Presence and Immersion
Ruth Aylett
Overview
!
Concepts
Presence
Immersion
Engagement
social presence
Measuring presence
Experiments
Presence
!
!
A psychological state
The sensation of being
physically present in
the scene
Rather than in actual
location
Aspects:
Attention
Physical or emotional
reactions to events in the
space.
Memories of events in the
space.
Can be produced by
books..
Immersion
!
!
A physical state
Being isolated from the outside
world
in a computer-generated
space.
cut off from real-world stimuli
Provide computer-generated
stimuli to one or more of the
human senses.
Degree of control of sensory
channels
How far captures attention
Visual Auditory Olfactory Haptic Taste
Rate of Engagement
!
Immersion develops slowly when watching a film
the storyline may need some understanding before senses
focus on the film not the cinema
Presence may influence immersion via degree of attention
A very fast rate of immersion can be achieved when
a camera is on the front of a roller coaster
The viewer experiences a plunging effect as the ride dips
Activates the reflexive system
Big changes in sensory input
High degree of control by system
Rate of Immersion
!
Visual cues improving immersion a
powerful way to gain a sense of
presence in a VE
The quicker the immersion, the more a
person feels engrossed
Extended immersion time leads to
adaption and a sense of complete
presence
Factors Inhibiting Presence
!
The sensation of presence can break down
when
the user is tired
the weight of an HMD becomes uncomfortable or
heavy for the user
other intrusive equipment: trailing cables etc
unnatural movement or lags during the experience
sudden expectation fails
Engagement
!
The state of caring more about the VR world
than just it being a VR world
The tasks become important
Forgetting it s a simulation
An affective state
Enhanced by:
Strong sense of presence
Well-designed tasks
e.g. intuitive navigation
Autonomous characters"
Co-presence
!
Feeling present with others in the
virtual environment
You and they share the same location
Ability to make common references to the
virtual world
it s behind you ; over there
Social presence
!
!
Not the same as co-presence
Feeling that others in the environment are
real people
Their opinion counts
You have a reputation to uphold
You have a history with them
Does not depend on physical presence
Has been documented in text-only multi-user
environments such as chat rooms
Open Questions
!
Is there a definition of presence that is
sufficiently operational and quantitative
to be useful?
What are the factors that create a
sense of presence?
Are there subjective and objective
measures that can quantify presence?
11
Open Questions
!
(cont.)
Are there tasks for which a sense of
presence actually improves operator
performance?
Are there applications for which
presence is a necessary ingredient?
If so, how are these applications different
from applications for which a more
traditional display system is just as
effective?
12
Achieving a strong sense of
presence
!
In general:
Transparency of technology
Sensory fidelity
Good graphics especially depth cues
Seeing parts of your own body
High resolution and large field of view
Familiarity of the VE or scene
Binaural sound
Dynamic aspects
!
Good interaction
Amount: what can be changed
Quality: whole body, unencumbered
Responsiveness
Absence of lags
Maintaining convincing stereo vision and
hearing as user moves
Achieving a strong sense of
presence
Seeing parts of your own body
Seeing computer generated parts of your
own body tends to lower the feeling of
presence
Seeing actual parts of your own body tends
to produce a strong feeling of presence
Achieving a strong sense of
presence
High resolution and large field of view
Presence is reduced:
If the edge of the image is visible
If the field of view is restricted
Ideally the user should be able to move
their eyes to see objects just outside the
region of peripheral vision
Engagement of peripheral vision has strong
sensory consequences
Achieving a strong sense of
presence
Familiarity of the VE or scene
If the VE is one that relates to a real world
then the time taken to adapt to it appears to
be shorter
However, a users own experience may
impede presence because of artefacts in the
VE
Measuring Presence
Requires understanding of:
the way a human interacts with the real
world
the adaptation that takes place when
things change in the real or external
environment
[Ellis, 1991]
Our knowledge is constantly being updated
by behavioural plasticity of visual-motor
coordination and vestibular reflexes
Thus, a large part of our sense of physical
reality is a consequence of internal
processing rather than being something
that is developed only from the immediate
sensory information we receive
[Sheridan, 1992]
Presence is a subjective manifestation, much
like mental workload and mental model - it is
a mental manifestation, not so amenable to
objective physiological definition and
measurement
Presence is a subjective sensation and as
such any subjective measures are likely to be
multidimensional
The aim..
