skip to main content
10.1145/3385956.3418969acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesvrstConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

The Effects of Self- and External Perception of Avatars on Cognitive Task Performance in Virtual Reality

Published:01 November 2020Publication History

ABSTRACT

Virtual reality (VR) allows embodying any possible avatar. Known as the Proteus effect, avatars can change users’ behavior and attitudes. Previous work found that embodying Albert Einstein can increase cognitive task performance. The behavioral confirmation paradigm, however, predicts that our behavior is also affected by others’ perception of us. Therefore, we investigated the cognitive performance in collaborative VR when self-perception and external perception of the own avatar differ. 32 male participants performed a Tower of London task in pairs. One participant embodied Einstein or a young adult while the other perceived the participant as Einstein or a young adult. We show that the perception by others affects cognitive performance. The Einstein avatar also decreased the perceived workload. Results imply that avatars’ appearance to both, the user and the others must be considered when designing for cognitively demanding tasks.

References

  1. Erin Ash. 2016. Priming or Proteus Effect? Examining the Effects of Avatar Race on In-Game Behavior and Post-Play Aggressive Cognition and Affect in Video Games. Games and Culture 11, 4 (2016), 422–440. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412014568870 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412014568870Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Jeremy N Bailenson. 2006. Transformed social interaction in collaborative virtual environments. Digital media: Transformations in human communication (2006), 255–264. http://vhil.stanford.edu/pubs/2006/bailenson-social-interaction.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Jeremy N. Bailenson, Jim Blascovich, Andrew C. Beall, and Jack M. Loomis. 2003. Interpersonal Distances in Virtual Environments. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 29, 7 (2003), 819–833. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203253270Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Jeremy N. Bailenson, Kim Swinth, Crystal Hoyt, Susan Persky, Alex Dimov, and Jim Blascovich. 2005. The Independent and Interactive Effects of Embodied-Agent Appearance and Behavior on Self-Report, Cognitive, and Behavioral Markers of Copresence in Immersive Virtual Environments. Presence: Teleoper. Virtual Environ. 14, 4 (Aug. 2005), 379–393. https://doi.org/10.1162/105474605774785235Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Domna Banakou, Raphaela Groten, and Mel Slater. 2013. Illusory ownership of a virtual child body causes overestimation of object sizes and implicit attitude changes.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 110, 31 (2013), 12846–51. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1306779110Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Domna Banakou, Sameer Kishore, and Mel Slater. 2018. Virtually being Einstein results in an improvement in cognitive task performance and a decrease in age bias. Frontiers in Psychology 9, JUN (2018). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00917Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Amy L. Baylor. 2009. Promoting motivation with virtual agents and avatars: Role of visual presence and appearance. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 364, 1535 (2009), 3559–3565. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0148Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. V. Bhushan and D.R. Sachdeva. 2012. Fundamentals of Sociology. Pearson Education India. 60–62 pages. https://books.google.de/books?id=qgZFB3UOuNkCGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Frank Biocca. 1997. The Cyborg’s Dilemma : Progressive Embodiment in Virtual Environments Minding the Body , the Primordial Communication Medium. Jcmc 3, September (1997), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.tb00070.xGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Frank Biocca and Kristine Nowak. 2001. Plugging your body into the telecommunication system: Mediated embodiment, media interfaces, and social virtual environments. Communication technology and society(2001), 407–447.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Matthew Botvinick and Jonathan Cohen. 1998. Rubber hands ’feel’ touch that eyes see. Nature 391, 6669 (1998), 756. https://doi.org/10.1038/35784Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Elaine Chan and Peter Vorderer. 2006. Massively Multiplayer Online Games.In Playing video games: Motives, responses, and consequences.Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Mahwah, NJ, US, 77–88.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Jonathan Cohen. 2001. Defining Identification: A Theoretical Look at the Identification of Audiences With Media Characters. Mass Communication and Society 4, 3 (2001), 245–264. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327825MCS0403_01Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Andrew J Elliot and Marcy A Church. 1997. A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation.Journal of personality and social psychology 72, 1(1997), 218.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Marc O. Ernst and Martin S. Banks. 2002. Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion. Nature 415, January (2002), 429–433.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Caroline J. Falconer, Aitor Rovira, John A. King, Paul Gilbert, Angus Antley, Pasco Fearon, Neil Ralph, Mel Slater, and Chris R. Brewin. 2016. Embodying self-compassion within virtual reality and its effects on patients with depression. BJPsych Open 2, 1 (2016), 74–80. