix A) which are directly about involvement in virtual environment due to its necessity for presence (Witmer & Singer, 1998). Since, current VR devices and control devices are so developed, can provide higher resolution and better tracking. The perception of the Virtual Environment can achieve higher perception and may lead to significant higher results on presence.
Presence questionnaire can be used with modern VR devices. However, results may vary by the virtual environment that have been selected since the Witmer & Singer (1998)’s questions are designed to reflect presence.
Igroup Presence Questionnaire (IPQ) (2001)
Schubert et al., (2001) run the research with users who had been experiencing all forms of virtual reality devices to achieve virtual environments. They asked to remember last VE experiences of the users and answer the questions according to their experiment (Schubert et al., 2001). They advertise the scale on a computer game journal’s webpage.
Schubert et al., (2001) run the tests with 246 participants, some were tested in their own laboratory as well. They claim that 90% of the participant were male and 10% were female. Participants mainly used monitor, while 19 was able to use HMD (Schubert et al., 2001).
Figure 3.1. Factor Analysis Study 1. Factors, Numbers of Items, and Explained Variance (Schubert et al., 2001)
Source: Schubert et al., 2001
According to Figure 3.1. Questionnaire is more about spatial presence and involvement. The questionnaire is the combination of previous presence questionnaires (Carlin et al,. 1997; Hendrix, 1994; Slater, 2004; Towel & Towel, 1997; Witmer & Singer, 1998) Questions also been added (Regenbrecht et al., 1998). This items can be applied to newer virtual environment with recent HMD’s. Results may be affected by recent HMD’s. Since questionnaires are looking for involvement and spatial presence, recent technological devices like Oculus Rift, HTC Vive Pro, etc. may have significant effect on the results.
Itc Sense Of Presence Inventory (ITC-SOPI) (2001)
ITC-SOPI held conducted with 604 people with sixty three questionnaire items with mediated environment ( Lessiter et al., 2001). Participants exposed to the content in two sessions. First, participants watched short videos on different size of screens, and later participants played racing game with Platform for Immersive Television (PiT)(Lessiter et al., 2001). ITC-SOPI, had wide range of media content but also non interactive experiences widely used in the samples (Lassiter et al., 2001).
ITC-SOPI focuses on media experiences (Lassiter et al., 2001) Thus, it gives wider perspective on presence term due to its multi-dimensional structure. However, it’s not focussed on virtual reality devices. ITC-SOPI provides wide range of presence items.
ITC-SOPI can be used for virtual reality environments to measure presence due to its item distribution structure. ITC-SOPI uses 19 items for Sense of Physical Space; 13 items for Engagement; 5 items for Ecological Validity; and 6 items for Negative Effects (Lassiter et al., 2001)
MEC – Spatial Presence Questionnaire (MEC-SPQ) (2004)
MEC-SPQ was developed for measuring spatial presence in virtual environment, film, text, etc. mediums. Again, items are answering wider aspect due to its multi dimensional structure.
103 items asked to 290 subjects and held in three different location. Half of the subjects distracted for several times while the experience flows for secondary task (Vorderer et al., 2004).
Tests running at Helsinki used VR experience which was about navigating a museum that was inspired by the Musée d’Orsy in Paris (Vorderer et al., 2004). Since, MEC-SPQ is not only developed for one specific environment. Most items are eligible to use for virtual reality environments. Unlike other questionnaires MEC-SPQ more likely focussed on medium. Therefore, we can say MEC-SPQ focussed on spatial presence.(Vorderer et al., 2004). MEC-SPQ can be the very promising questionnaire for measuring presence for virtual reality environments.
The Temple Presence Inventory (TPI) (2009)
TPI conducted on 307 subjects let them watch 3D – IMAX film with surround sound. After users exposed, 42 item questionnaire asked them to answer. TPI determine it self measuring multiple dimensions of physical presence as well as social presence (Lombard & Ditton, 2009). TPI is multi dimensional by its 8 factor structure.
TPI is not tested with virtual reality environments in original study. However questionnaire items can meets the expectations to measure presence in virtual reality environments. According to Lombard & Ditton, (2009) “TPI shows sensitivity to more immersive virtual environments and interactive media systems”.