!
Ideally we would like a set of
repeatable objective measures for
presence that indicate the degree of
presence created by a particular system
How to measure Presence?
!
!
!
Subjective measures
Psychophysical measures
Objective measures
22
Subjective measures
To what extent did you experience a sense of being really there
inside the virtual environment?
A little
1
2
A lot
7
How realistic was your interaction with the virtual objects?
A little
1
2
A lot
7
23
Widely Used Subjective Presence
Measures
!
Steed, Usoh, Slater (SUS) Presence Questionnaire (M.
Usoh, E. Catena, S. Arman, M. Slater, Using Presence
Questionnaires in Reality. Presence, 2000, 9(5),
497-503).
Witmer and Singer (WS) Presence Questionnaire (B.G.
Witmer, M.J. Singer, Measuring Presence in Virtual
environments: A Presence Questionnaire, Presence,
1998, 7(3), 225-240),
Has been shown to be less effective in assessing the sense of
Presence in virtual environments as opposed to a real world
experiences, see:
http://www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/m.slater/Papers/questionnairepaper.pdf
24
Psychophysical measures
!
Generally, psychophysical techniques
are used to relate the physical
magnitude of a stimulus with the
observer s subjective rating of the
stimulus magnitude.
Example: R = f(S) where R is 1-7
feeling of being present and S is a
screen resolution or lag time.
25
Objective measures
!
!
Physiological measures
Performance measures
26
Physiological measures
Just as humans experience changes in
physiological parameters in response to
novel or unusual stimuli in the real
world, given sufficiently realistic stimuli in
a virtual environment, the human should
experience similar physiological changes.
Cardiovascular, Respiratory,
Nervous, Sensory,
Blood Chemistry
27
Performance measures
!
!
Behavior
Suspension of belief
Ducking
Socially conditioned reactions
28
The cliff experiment
!
Subjects put into a virtual room
Large hole or pit in the floor
Asked to move their virtual
representation around the room
Very reluctant to walk over the pit
Zeltzers AIP Cube
!
One solution for characterising VEs was
proposed by Zeltzer
Assumes any VE has 3 components
A set of models/objects or processes
A means of modifying the states of these
models
A range of sensory modalities to allow the
user to experience the VE
Zeltzers Autonomy, Presence, and
Interaction Cube
(1,0,1)
virtual reality
(1,1,1)
(1,0,0)
(1,1,0)
autonomy
(0,0,1)
(0,1,1)
presence
(0,0,0)
interaction
(0,1,0)
We would not be able to distinguish between the
virtual environment and the real world
Zeltzers AIP Cube
!
Autonomy
A qualitative measure of a virtual objects ability to
react to events and stimuli
For no reaction, autonomy = 0
For fully comprehensive reaction, autonomy = 1
This scaling between 0 and 1 is purely qualitative
Zeltzers AIP Cube
!
Interaction
The degree of access to the parameters or variables of an
object
For no real time control of variables, interaction = 0
For real time control of variables, interaction = 1
Whilst modern VE systems are capable of a high degree
of interaction, the complexity of an application may
inhibit or prevent interaction
Zeltzers AIP Cube
!
Presence
A crude measure of the fidelity of the
sensory input and output channels
It is affected by the application of the VE
Zeltzers AIP Cube
!
The point (0,0,0) represents very early
graphics systems
programmed in non-real-time batch mode
no interactivity
Diagonally opposite, at (1,1,1) is ideal virtual
reality
maximum autonomy, interaction and presence
so good that you wouldnt realise it wasnt real
Zeltzers AIP Cube
!