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjpo.bp.115.002147Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Mar Gonzalez-Franco and Tabitha C. Peck. 2018. Avatar Embodiment. Towards a Standardized Questionnaire. Frontiers in Robotics and AI 5 (2018), 74. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2018.00074Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Mar González-Franco, Tabitha C Peck, Antoni Rodríguez-Fornells, and Mel Slater. 2014. A threat to a virtual hand elicits motor cortex activation. Experimental Brain Research 232, 3 (2014), 875–887. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-013-3800-1Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Arnold Wilfred Green. 1972. Sociology: An Analysis of Life in Modern Society. McGraw-Hill.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Sandra G. Hart. 2006. Nasa-Task Load Index (NASA-TLX); 20 Years Later. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting 50, 9(2006), 904–908. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120605000909 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120605000909Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Sandra G. Hart and Lowell E. Staveland. 1988. Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research. In Human Mental Workload, Peter A. Hancock and Najmedin Meshkati (Eds.). Advances in Psychology, Vol. 52. North-Holland, 139 – 183. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62386-9Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Béatrice S. Hasler, Bernhard Spanlang, and Mel Slater. 2017. Virtual race transformation reverses racial in-group bias. PLOS ONE 12, 4 (04 2017), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174965Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Aleshia Hayes. 2015. The experience of physical and social presence in a virtual learning environment as impacted by the affordance of movement enabled by motion tracking. Ph.D. Dissertation. http://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd/5014/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Carrie Heeter. 1992. Being There: The Subjective Experience of Presence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 1, 2(1992), 262–271. https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.1992.1.2.262Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Hunter Hoffman, David Patterson, and Gretchen Carrougher. 2000. Use of Virtual Reality for Adjunctive Treatment of Adult Burn Pain During Physical Therapy: A Controlled Study. The Clinical Journal of Pain 16 (10 2000), 244–50. https://doi.org/10.1097/00002508-200009000-00010Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Jason Jerald. 2015. The VR Book: Human-Centered Design for Virtual Reality. Morgan & Claypool Publishers - ACM.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. 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. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 9 (2015), 141. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00141Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. 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 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0040867Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Taeyong Kim and Frank Biocca. 1997. Telepresence via Television: Two Dimensions of Telepresence May Have Different Connections to Memory and Persuasion. J. Computer-Mediated Communication 3 (1997), 0.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Christoph Klimmt, Dorothée Hefner, and Peter Vorderer. 2009. The video game experience as ”true” identification: A theory of enjoyable alterations of players’ self-perception. Communication Theory 19, 4 (2009), 351–373. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2009.01347.xGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Martin Kocur, Melanie Kloss, Valentin Schwind, Christian Wolff, and Niels Henze. 2020. Flexing Muscles in Virtual Reality: Effects of Avatars ’ Muscular Appearance on Physical Performance. Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (2020). https://doi.org/10.1145/3410404.3414261Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Elena Kokkinara and Mel Slater. 2014. Measuring the effects through time of the influence of visuomotor and visuotactile synchronous stimulation on a virtual body ownership illusion. Perception 43, 1 (2014), 43–58. https://doi.org/10.1068/p7545Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Jordan Koulouris, Zoe Jeffery, James Best, Eamonn O Neill, and Christof Lutteroth. 2020. Me vs . Super (wo) man : Effects of Customization and Identification in a VR Exergame. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings (2020), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376661Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Robert Krikorian, John Bartok, and Nancy Gay. 1994. Tower of London Procedure: A Standard Method and Developmental Data. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology 16, 6(1994), 840–850. https://doi.org/10.1080/01688639408402697Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Judith H. Langlois, Lisa Kalakanis, Adam J. Rubenstein, Andrea Larson, Monica Hallam, and Monica Smoot. 2000. Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review.Psychological Bulletin 126, 3 (2000), 390–423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.3.390Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Jonathan Lazar, Jinjuan Heidi Feng, and Harry Hochheiser. 2017. Chapter 3 - Experimental design. In Research Methods in Human Computer Interaction (Second Edition) (second edition ed.), Jonathan Lazar, Jinjuan Heidi Feng, and Harry Hochheiser (Eds.). Morgan Kaufmann, Boston, 45 – 69. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-805390-4.00003-0Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Rosemary M. Lehman and Simone C. O. Conceição. 2010. Creating a Sense of Presence in Online Teaching: How to ”Be There” for Distance Learners. Wiley. https://books.google.de/books?id=Bff3GYtfd4YCGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Joan Llobera, M. V. Sanchez-Vives, and Mel Slater. 