Since TPI most recent questionnaire to measure presence. TPI can be used with virtual reality headsets and virtual reality environments. Thus, there may be significant results while measuring presence with virtual reality environments.
In this thesis, users are going to be asked to watch or play three different virtual reality content. 16 participants are planning to be used within subject study. Oculus Rift and the touch controllers are going to be asked to use during interactive section of the experiment.
First content is 360° video with 8K resolution, Great Hammerhead Shark Encounter produced by Blackdot films for National Geographic. In this video National Geographic scuba cameramans are filming great hammerhead sharks in their natural environment, Bahamas. After 30 seconds video started, very close first encounter with shark happens to the camera. Whole experience goes very close with other sharks as well as full lenght of the video, which is 2 minutes 14 seconds long. 360° video has text directions for the user to keep them focused on subject and the experience.
Figure 4.1: Great Hammerhead Shark Encounter 360 video
Second content is a part from VR series of a deep ocean creatures which is called theBlu: Episode 1: Whale Encounter directed by Jake Rowell as a part of wevr. The experience is similar as 360° video but all the contents are computer generated 3D models. The debut episode whale encounter, featuring an incredible close encounter with an 24 meters long whale, user stands on a shipwreck in ocean, fishes are swimming around, Fifty seconds later big blue whale encounters very close to the camera. This experience has depth sense due to its 3D generated models. However, it is not interactive with environment. Not like 360 video, this content using spatial audio to direct users for the encounter. The producer of the theBlu explains this experience: “theBlu: Whale Encounter transports you into the ocean where you get to have a close encounter with the largest creature on the planet. It truly reveals the power of the VR as a medium. Some of the inspiration comes a personal experience I had in Turks and Caicos where I was swimming and got to look straight in the eye of a humpback whale. There is something very moving about having a close encounter with a wild creature” (Spiteri, n.d.)
Figure 4.2: theBlu: Whale Encounter
Last content is going to be asked for the participants is Ocean Rift. Ocean Rift, a game released by Picselica Ltd in September of 2017 with twelve available underwater locations with sea animal encounters. Ocean Rift puts user into vast variety of ocean environments that are generously proportioned for the users exploration. Players can choose these in any order by the range from dolphins to huge prehistoric dinosaurs. In this research, dolphin bay and great white shark is going to be asked to play by the participants. Ocean Rift unlike other experiments mentioned above, is giving chance to the user to navigate in ocean freely and interact with animals.
In this thesis, the experiment is going to be run within subject design. Each participant is going to be assigned with the contents that mentioned above in a random order. After each session presence questionnaires will be given to the participants to answer. Later, participants will be asked to have rest for preventing residual effects. After gathering the data, results are going to be compared within each participants by each experience, results later will be averaged over all participants.
Figure 4.3: Ocean Rift
This field will be filled after experiments able to run.
Analyzing ITC-SOPI Questionnaire
Twenty ITC-SOPI questionnaires are going to be asked to the participants as mentioned above.
Items are gathered from Lessiter et al., (2001).
1. I was aware of the real world.
2. I wanted to see more of the space in the displayed environment than I was able to
3. I found it easy to forget that I was watching a display I had the best viewpoints.
4. The temperature of the real world distracted me
5. I was distracted by the quality of the technology
6. I wanted to make specific sounds louder or softer
7. I felt I knew what was going to happen next.
8. I had a sense of being in the scenes displayed.
9. I felt I was visiting the places in the displayed environment.
10. I felt that the characters and/or objects could almost touch me.
11. I felt involved (in the displayed environment).
12. I enjoyed myself.
13. My experience was intense.
14. The content seemed believable to me.
15. The displayed environment seemed natural.
16. I had a strong sense that the characters and objects were solid.
17. I felt dizzy.
18. I felt nauseous.
19. I felt I had a headache
20. I had eyestrain
Detailed analysis of the this questionnaire will be detailed after the user experiments.
Analysing MEC-SPQ Questionnaire
6 item scale 48 items of this questionnaire will be asked to participants and the questions can be found above.
General remarks for the questionnaire:
The placeholder medium has to be replaced by the appropriate type of medium: e.g., text//film/website/virtual environment
For all items, a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (‘I do not agree at all’) to 5 (‘ I
fully agree’) was used
Items for “suspension of disbelief” marked with (R) have been reverse scored
Item-remainder coefficients, alpha if item deleted and item homogeneity coefficients correspond to the scales’ 8-item versions. (Biocca et al., 2004)
I devoted my whole attention to the medium.