The point (0,1,0) can sometimes be achieved
today
user can control all the variables of some objects
in real time
The point (0,1,1) represents experiencing a
high degree of interactivity and presence
Some environments support regions close to this
many VEs lack autonomy, though this is changing
with the increasing use of physically based models
and autonomous agents
Zeltzers AIP Cube
!
The point (1,0,1) represents a high degree of
presence and autonomy
a VE where the viewer is a passive observer but is
fully immersed
may be able to modify the viewpoint, but no
objects should respond to a change in the
viewpoint
an IMAX film with stereo glasses & sound could
possibly be considered here
Determinants of Presence
Sheridan and Kalawsky proposed a total of 4
determinants of presence
Extent of sensory information
Ability of the viewer to change their viewpoint (for
visual parallax or visual field)
Ability to modify the spatial relationships of objects in a
VE
Closed loop performance due to a user induced motor
movement (also includes the natural dynamic behaviour
of moveable objects in the VE)
Determinants of Presence
There is a temptation to concentrate on
stimulating the senses
rich 3D photo realistic display
rich 3D soundscape
tactile & force feedback
but matching hardware interfaces to
human sensory system is difficult, so
we need to consider trade-offs
The sculpture experiment
!
Constructing 3d rod-based sculptures
The aim
!
Is it quicker/easier:
From a workstation screen
From a 3D VR representation
Experiment 1 (1999)
Physical example v Graphics display v HMD
HMD and graphics display equal
Low resolution of HMD
Eyestrain and nausea
One subject fainted
Experiment 2
!
Various setups in a CAVE
Stereo v mono with shutter glasses
Small-scale v immersive sculpture
Tracking v joystick navigation
Results
!
Life-size better than super-scale
Super-scale produced longer times
And more errors
Head-tracking better than joystick use
Joystick 20-40% longer
Phobias and Presence
!
Specific phobias
fear of heights, flying, bridges, post-traumatic
stress
presence
Social phobias
requires
extreme shyness, fear of public speaking, stage
fright, social anxiety, post-traumatic stress
requires
co-presence
Fear of Public Speaking Study
Mel Slater, UCL
FOPS an interpersonal phobia
part of the general class social phobia
Social phobia
A persistent fear of one or more situations..... in
which the person is exposed to possible scrutiny
by others and fears that he or she may do
something or act in a way that will be humiliating
or embarrassing.
American Psychiatric Association manual DSM-IV
Co-Presence Requirement
!
To elicit social phobic response
VE must maintain illusion that there are
other intelligent beings there
capable of observing and reacting to
the individual
Our major question:
To what extent will speakers react with
appropriate affect to an entirely virtual
audience?
FOPS Experiment
(Summer 98 - D-P. Pertaub)
!
!
!
10 subjects rehearse in front of a virtual
audience
Talk repeated 3 times
Two factor design
Immersion
HMD, desktop
Audience response
positive/negative audience (talks 1 and 2)
negative through positive (ethical conclusion)
Audience response
5 subjects - first negative
5 subjects - first positive
by
5 subjects immersed
5 desktop display
Third talk
Each subject concluded
with a standing ovation
Avatar Design
!
Avatars are moving, blinking, fidgeting,
expressive
Aim is portrayal of emotions
expressionism rather than realism
Two generations of avatar design
first experiment
stage fright scene + 2nd planned exp.
Response Variables
!
Self-Rating
subjects' evaluation of their performance.
How would you rate your own performance in
the talk you have just given?
Assign to yourself a score out of 100,
where 0 = completely dissatisfied with your
performance, and 100 = completely satisfied.
Response Variables
!
