skip to main content
10.1145/3139131.3139141acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesvrstConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Virtual reality studies outside the laboratory

Published:08 November 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

Many user studies are now conducted outside laboratories to increase the number and heterogeneity of participants. These studies are conducted in diverse settings, with the potential to give research greater external validity and statistical power at a lower cost. The feasibility of conducting virtual reality (VR) studies outside laboratories remains unclear because these studies often use expensive equipment, depend critically on the physical context, and sometimes study delicate phenomena concerning body awareness and immersion. To investigate, we explore pointing, 3D tracing, and body-illusions both in-lab and out-of-lab. The in-lab study was carried out as a traditional experiment with state-of-the-art VR equipment; 31 completed the study in our laboratory. The out-of-lab study was conducted by distributing commodity cardboard VR glasses to participants; 57 completed the study anywhere they saw fit. The effects found in-lab were comparable to those found out-of-lab, with much larger variations in the settings in the out-of-lab condition. A follow-up study showed that performance metrics are mostly governed by the technology used, where more complex VR phenomena depend more critically on the internal control of the study. We argue that conducting VR studies outside the laboratory is feasible, and that certain types of VR studies may advantageously be run this way. From the results, we discuss the implications and limitations of running VR studies outside the laboratory.

References

  1. Kevin W. Arthur, Kellogg S. Booth, and Colin Ware. 1993. Evaluating 3D Task Performance for Fish Tank Virtual Worlds. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 11, 3 (July 1993), 239--265. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Cedric Bach and Dominique L Scapin. 2010. Comparing inspections and user testing for the evaluation of virtual environments. Internat. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 26, 8 (2010), 786--824. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Domna Banakou, Raphaela Groten, and Mel Slater. 2013. Illusory Ownership of a Virtual Child Body Causes Overestimation of Object Sizes and Implicit Attitude Changes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110, 31 (2013), 12846--12851. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. John Bolton, Mike Lambert, Denis Lirette, and Ben Unsworth. 2014. PaperDude: A Virtual Reality Cycling Exergame (CHIEA '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 475--478.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Barry Brown, Stuart Reeves, and Scott Sherwood. 2011. Into the Wild: Challenges and Opportunities for Field Trial Methods (CHI '11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1657--1666. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Michael Buhrmester, Tracy Kwang, and Samuel D Gosling. 2011. Amazon's Mechanical Turk a new Source of Inexpensive, yet High-quality, Data? Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 6, 1 (2011), 3--5. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Kelly Caine. 2016. Local Standards for Sample Size at CHI (CHI '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 981--992.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Scott Carter, Jennifer Mankoff, and Jeffrey Heer. 2007. Momento: Support for Situated Ubicomp Experimentation (CHI '07). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 125--134. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Matthew J. C. Crump, John V. McDonnell, and Todd M. Gureckis. 2013. Evaluating Amazon's Mechanical Turk as a Tool for Experimental Behavioral Research. PLoS ONE 8, 3 (03 2013), 1--18.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Yvonne A. W. de Kort, Wijnand A. Ijsselsteijn, Jolien Kooijman, and Yvon Schuurmans. 2003. Virtual Laboratories: Comparability of Real and Virtual Environments for Environmental Psychology. Presence: Teleoper. Virtual Environ. 12, 4 (Aug. 2003), 360--373. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Azucena Garcia-Palacios, Hunter G. Hoffman, Albert Carlin, Thomas A. Furness, and Christina Botella. 2002. Virtual Reality in the Treatment of Spider Phobia: a Controlled Study. Behav. Res. Ther. 40, 9 (2002), 983 -- 993. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Laura Germine, Ken Nakayama, Bradley C. Duchaine, Christopher F. Chabris, Garga Chatterjee, and Jeremy B. Wilmer. 2012. Is the Web as Good as the Lab? Comparable Performance from Web and Lab in Cognitive/Perceptual Experiments. Psych. Bul. & Rev. 19, 5 (2012), 847--857. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Joseph K. Goodman, Cynthia E. Cryder, and Amar Cheema. 2013. Data Collection in a Flat World: the Strengths and Weaknesses of Mechanical Turk Samples. J. Behav. Dec. Making 26, 3 (2013), 213--224. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Sandy J. J. Gould, Anna L. Cox, and Duncan P. Brumby. 