I concentrated on the medium.
My attention was claimed by the medium.
The medium captured my senses.
I dedicated myself completely to the medium.
My perception focused on the medium almost automatically.
I was able to imagine the arrangement of the spaces presented in the medium very well.
I had a precise idea of the spatial surroundings presented in the medium.
I was able to make a good estimate of the size of the presented space.
I was able to make a good estimate of how far apart things were from each other.
Even now, I still have a concrete mental image of the spatial environment.
Even now, I could still find my way around the spatial environment in the presentation.
I felt like I was a part of the environment in the presentation.
I felt like I was actually there in the environment of the presentation.
I felt like the objects in the presentation surrounded me.
It was as though my true location had shifted into the environment in the presentation.
I felt as though I was physically present in the environment of the presentation.
It seemed as though I actually took part in the action of the presentation.
I had the impression that I could act in the environment of the presentation.
I had the impression that I could be active in the environment of the presentation.
I felt like I could move around among the objects in the presentation.
The objects in the presentation gave me the feeling that I could do things with them.
It seemed to me that I could have some effect on things in the presentation, as I do in real life.
It seemed to me that I could do whatever I wanted in the environment of the presentation
I thought most about things having to do with the medium.
I thought intensely about the meaning of the medium presentation.
I thoroughly considered what the things in the presentation had to do with one another.
The medium presentation activated my thinking.
I thought about whether the medium presentation could be of use to me.
I thought about just how much I know about the things in the presentation.
(R) I concentrated on whether there were any inconsistencies in the medium.
I didn’t really pay attention to the existence of errors or inconsistencies in the medium.
(R) I directed my attention to possible errors or contradictions in the medium.
(R) I took a critical viewpoint of the medium presentation.
(R) It was important for me to check whether inconsistencies were present in the medium.
It was not important for me whether themedium contained errors or contradictions
I am generally interested in the topic of the medium.
The medium corresponded very well with what I normally prefer.
I have felt a strong affinity to the theme of the medium for a long time.
There was already a fondness in me for the topic of the medium before I was exposed to it.
Things like the ones in the medium have often attracted my attention in the past.
I just love to think about the topic of themedium.
When someone shows me a blueprint, I am able to imagine the space easily.
It’s easy for me to negotiate a space in my mind without actually being there.
When I read a text, I can usually easily imagine the arrangement of the objects described.
When someone gives me directions to a place, I can picture the route as though I were watching a film.
When someone describes a space to me, it’s usually very easy for me to imagine it clearly.
When a picture shows only part of a space, I can clearly imagine the rest of the space.
Detailed analysis of the this questionnaire will be detailed after the user experiments.
21 questions will be asked to participants. Questions can be seen above
Contains items culled from a comprehensive literature review of presence theory and research
Has been developed and validated using traditional psychological measurement procedures
Is appropriate for use with most media and media content
Measures diverse presence dimensions including several types of social presence
How much did it seem as if the objects and people you saw/heard had come to the place you were?
How much did it seem as if you could reach out and touch the objects or people you saw/heard?
How often when an object seemed to be headed toward you did you want to move to get out of its way?
To what extent did you experience a sense of being there inside the environment you saw/heard?
To what extent did it seem that sounds came from specific different locations?
How often did you want to or try to touch something you saw/heard?
Did the experience seem more like looking at the events/people on a movie screen or more like looking at the events/people through a window?
To what extent did you feel mentally immersed in the experience?
How involving was the experience?
How completely were your senses engaged?
To what extent did you experience a sensation of reality?
How relaxing or exciting was the experience?
How engaging was the story?
The events I saw/heard would occur in the real world
The events I saw/heard could occur in the real world
The way in which the events I saw/heard occurred is a lot like the way they occur in the real world
Overall how much did touching the things and people in the environment you saw/heard feel like it would if you had experienced them directly?
How much did the heat or coolness (temperature) of the environment you saw/heard feel like it would if you had experienced it directly?
Overall, how much did the things and people in the environment you saw/heard smell like they would had you experienced them directly?
