Abstract
When developing virtual environments (VEs), most effort goes into developing the visuals. For many, the ideal is to create virtual worlds of photo-realistic quality or otherwise being of high fidelity. The purpose is to make the VE seem real to the user. This paper takes a closer look at subjects’ ratings of the visuals, and of the extent to which the VE feels real to the subjects, in the context of an experiment on audio in which subjects were to perform two search tasks: the first in an ordinary, textured house; the second in a bare structure consisting almost exclusively of the barren, white walls. Audio was never relevant to the search task in the first experiment, while in the second experiment it was relevant to the search task for half of the subjects. Subjects for whom audio was irrelevant to both their search tasks rated their visual involvement as large in the barren VE as in the higher quality one. However, subjects for which audio was relevant to their search task in the second experiment saw their visual involvement plummet, while their auditory involvement surged. Finally, the extent to which the VE felt real to the subjects did not correlate with their visual involvement but instead showed a strong correlation with the extent to which the interaction felt natural.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The guided data analysis of the SAS statistical package, version 8 (The SAS System 2001), was used for data analysis. Due to the relatively small number of participants, the participants are only split according to one independent variable when trying to discriminate between groups/classes, here, radio versus ball. (The other dimension being spatialised versus nonspatialised audio). In this case a one-way ANOVA is made, i.e., the ratio between the between-group variation and within-group variation is judged against an F distribution. The corresponding p value indicate the probability that this outcome would occur by chance. All analysis is done on relative scores, i.e., score changes, which raises the bar significantly compared to the same analysis done on absolute scores; see Bormann (2002, 2005).
One subject failed to indicate the level of auditory involvement in the domino experiment, thus one only has 18 observations (17 degrees of freedom) in this case.
References
Adler D (1996) Virtual Audio: three-dimensional audio in virtual environments. Technical Report T96:03, Swedish Institute of Computer Science (ISRN: SICS-T–96/03-SE). ftp://ftp.sics.se/pub/SICS-reports/Reports/SICS-T–96-03–SE.ps.Z
Bormann K (2002) Context calibration. Virtual Real 6(1):45–55
Bormann K (2005) Presence and the utility of audio spatialization. Presence 15(3):278–297
Freeman J, Avons S, Pearson D, IJsselsteijn W (1999) Effects of sensory information and prior experience on direct subjective ratings of presence. Presence 8(1):1
Hendrix C, Barfield W (1995) Presence in virtual environments as a function of visual and auditory cues. In: Proceedings of the VRAIS, pp 74–82
Hendrix C, Barfield W (1996) The sense of presence within auditory virtual environments. Presence 5(3):290–301
Normand V (1999) The COVEN Project: exploring applicative, technical, and usage dimensions of collaborative virtual environments. Presence 8(2):218–236
DIVE 3.3, DIstributed Virtual Environment, Swedish Institute Of Computer Science, 1999, http://www.sics.se/dive
Slater M, Usoh M, Chrysanthou Y (1995) The influence of dynamic shadows on presence in immersive virtual environments. In: Proceedings of virtual environments, pp 8–21
Murray C, Arnold P, Thornton B (2000) Presence accompagyning induced hearing loss. Presence 9(2):137–148
Psotka J, Lewis S, King D (1998) Effects of field of view on judgments of self-location: distortions in distance estimations even when the image geometry exactly fits the field of view. Presence 7(4):352–369
The SAS System 8e, SAS Institute 2001
Storms R, Zyda M (2000) Interactions in perceived quality of auditory-visual displays. Presence 9(6):557–580
Tromp J, Bullock A, Steed A, Sadagic A, Slater M, Frecon E (1998) Small group behavior experiments in the COVEN Project. IEEE Comput Graph Appl 18(6):53–63
Uno S, Slater M (1997) The sensitivity of presence to collision response. In: Proceedings of the VRAIS, pp 95–103
Welch R, Blackmon T, Liu A, Mellers B, Stark L (1996) The effects of pictorial realism, delay of visual feedback, and observer interactivity on the subjective sense of presence. Presence 5(3):263–273
Witmer B, Singer M (1998) Measuring presence in virtual environments: a presence questionnaire. Presence 7(3):225–240
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix: Questionnaire
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bormann, K. Visuals are not what they look. Virtual Reality 12, 115–123 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-007-0068-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-007-0068-4