2016. Diminished Control in Crowdsourcing: An Investigation of Crowdworker Multitasking Behavior. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 23, 3, Article 19 (June 2016), 29 pages.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Jeffrey Heer and Michael Bostock. 2010. Crowdsourcing Graphical Perception: Using Mechanical Turk to Assess Visualization Design (CHI '10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 203--212. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Niels Henze, Martin Pielot, Benjamin Poppinga, Torben Schinke, and Susanne Boll. 2011. My App is an Experiment: Experience from User Studies in Mobile App Stores. Int. J. Mob. Hum. Comput. Interact. 3, 4 (Oct. 2011), 71--91. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Kasper Hornbæk. 2013. Some Whys and Hows of Experiments in Human-Computer Interaction. Found. Trends Hum.-Comput. Interact. 5, 4 (June 2013), 299--373.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Kasper Hornbæk, Søren S. Sander, Javier Andrés Bargas-Avila, and Jakob Grue Simonsen. 2014. Is Once Enough?: On the Extent and Content of Replications in Human-computer Interaction (CHI '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 3523--3532. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Konstantina Kilteni, Antonella Maselli, Konrad P. Kording, and Mel Slater. 2015. Over my Fake Body: Body Ownership Illusions for Studying the Multisensory Basis of Own-body Perception. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 9 (2015), 141. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Konstantina Kilteni, Jean-Marie Normand, Maria V. Sanchez-Vives, and Mel Slater. 2012. Extending Body Space in Immersive Virtual Reality: A Very Long Arm Illusion. PLoS ONE 7, 7 (07 2012), 1--15.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Aniket Kittur, Ed H. Chi, and Bongwon Suh. 2008. Crowdsourcing User Studies with Mechanical Turk (CHI '08). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 453--456.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Jesper Kjeldskov and Mikael B. Skov. 2014. Was It Worth the Hassle?: Ten Years of Mobile HCI Research Discussions on Lab and Field Evaluations (MobileHCI '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 43--52. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Sally A. Linkenauger, Markus Leyrer, Heinrich H. Bülthoff, and Betty J. Mohler. 2013. Welcome to Wonderland: The Influence of the Size and Shape of a Virtual Hand On the Perceived Size and Shape of Virtual Objects. PLoS ONE 8, 7 (07 2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Lara Maister, Natalie Sebanz, Günther Knoblich, and Manos Tsakiris. 2013. Experiencing Ownership Over a Dark-skinned Body Reduces Implicit Racial Bias. Cognition 128, 2 (2013), 170 -- 178. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Tim Marsh. 1999. Evaluation of Virtual Reality Systems for Usability (CHI EA '99). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 61--62.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Winter Mason and Siddharth Suri. 2012. Conducting Behavioral Research on Amazon's Mechanical Turk. Behav. Res. Methods 44, 1 (2012), 1--23. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Mark McGill, Daniel Boland, Roderick Murray-Smith, and Stephen Brewster. 2015. A Dose of Reality: Overcoming Usability Challenges in VR Head-Mounted Displays (CHI '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2143--2152.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Joseph E. McGrath. 1995. Human-computer Interaction. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco, CA, USA, Chapter Methodology Matters: Doing Research in the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 152--169.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Aske Mottelson and Kasper Hornbæk. 2016. An Affect Detection Technique Using Mobile Commodity Sensors in the Wild (UbiComp '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA 781--792.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Xueni Pan, Mel Slater, Alejandro Beacco, Xavi Navarro, Anna I. Bellido Rivas, David Swapp, Joanna Hale, Paul Alexander George Forbes, Catrina Denvir, Antonia F. de C. Hamilton, and Sylvie Delacroix. 2016. The Responses of Medical General Practitioners to Unreasonable Patient Demand for Antibiotics - A Study of Medical Ethics Using Immersive Virtual Reality. PLoS ONE 11, 2 (02 2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Gabriele Paolacci and Jesse Chandler. 2014. Inside the Turk: Understanding Mechanical Turk as a Participant Pool. Curr. Dir. Psychol. 23, 3 (2014), 184--188. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Katharina Reinecke and Krzysztof Z. Gajos. 2015. LabintheWild: Conducting Large-Scale Online Experiments With Uncompensated Samples (CSCW '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1364--1378. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Joel Ross, Lilly Irani, M. Six Silberman, Andrew Zaldivar, and Bill Tomlinson. 2010. Who Are the Crowdworkers?: Shifting Demographics in Mechanical Turk (CHI EA '10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2863--2872. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Steven V. Rouse. 