Overall, how much did the things and people in the environment you saw/heard look they would if you had experience them directly
Overall, how much did the things and people in the environment you saw/heard sound like they would if you had experienced them directly?
Detailed analysis of the this questionnaire will be detailed after the completion of user experiments.
Bazin, A. (1967). What is Cinema?, Volume 1. https://doi.org/9780520242272
Berkman, M. I. (2018). History of Virtual Reality, 1–9.
Brogni, A., Vinayagamoorthy, V., Steed, A., & Slater, M. (2006). Variations in physiological responses of participants during different stages of an immersive virtual environment experiment. Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology – VRST ’06, 376. https://doi.org/10.1145/1180495.1180572
Brooks, F. P. (1999). What’s Real About Virtual Reality? Proceedings IEEE Virtual Reality (Cat. No. 99CB36316), (December), 2–3. https://doi.org/10.1109/VR.1999.756916
Carlin, A. S., Hoffman, H. G., & Weghorst, S. (1997). Virtual reality and tactile augmentation in the treatment of spider phobia: a case report. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 35(2), 153–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(96)00085-X
Fabri, D., Falsetti, C., Iezzi, A., Ramazzotti, S., Viola, S. R., & Leo, T. (2008). Virtual and Augmented Reality. In H. H. Adelsberger, Kinshuk, J. M. Pawlowski, & D. G. Sampson (Eds.), Handbook on Information Technologies for Education and Training (pp. 113–132). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74155-8_7
Fisher, S. S., McGreevy, M., Humphries, J., & Robinett, W. (1987). Virtual environment display system. Proceedings of the 1986 Workshop on Interactive 3D Graphics – SI3D ’86, 77–87. https://doi.org/10.1145/319120.319127
Fitzgerald, M., ; Riva, G. (2001). Virtual reality. In Beolchi, L. (Ed.). Telemedicine Glossary. European Commission-DG INFSO.
Fontaine, G. (1992). The Experience of a Sense of Presence in Intercultural and International Encounters. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 1(4), 482–490. https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.1918.104.22.1682
Gibson, J. J. (1986). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 39(2), 332. https://doi.org/10.2307/989638
Gorini, A., Capideville, C. S., De Leo, G., Mantovani, F., ; Riva, G. (2011). The Role of Immersion and Narrative in Mediated Presence: The Virtual Hospital Experience. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(3), 99–105. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2010.0100
Gysbers, A., Klimmt, C., ; Hartmann, T. (2004). Exploring the book problem: Text design, mental representations of space, and spatial presence in readers. … Workshop: Presence, (April 2014), 13–19. Retrieved from http://www.temple.edu/ispr/prev_conferences/proceedings/2004/Gysbers, Klimmt, Hartmann, Nosper, Vorderer.pdf
Heeter, C. (1992). Being There: The Subjective Experience of Presence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 1(2), 262–271. https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.1922.214.171.1242
Heim, M. (1998). Virtual Realism. Oxford University Press, New York, 5(3-4) 175-195. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Hendrix, C. M. (1994). Exploratory Studies on the Sense of Presence in Virtual Environments as a Function of Visual and Auditory Display Parameters. University of Washington.
IJsselsteijn, W., de Kort, Y., Westerink, J., de Jager, M., ; Bonants, R. (2004). Fun and Sports: Enhancing the Home Fitness Experience. In Extended SemanticWeb Conference (pp. 46–56). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-28643-1_8
Ijsselsteijn, W., ; Riva, G. (2003). Being There?: The experience of presence in mediated environments. Being There: Concepts, Effects and Measurement of User Presence in Synthetic Environments, (May 2014), 14. https://doi.org/citeulike-article-id:4444927
International Society for Presence Research. (2000). The Concept of Presence: Explication Statement. Retrieved from https://ispr.info/about-presence-2/about-presence/
Jennett, C., Cox, A. L., Cairns, P., Dhoparee, S., Epps, A., Tijs, T., ; Walton, A. (2008). Measuring and defining the experience of immersion in games. International Journal of Human Computer Studies. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2008.04.004
Jerald, J. (2015). The VR book?: human-centered design for virtual reality. https://doi.org/10.1145/2792790
Lessiter, 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. https://doi.org/10.1162/105474601300343612
Lin, T., Maejima, A., ; Morishima, S. (2008). Using subjective and physiological measures to evaluate audience-participating movie experience. Proceedings of the Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces – AVI ’08, 49. https://doi.org/10.1145/1385569.1385580
Lombard, M., & Ditton, T. (1997). At the Heart of It All: The Concept of Presence. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(2), 0–0. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.tb00072.x
Lombard, M., Ditton, T. B., & Weinstein, L. (2009). Measuring Presence: The Temple Presence Inventory. Proceeding of Presence 2009?: The 12th International Workshop on Presence, 1–14. Retrieved from http://www.temple.edu/ispr/prev_conferences/proceedings/2009/Lombard_et_al.pdf
Loomis, J. M. (1992). Distal Attribution and Presence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments – Premier Issue, 1(1), 113–119. https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.19126.96.36.199
Minsky, M. (1980, June). TELEPRESENCE. OMNI Magazine, 45–51.
