Empirical Models Based on Free-Modulus Magnitude Estimation of Perceived Presence in Virtual Environments

A series of 3 studies was conducted to test free-modulus magnitude estimation as a measure of perceived presence in virtual environments (VEs) and to model the first-and second-order effects of 11 VE system parameters on perceived presence across 5 subtasks. Sequential experimentation techniques were used to build 4 empirical models using polynomial regression. An integrated empirical model of data combined across 2 experiments demonstrated that all significant factors had a positive effect on perceived presence. Three of these parameters - field of view, sound, and head tracking - had almost 3 times as much influence on presence than the other 4 significant parameters, which were visual display resolution, texture mapping, stereopsis, and scene update rate. Sequential experimentation was an efficient tool for building empirical models of perceived presence, but the subjective nature of this phenomenon and individual differences made data bridging across sequential studies problematic. It was concluded that magnitude estimation is a useful measure of perceived presence, and the resulting polynomial regression models can be used to facilitate VE system design decisions. This research has broad application in the selection and design of VE system components and overall design of VE systems.

[1]  Robert C. Williges,et al.  Development and Use of Research Methodologies for Complex System/Simulation Experimentation , 1981 .

[2]  Mel Slater,et al.  Representations Systems, Perceptual Position, and Presence in Immersive Virtual Environments , 1993, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[3]  John H. Bailey,et al.  Development of “Presence” Measures for Virtual Environments , 1994 .

[4]  Robert C. Williges,et al.  Integrated Research Paradigm for Complex Experimentation , 1989 .

[5]  Mark S. Sanders,et al.  Human factors in engineering and design, 6th ed. , 1987 .

[6]  Zygmunt Pizlo,et al.  Design of studies to test the effectiveness of stereo imaging truth or dare: is stereo viewing really better? , 1994, Electronic Imaging.

[7]  Harry L. Snyder,et al.  Comparison of depth cues for relative depth judgments , 1990, Other Conferences.

[8]  Thomas B. Sheridan,et al.  Musings on Telepresence and Virtual Presence , 1992, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[9]  Hideo Kusaka,et al.  Psychophysical Analysis of the “Sensation of Reality” Induced by a Visual Wide-Field Display , 1980 .

[10]  D. Cross,et al.  Some Technical Notes on Psychophysical Scaling , 1974 .

[11]  Michael W. McGreevy,et al.  An ethnographic object-oriented analysis of explorer presence in a volcanic terrain environment: Claims and evidence , 1994 .

[12]  Elizabeth M. Wenzel,et al.  Localization in Virtual Acoustic Displays , 1992, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[13]  Woodrow Barfield,et al.  Measuring Presence in Virtual Environments: A Presence Questionnaire , 1998, Presence.

[14]  Thomas B. Sheridan.  Further Musings on the Psychophysics of Presence , 1996, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[15]  John M. Reising,et al.  A Comparison of a Stereographic 3-D Display versus a 2-D Display Using an Advanced Air-to-Air Format , 1988 .

[16]  Jonathan Steuer,et al.  Defining virtual reality: dimensions determining telepresence , 1992 .

[17]  Peter R. Atherton,et al.  A subjective judgment study of polygon based curved surface imagery , 1985, CHI '85.

[18]  James C. Chung.  A comparison of head-tracked and non-head-tracked steering modes in the targeting of radiotherapy treatment beams , 1992, I3D '92.

[19]  George E. P. Box,et al.  Empirical Model‐Building and Response Surfaces , 1988 .

[20]  Michael Venturino,et al.  Performance and head movements using a helmet-mounted display with different sized fields-of-view , 1990 .

[21]  Kellogg S. Booth,et al.  Evaluating 3D task performance for fish tank virtual worlds , 1993, TOIS.

[22]  Jack M. Loomis,et al.  Distal Attribution and Presence , 1992, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[23]  S. S. Stevens.  On the brightness of lights and loudness of sounds , 1953 .

[24]  D. Zeltzer,et al.  Simplifying the Programming of Intelligent Environments , 2009 .

[25]  K. Horch,et al.  Mobility performance with a pixelized vision system , 1992, Vision Research.

[26]  David Zeltzer,et al.  Autonomy, Interaction, and Presence , 1992, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[27]  Michael W. McGreevy,et al.  The Presence of Field Geologists in Mars-Like Terrain , 1992, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[28]  S. S. Stevens.  Issues in psychophysical measurement. , 1971 .

[29]  Carrie Heater,et al.  Being There: The Subjective Experience of Presence , 1992, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[30]  James P. Bliss,et al.  The Virtual Environment Performance Assessment Battery (VEPAB):Development and Evaluation1 , 1994, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[31]  Woodrow Barfield,et al.  Presence within Virtual Environments as a Function of Visual Display Parameters , 1996, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[32]  James O. Larimer,et al.  Studies of the field-of-view/resolution tradeoff in virtual-reality systems , 1992, Electronic Imaging.

[33]  Robert H. Gilkey,et al.  The Sense of Presence for the Suddenly Deafened Adult:Implications for Virtual Environments , 1995, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[34]  Michael Potter Snow,et al.  Charting presence in virtual environments and its effects on performance , 1998 .

[35]  Pieter Padmos,et al.  Quality Criteria for Simulator Images: A Literature Review , 1992 .