2015. A Reliability Analysis of Mechanical Turk Data. Comput. Human Behav. 43 (2015), 304 -- 307. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Maria V. Sanchez-Vives, Bernhard Spanlang, Antonio Frisoli, Massimo Bergamasco and Mel Slater. 2010. Virtual Hand Illusion Induced by Visuomotor Correlations. PLoS ONE 5, 4 (04 2010), 1--6.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. William R. Shadish, Thomas D. Cook, and Donald T. Campbell. 2002. Experimental and Quasi Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA, USA, Chapter Statistical Conclusion Validity and Internal Validity, 33--102.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Mel Slater, Angus Antley, Adam Davison, David Swapp, Christoph Guger, Chris Barker, Nancy Pistrang, and Maria V. Sanchez-Vives. 2006. A Virtual Reprise of the Stanley Milgram Obedience Experiments. PLoS ONE 1, 1 (12 2006), 1--10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Mel Slater, Daniel Pérez Marcos, Henrik Ehrsson, and Maria V. Sanchez-Vives. 2008. Towards a Digital Body: The Virtual Arm Illusion. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2, 6 (2008). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Mel Slater, Daniel Perez-Marcos, H. Henrik Ehrsson, and Maria V. Sanchez-Vives. 2009. Inducing Illusory Ownership of a Virtual Body. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 3, 2 (15 Sep 2009), 214--220. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Mel Slater, Aitor Rovira, Richard Southern, David Swapp, Jian J. Zhang, Claire Campbell, and Mark Levine. 2013. Bystander Responses to a Violent Incident in an Immersive Virtual Environment. PLoS ONE 8, 1 (01 2013), 1--13.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Mel Slater, Bernhard Spanlang, Maria V. Sanchez-Vives, and Olaf Blanke. 2010. First Person Experience of Body Transfer in Virtual Reality. PLoS ONE 5, 5 (05 2010), 1--9.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Mel Slater, Martin Usoh, and Anthony Steed. 1994. Depth of Presence in Virtual Environments. Presence-Teleop. Virt. 3, 2 (Jan. 1994), 130--144.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Mel Slater, Martin Usoh, and Anthony Steed. 1995. Taking Steps: The Influence of a Walking Technique on Presence in Virtual Reality. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 2, 3 (Sept. 1995), 201--219. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Mel Slater and Sylvia Wilbur. 1997. A Framework for Immersive Virtual Environments Five: Speculations on the Role of Presence in Virtual Environments. Presence-Teleop. Virt. 6, 6 (Dec. 1997), 603--616. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. R. William Soukoreff and I. Scott MacKenzie. 2004. Towards a Standard for Pointing Device Evaluation, Perspectives on 27 Years of Fitts' Law Research in HCI. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 61, 6 (Dec. 2004), 751--789. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. STEAM. 2017. Steam Hardware & Software Survey: September 2017. http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey. (2017). [Accessed 01-September-2017].Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Anthony Steed, Sebastian Frlston, Maria M. López, Jason Drummond, Ye Pan, and David Swapp. 2016. An 'In the Wild' Experiment on Presence and Embodiment using Consumer Virtual Reality Equipment. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 22, 4 (April 2016), 1406--1414. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Neil Stewart, Christoph Ungemach, Adam J. L. Harris, Daniel M. Bartels, Ben R. Newell Gabriele Paolacci, and Jesse Chandler. 2015. The Average Laboratory Samples a Population of 7,300 Amazon Mechanical Turk Workers. Jud. Dec. Mak. 10, 5 (2015), 479--491.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Alistair Sutcliffe and Brian Gault. 2004. Heuristic Evaluation of Virtual Reality Applications. Interact. Comput. 16, 4 (2004), 831--849. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  50. Martin Usoh, Kevin Arthur, Mary C. Whitton, Rui Bastos, Anthony Steed, Mel Slater and Frederick P. Brooks, Jr. 1999. Walking > Walking-in-place > Flying, in Virtual Environments (SIGGRAPH '99). ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., New York, NY, USA, 359--364.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Ulrich von Zadow, Sandra Buron, Tina Harms, Florian Behringer, Kai Sostmann, and Raimund Dachselt. 2013. SimMed: Combining Simulation and Interactive Tabletops for Medical Education (CHI '13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1469--1478. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Virtual reality studies outside the laboratory

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          VRST '17: Proceedings of the 23rd ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology
          November 2017
          437 pages
          ISBN:9781450355483
          DOI:10.1145/3139131

          Copyright © 2017 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 8 November 2017

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate66of254submissions,26%

          Upcoming Conference

          VRST '24

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader