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.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Arthur, K. W., & Booth, K. S. (1993). Evaluating 3D task performance for fish tank virtual worlds. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 11(3), 239–265.
2.
Atherton, P. R., & Caporael, L. R. (1985). A subjective judgment study of polygon based curved surface imagery. In CHI ′85 Proceedings (pp. 27–34). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
3.
Barfield, W., & Weghorst, S. (1993). The sense of presence within virtual environments: A conceptual framework. In G. Salvendy & M. Smith (Eds.), Human-computer interaction: Software and hardware interfaces (pp. 699–704). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
4.
Box, G. E. P., & Draper, N. R. (1987). Empirical model building and response surfaces. New York: Wiley.
5.
Cha, K., Horch, K. W., & Normann, R. A. (1992). Mobility performance with a pixelized vision system. Vision Research, 32, 1367–1372.
6.
Chung, J. C. (1992). A comparison of head-tracked and non-headtracked steering modes in the targeting of radiotherapy treatment beams. In Proceedings of the 1992 ACM Symposium on Interactive 3D Graphics (pp. 193–196). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
7.
Cross, D. V. (1974). Some technical notes on psychophysical scaling. In H. R. Moskowitz, B. Scharf, & J. C. Stevens (Eds.), Sensation and measurement: Papers in honor of S. S. Stevens (pp. 23–35). Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel.
8.
Ehrlich, J. A., & Singer, M. J. (1994). Are stereoscopic displays necessary for virtual environments? In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 38th Annual Meeting (p. 952). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
9.
Ellis, S. R. (1993). What are virtual environments? In ICAT ′93 (pp. 81-89). Tokyo: International Conference on Artificial Reality and Tele-existence.
10.
Gescheider, G. A. (1985). Psychophysics: Method, theory, and application. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
11.
Gilkey, R. H., & Weisenberger, J. M. (1995). The sense of presence in the suddenly deafened adult: Implications for virtual environments. Presence, 4, 357–363.
12.
Hatada, T., Sakata, H., & Kusaka, H. (1980). Psychophysical analysis of the “sensation of reality” induced by a visual widefield display. SMPTE Journal, 89, 560–569.
13.
Heeter, C. (1992). Being there: The subjective experience of presence. Presence, 1, 262–271.
14.
Held, R. M., & Durlach, N. I. (1992). Telepresence. Presence, 1, 109–112.
15.
Hendrix, C., & Barfield, W. (1996). Presence within virtual environments as a function of visual display parameters. Presence, 5, 274–290.
16.
Hsu, J., Pizlo, Z., Babbs, C. F., Chelberg, D. M., & Delp, E. J. (1994). Design of studies to test the effectiveness of stereo imaging. Truth or dare: Is stereo viewing really better? In Proceedings of the SPIE - The International Society for Optical Engineering, 2177 (pp. 211–222). Bellingham, WA: SPIE.
17.
Lampton, D. R., Knerr, B. W., Goldberg, S. L., Bliss, J. P., Moshell, J. M., & Blau, B. S. (1994). The virtual environment performance assessment battery (VEPAB): Development and evaluation. Presence, 3, 145–157.
18.
Loomis, J. M. (1992). Distal attribution and presence. Presence, 1, 113–119.
19.
McGreevy, M. W. (1993). The presence of field geologists in a Mars-like terrain. Presence, 1, 375–403.
20.
McGreevy, M. W. (1994). Ethnographic object-oriented analysis of explorer presence in a volcanic terrain environment: Claims and evidence (Tech. Report NAS 1.15:108823). Moffett Field, CA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
21.
Montgomery, D. C., & Peck, E. A. (1992). Introduction to linear regression analysis. New York: Wiley.
22.
Padmos, P., & Milders, M. V. (1992). Quality criteria for simulator images: A literature review. Human Factors, 3, 727–748.
23.
Piantanida, T. P., Boman, D., Larimer, J., Gille, J., & Reed, C. (1992). Studies of the field-of-view/resolution trade-off in virtual-reality systems. In Human vision, visual processing and digital display III (pp. 448–456). Bellingham, WA: SPIE.
24.
Psotka, J., Davison, S. A., & Lewis, S. A. (1993). Exploring immersion in virtual space. Virtual Reality Systems, 1(2), 70–84.
25.
Reinhart, W. F., Beaton, R. J., & Snyder, H. L. (1990). Comparison of depth cues for relative depth judgments. In Proceedings of the SPIE - The International Society for Optical Engineering, 1256 (pp. 12–21). Bellingham, WA: SPIE.
26.
Sanders, M. S. & McCormick, E. J. (1987). Human factors in engineering and design (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
27.
Sheridan, T. B. (1992). Musings on telepresence and virtual presence. Presence, 1, 120–126.
28.
Sheridan, T. B. (1996). Further musings on the psychophysics of presence. Presence, 5, 241–246.
29.
Singer, M. J., Witmer, B. G., & Bailey, J. H. (1994). Development of “presence” measures for virtual environments. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 38th Annual Meeting (p. 983). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
30.
Slater, M., & Usoh, M. (1993a). The influence of a virtual body on presence in immersive virtual environments. In Virtual Reality International 93: Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference on Virtual Reality (pp. 34–42). London, UK: Meckler.
31.
Slater, M., & Usoh, M. (1993b). Representation systems, perceptual position and presence in virtual environments. Presence, 2, 221–233.
32.
Snow, M. P. (1996). Charting presence in virtual environments and its effects on performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. [Online]. Available: http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/public/etd-19311417119623510/etd-title.html.
33.
Steuer, J. (1992). Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence. Journal of Communication, 42(4), 73–93.
34.
Stevens, S. S. (1953). On the brightness of lights and loudness of sounds. Science, 118, 576.
35.
Stevens, S. S. (1971). Issues in psychophysical measurement. Psychological Review, 78, 426–450.
36.
Wells, M. J., & Venturino, M. (1990). Performance and head movements using a helmet-mounted display with different sized fields of view. Optical Engineering, 29, 870–877.
37.
Wenzel, E. M. (1992). Localization in virtual acoustic displays. Presence, 1, 80–107.
38.
Williges, R. C. (1981). Development and use of research methodologies for complex system/simulation experimentation. In M. Morral & K. Kraiss (Eds.), Manned system design (pp. 59–87). New York: Plenum.
39.
Williges, R. C., & Williges, B. H. (1989). Integrated research paradigm for complex experimentation. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 33rd Annual Meeting (pp. 606–610). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
40.
Williges, R. C., Williges, B. H., & Han, S. H. (1993). Sequential experimentation in human-computer interface design. In H. R. Hartson & D. Hix (Eds.), Advances in human-computer interaction (pp. 1–30). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
41.
Zeltzer, D. (1992). Autonomy, interaction, and presence. Presence, 1, 127–132.
42.
Zenyuh, J., Reising, J. M., Walchli, S., & Biers, D. (1988). A comparison of a stereoscopic 3-D display versus a 2-D display using advanced air-to-air format. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 32nd Annual Meeting (pp. 53–57). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