Modified PRCPS
Personal Report Confidence as a Public Speaker
I was in constant fear of forgetting my speech
At the conclusion of the speech I felt Id had a pleasant
experience
I had no fear of facing the audience
I felt disgusted with myself after giving my presentation
I had no fear of facing the audience
Count out of 16 such (negative) statements
Explanatory Variables
!
Background
age, gender, status.
Ages 20s or 30s.
There were 7 post-graduate students, 1
undergraduate, and 2 faculty members.
None of the subjects were from Computer
Science
all were unknown to the experimenters before
the study.
Explanatory Variables
!
Co-Presence
extent of being with a real audience
4 questions 1-7 scale
In the last presentation to what extent did you have a sense
that there was an audience there in front of you?
To what extent did you have a sense of giving a talk to people?
When you think back about your last experience, do you
remember this as more like just talking to a computer or
communicating to an audience?
To what extent were you aware of the audience in front of
you?
Co-presence measured as no. of 6-7 responses/4
Explanatory Variables
!
Perceived Audience Response
subject's own impressions of the audience
behaviour
3 questions, each on a 1 to 7 scale:
How would you characterise the prevailing mood of
the audience? How friendly were they?
How would you characterise the interest of the
audience in what you had to say?
What sort of impression do you consider that you
made on the audience?
Perceived Audience Response
!
Independently of order
there was a significant difference in
'perceived audience response'.
'good audience' (4.7 1.2)
'bad' audience (2.3 1.0).
Self-Rating by Avatar
Interest
rating
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
rating
Self-Rating Regression
Non-Immersed
Immersed
Negative Audience
21 5*C + 13*I
21 19*C + 13*I
Positive Audience
73 5*C
39 + 16*C
C = co-presence
I = perceived audience interest
R-Squared = 0.89 on 8 d.f.
Self Rating
Self Rating for Negative
Audience
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Non-Immersed
Immersed
Co-Presence
For a fixed level of perceived audience interest immersion
interacts with co-presence on self-rating.
Self Rating
Self-Rating for Positive
Audience
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Non-Immersed
Immersed
Co-Presence
Perceived audience interest not-significant.
Co-Presence amplifies response for immersed subjects
Self-Rating Conclusions
!
Lowest self-rating: negative audience, immersion, maximum copresence, and minimum perceived audience
interest.
Highest self-rating: Negative audience:
lowest co-presence and highest perceived interest
Positive audience:
highest co-presence
Modified PRCPS
Logistic Regression
Response = modified personal report of confidence as public speaker
(high score means less confidence)
Non-Immersed
Immersed
Negative Audience
-0.9 0.3*I
0.1 0.3*I
Positive Audience
0.2 0.3*I 0.8*C
1.2 0.3*I 0.8*C
Co-Presence amplifies response for Positive Audience
Chi-Squared = 12.2 on 12 df
Strong Observed Responses
Clear (unmeasured) physical responses
avoiding eye contact with experimenters
skin colour and postural changes
Spontaneous verbal statements
I really bored them to tears.
I m sorry about last time, I ll try to improve this time.
Wake up!
I see that my topic of the fetal heart doesn t interest
you.
That's a tough audience. I came out and my hands were
sweating.
Oh, how rude!
Thank you, thank you very very much!
Co-Presence and Immersion
!
No significant difference in reported copresence between immersed and nonimmersed subjects.
A familiar result from our previous
studies.
Utility of Questionnaires???
Questionnaire Study
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Recent study (Martin Usoh++)
Between-subjects, 2 groups
10 subjects per group
Experimental group - immersed (HMD)
Control group - in real world
Both groups carry out search task
Environments the same .
Conclusions
!
When designing VEs we must look to human
performance metrics and the subjective
experience of presence to provide a measure
of the effectiveness
Presence and immersion play a very
important role in VEs as they provide the
only means of assessing the performance
benefits of these systems
Credits
!
!
!
!
Antony Steed, UCL
Mel Slater, UCL
William Winn, University of Washington
Doron Friedmann, IDC, Herzilya