Pimentel, K., & Teixeira, K. (1993). Virtual reality: through the new looking glass. In Virtual reality: through the new looking glass (p. 105).
Regenbrecht, H. T., Schubert, T. W., & Friedmann, F. (1998). Measuring the Sense of Presence and its Relations to Fear of Heights in Virtual Environments. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 10(3), 233–249. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327590ijhc1003_2
Schubert, T., Friedmann, F., & Regenbrecht, H. (2001). The Experience of Presence: Factor Analytic Insights. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 10(3), 266–281. https://doi.org/10.1162/105474601300343603
Sheridan, T. B. (1992). Musings on Telepresence and Virtual Presence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 1(1), 120–126. https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.19188.8.131.52
Slater, M., Linakis, V., Usoh, M., & Kooper, R. (1996). Immersion, presence, and performance in virtual environments: an experiment with tri-dimensional chess. Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology (VRST 1996), Hong Kong, China, (JUNE), 163–172. https://doi.org/10.1.1.34.6594
Slater, M., Usoh, M., & Steed, A. (1994). Depth of Presence in Virtual Environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 3(2), 130–144. https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.19184.108.40.206
Slater, M., & Wilbur, S. (1997). A Framework for Immersive Virtual Environments (FIVE): Speculations on the Role of Presence in Virtual Environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 6(6), 603–616. https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.19220.127.116.113
Spiteri, N. (n.d.). theBlu: Whale Encounter. Retrieved from https://www.transportvr.com/theblu-series
Steuer, J. (1992). Defining Virtual Reality: Dimensions Determining Telepresence. Journal of Communication, 42(4), 73–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1992.tb00812.x
Towell, J., & Towell, E. (1997). Presence in text-based networked virtual environments or”MUDS”. … -Teleoperators and Virtual …, 6(5), 590–595. Retrieved from http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?um=1&ie=UTF-8&lr=&q=related:tUF8Ymwkk703uM:scholar.google.com/#19
Tussyadiah, I. P., Wang, D., & Jia, C. (2017). Virtual Reality and Attitudes Toward Tourism Destinations. In Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2017 (pp. 229–239). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51168-9_17
van Baren, J., & IJsselsteijn, W. (2004). Deliverable 5 Measuring Presence?: A Guide to Current Measurement Approaches. Measurement, 0, 1–86. Retrieved from http://www.mendeley.com/research/measuring-presence-guide-current-measurement-approaches/
Virtual Reality Society. (2018). Who Coined the Term “Virtual Reality”? Retrieved from https://www.vrs.org.uk/virtual-reality/who-coined-the-term.html
Vorderer, P., Wirth, W., Gouveia, F. R., Biocca, F., Saari, T., Jäncke, L., … Jäncke, P. (2004). MEC Spatial Presence Questionnaire (MEC-SPQ) Short Documentation and Instructions for Application. Report to the European Community, Project Presence: MEC. Retrieved from http://www.ijk.hmt-hannover.de/presence
Witmer, B. G., & Singer, M. J. (1994). Measuring Presence in Virtual Environments. ARI Technical Report. Alexandria, VA: U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences., 7(October), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1162/105474698565686
Witmer, B. G., & Singer, M. J. (1998). Measuring Presence in Virtual Environments: A Presence Questionnaire. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 7(3), 225–240. https://doi.org/10.1162/105474698565686