Perception while watching movies: Effects of physical screen size and scene type

Over the last decade, television screens and display monitors have increased in size considerably, but has this improved our televisual experience? Our working hypothesis was that the audiences adopt a general strategy that “bigger is better.” However, as our visual perceptions do not tap directly into basic retinal image properties such as retinal image size (C. A. Burbeck, 1987), we wondered whether object size itself might be an important factor. To test this, we needed a task that would tap into the subjective experiences of participants watching a movie on different-sized displays with the same retinal subtense. Our participants used a line bisection task to self-report their level of “presence” (i.e., their involvement with the movie) at several target locations that were probed in a 45-min section of the movie “The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly.” Measures of pupil dilation and reaction time to the probes were also obtained. In Experiment 1, we found that subjective ratings of presence increased with physical screen size, supporting our hypothesis. Face scenes also produced higher presence scores than landscape scenes for both screen sizes. In Experiment 2, reaction time and pupil dilation results showed the same trends as the presence ratings and pupil dilation correlated with presence ratings, providing some validation of the method. Overall, the results suggest that real-time measures of subjective presence might be a valuable tool for measuring audience experience for different types of (i) display and (ii) audiovisual material.

[1]  John M. Henderson,et al.  Clustering of Gaze During Dynamic Scene Viewing is Predicted by Motion , 2011, Cognitive Computation.

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

[3]  Daniel T. Levin,et al.  A Window on Reality , 2012 .

[4]  Joseph P. Magliano,et al.  The Impact of Continuity Editing in Narrative Film on Event Segmentation , 2011, Cogn. Sci..

[5]  D. Kersten,et al.  The representation of perceived angular size in human primary visual cortex , 2006, Nature Neuroscience.

[6]  Hermann Bondi,et al.  The good, the bad and the ugly , 1988, Nature.

[7]  David H. Silvera,et al.  Bigger is better: the influence of physical size on aesthetic preference judgments , 2002 .

[8]  Alan Kennedy,et al.  Perception and memory across viewpoint changes in moving images. , 2010, Journal of vision.

[9]  R. Malach,et al.  Intersubject Synchronization of Cortical Activity During Natural Vision , 2004, Science.

[10]  Wijnand A. IJsselsteijn,et al.  Effects of Sensory Information and Prior Experience on Direct Subjective Ratings of Presence , 1999, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[11]  Matthew Lombard,et al.  At the Heart of It All: The Concept of Presence , 2006 .

[12]  C. A. Burbeck,et al.  Locus of spatial-frequency discrimination. , 1987, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[13]  Desney S. Tan Exploiting the cognitive and social benefits of physically large displays , 2004 .

[14]  P. Manow ‚The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly‘ , 2002 .

[15]  Paul Skalski,et al.  Mapping the road to fun: Natural video game controllers, presence, and game enjoyment , 2011, New Media Soc..

[16]  Christoph Klimmt,et al.  A Process Model of the Formation of Spatial Presence Experiences , 2007 .

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

[18]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Attention and Effort , 1973 .

[19]  Wijnand A. IJsselsteijn,et al.  Effects of Stereoscopic Presentation, Image Motion, and Screen Size on Subjective and Objective Corroborative Measures of Presence , 2001, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[20]  Desney S. Tan,et al.  The large-display user experience , 2005, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications.

[21]  T. Troscianko,et al.  Effort during visual search and counting: Insights from pupillometry , 2007, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[22]  Frank Biocca,et al.  The Cyborg's Dilemma: Progressive Embodiment in Virtual Environments , 2006, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[23]  G. Mantovani Virtual Reality as a Communication Environment: Consensual Hallucination, Fiction, and Possible Selves , 1995 .

[24]  Richard B. Buxton,et al.  Attention strongly increases oxygen metabolic response to stimulus in primary visual cortex , 2012, NeuroImage.

[25]  I. Ohzawa,et al.  Receptive field structure in the visual cortex: does selective stimulation induce plasticity? , 1995, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[26]  Barry Salt,et al.  Film Style and Technology: History and Analysis , 1983 .

[27]  Mel Slater,et al.  How Colorful Was Your Day? Why Questionnaires Cannot Assess Presence in Virtual Environments , 2004, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[28]  J. Cutting,et al.  Attention and the Evolution of Hollywood Film , 2010, Psychological science.

[29]  Ivan Alsina Jurnet,et al.  Individual Differences in the Sense of Presence , 2005 .

[30]  T. Smith Film (cinema) perception , 2010 .

[31]  Kaitlin L. Brunick,et al.  Quicker, faster, darker: Changes in Hollywood film over 75 years , 2011, i-Perception.

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