2013. The relationship between virtual body ownership and temperature sensitivity. Journal of the Royal Society Interface 10, 85 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2013.0300Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Matthew Lombard and Theresa Ditton. 1997. At the Heart of It All: The Concept of Presence. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 3, 2 (09 1997). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.tb00072.x arXiv:http://oup.prod.sis.lanJCMC321.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Lara Maister, Natalie Sebanz, Guenther Knoblich, and Manos Tsakiris. 2013. Experiencing ownership over a dark-skinned body reduces implicit racial bias. Cognition 128, 2 (2013), 170 – 178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.04.002Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Eric Malbos, Ronald Rapee, and Manolya Kavakli. 2012. A controlled study of agoraphobia and the independent effect of virtual reality exposure therapy. The Australian and New Zealand journal of psychiatry 47 (07 2012). https://doi.org/10.1177/0004867412453626Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Kazumichi Matsumiya. 2019. Separate multisensory integration processes for ownership and localization of body parts. Scientific Reports 9, 1 (2019), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-37375-zGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. G. Lorimer Moseley, Alberto Gallace, and Charles Spence. 2012. Bodily illusions in health and disease: Physiological and clinical perspectives and the concept of a cortical ’body matrix’. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 36, 1 (2012), 34–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2011.03.013Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Kou Murayama and Andrew J Elliot. 2012. The competition–performance relation: A meta-analytic review and test of the opposing processes model of competition and performance.Psychological bulletin 138, 6 (2012), 1035.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Jean Marie Normand, Elias Giannopoulos, Bernhard Spanlang, and Mel Slater. 2011. Multisensory stimulation can induce an illusion of larger belly size in immersive virtual reality. PLoS ONE 6, 1 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0016128Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Sofia Adelaide Osimo, Rodrigo Pizarro, Bernhard Spanlang, and Mel Slater. 2015. Conversations between self and self as Sigmund Freud - A virtual body ownership paradigm for self counselling. Scientific Reports 5, July (2015), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep13899Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Ye Pan and Anthony Steed. 2017. The impact of self-avatars on trust and collaboration in shared virtual environments. PLOS ONE 12, 12 (12 2017), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189078Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Tabitha C Peck, Sofia Seinfeld, Salvatore M Aglioti, and Mel Slater. 2013. Putting yourself in the skin of a black avatar reduces implicit racial bias consciousness and cognition. Consciousness and Cognition(2013), 779–787. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2013.04.016Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Jorge Peña, Jeffrey T. Hancock, and Nicholas A. Merola. 2009. The priming effects of avatars in virtual settings. Communication Research 36, 6 (2009), 838–856. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650209346802Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  50. Valeria I. Petkova and H. Henrik Ehrsson. 2008. If I were you: Perceptual illusion of body swapping. PLoS ONE 3, 12 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0003832Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Ivelina V. Piryankova, Hong Yu Wong, Sally A. Linkenauger, Catherine Stinson, Matthew R. Longo, Heinrich H. Bülthoff, and Betty J. Mohler. 2014. Owning an overweight or underweight body: Distinguishing the physical, experienced and virtual body. PLoS ONE 9, 8 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0103428Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Sandra Poeschl and Nicola Doering. 2015. Measuring co-presence and social presence in virtual environments - Psychometric construction of a german scale for a fear of public speaking scenario. Annual Review of CyberTherapy and Telemedicine 13, February 2016(2015), 58–63. https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-595-1-58Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Giuseppe Riva and Fabrizia Mantovani. 2012. Being There: Understanding the Feeling of Presence in a Synthetic Environment and its Potential for Clinical Change. Virtual Reality in Psychological, Medical and Pedagogical Applications (2012), 3–34. https://doi.org/10.5772/46411Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Robin S. Rosenberg, Shawnee L. Baughman, and Jeremy N. Bailenson. 2013. Virtual Superheroes: Using Superpowers in Virtual Reality to Encourage Prosocial Behavior. PLOS ONE 8, 1 (01 2013), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0055003Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Daniel Roth and Marc Erich Latoschik. 2019. Construction of a Validated Virtual Embodiment Questionnaire. arxiv:1911.10176 [cs.HC]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. Maria V. Sanchez-Vives and Mel Slater. 2005. From presence to consciousness through virtual reality. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 6, 4 (2005), 332–339. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1651Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  57. 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 (2010), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0010381Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  58. Kateryna Savchenko, Heather Medema, Ronald Boring, and Thomas Ulrich. 