The effect of update rate on the sense of presence within virtual environments

The current study was done to investigate the effect of varying the update rate of a computer-generated simulation (5, 10, 15, 20, 25 Hz) on the sense of presence within stereoscopic virtual environments. Thirteen subjects navigated a virtual representation of Stonehenge and were asked to search for a rune, inscribed upon the wall of one of Stonehenge's edifices. After performing the search task, subjects completed a questionnaire designed to assess their level of presence within the virtual environment. The results indicated that the subjective report of presence within the virtual environment was significantly less using an update rate of 5 and 10 Hz when compared to update rates of 20 and 25 Hz. Furthermore, the reported level of presence using a 15 Hz update rate was similar to the reported level of presence using update rates of 20 and 25 Hz thus indicating that computational resources could be saved using a slower update rate while maintaining a given level of presence. In addition, a factor analysis procedure indicated that the 13 questions designed to assess the subjects sense of presence within virtual Stonehenge could be grouped into three factors: (1) virtual presence, (2) navigation within the virtual environment, and (3) knowledge of real world surroundings while in the virtual world. Finally, comments on a descriptive model of presence within virtual environments are presented.

[1]  Woodrow Barfield,et al.  Presence in virtual environments as a function of visual and auditory cues , 1995, Proceedings Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium '95.

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

[3]  Woodrow Barfield,et al.  Virtual environments and advanced interface design , 1995 .

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

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

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

[7]  Frederick P. Brooks,et al.  Towards image realism with interactive update rates in complex virtual building environments , 1990, I3D '90.

[8]  Mel Slater,et al.  The Virtual Treadmill: A Naturalistic Metaphor for Navigation in Immersive Virtual Environments , 1995, Virtual Environments.

[9]  Steven K. Feiner,et al.  Introduction to Computer Graphics , 1993 .

[10]  Woodrow Barfield,et al.  Augmented-reality displays , 1995 .

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

[12]  Thomas B. Sheridan,et al.  Defining Our Terms , 1992, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[13]  Gregory K. Tharp,et al.  Timing considerations of helmet-mounted display performance , 1992, Electronic Imaging.

[14]  Mel Slater,et al.  Depth of Presence in Virtual Environments , 1994, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[15]  Mel Slater,et al.  Presence in immersive virtual environments , 1993, Proceedings of IEEE Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium.

[16]  David Zeltzer,et al.  Three Dimensional Visual Display Systems for Virtual Environments , 1992, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[17]  Woodrow Barfield,et al.  Presence and performance within virtual environments , 1995 .

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