2019. Measuring Mutual Awareness for Digital Human-Machine Interfaces: A Questionnaire for Simulator Studies. 36–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94391-6_4Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. Thomas Schubert, Frank Friedmann, and Holger Regenbrecht. 2001. The Experience of Presence: Factor Analytic Insights. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 10, 3(2001), 266–281. https://doi.org/10.1162/105474601300343603Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  60. Valentin Schwind, Pascal Knierim, Nico Haas, and Niels Henze. 2019. Using presence questionnaires in virtual reality. Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2019), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300590Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  61. Valentin Schwind, Pascal Knierim, Cagri Tasci, Patrick Franczak, Nico Haas, and Niels Henze. 2017. “These are not my hands!”: Effect of Gender on the Perception of Avatar Hands in Virtual Reality. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2017-01-01). ACM, New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025602Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  62. Valentin Schwind, Lorraine Lin, Massimiliano Di Luca, Sophie Jörg, and James Hillis. 2018. Touch with Foreign Hands: The Effect of Virtual Hand Appearance on Visual-Haptic Integration. Proceedings of the 15th ACM Symposium on Applied Perception - SAP ’18 (2018), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1145/3225153.3225158Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  63. Tim Shallice. 1982. Specific Impairments of Planning. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences 298 (07 1982), 199–209. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1982.0082Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  64. Thomas Sheridan. 1992. Musings on Telepresence and Virtual Presence. Presence 1 (01 1992), 120–125. https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.1992.1.1.120Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  65. Mel Slater. 1999. Measuring Presence: A Response to the Witmer and Singer Presence Questionnaire. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 8, 5(1999), 560–565. https://doi.org/10.1162/105474699566477 arxiv:arXiv:1011.1669v3Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  66. Mel Slater, Daniel Perez-Marcos, H. Henrik Ehrsson, and Maria V. Sanchez-Vives. 2008. Towards a digital body: The virtual arm illusion. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 2, AUG (2008), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.3389/neuro.09.006.2008Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  67. 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0010564Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  68. Mel Slater and Martin Usoh. 1993. Presence in immersive virtual environments. In Proceedings of IEEE Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium. 90–96. https://doi.org/10.1109/VRAIS.1993.380793Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  69. Mark Snyder, Elizabeth D. Tanke, and Ellen Berscheid. 1977. Social perception and interpersonal behavior: On the self-fulfilling nature of social stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 35, 9(1977), 656–666. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.35.9.656Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  70. Manos Tsakiris and Patrick Haggard. 2005. The rubber hand illusion revisited: Visuotactile integration and self-attribution. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 31, 1(2005), 80–91. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.31.1.80Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  71. 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. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques(SIGGRAPH ’99). ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., New York, NY, USA, 359–364. https://doi.org/10.1145/311535.311589Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  72. Christopher M Via. 2016. The Proteus Effect and Gaming: The Impact of Digital Actors and Race in a Virtual Environment. (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  73. Jacob O. Wobbrock, Leah Findlater, Darren Gergle, and James J. Higgins. 2011. The Aligned Rank Transform for Nonparametric Factorial Analyses Using Only Anova Procedures. In Proceedings of the 2011 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Vancouver, BC, Canada) (CHI ’11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 143–146. https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1978963Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  74. Grace S. Yang, Bryan Gibson, Adam K. Lueke, L. Rowell Huesmann, and Brad J. Bushman. 2014. Effects of Avatar Race in Violent Video Games on Racial Attitudes and Aggression. Social Psychological and Personality Science 5, 6 (2014), 698–704. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550614528008 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550614528008Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  75. Nick Yee and Jeremy Bailenson. 2007. The Proteus effect: The Effect of Transformed Self-representation on Behavior. Human Communication Research 33, 3 (2007), 271–290. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00299.xGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  76. Gunwoo Yoon and Patrick T. Vargas. 2014. Know Thy Avatar: The Unintended Effect of Virtual-Self Representation on Behavior. Psychological Science 25, 4 (2014), 1043–1045. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613519271 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613519271PMID: 24501111.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  77. David Zeltzer. 1992. Autonomy, Interaction, and Presence. Presence: Teleoper. Virtual Environ. 1, 1 (Jan. 1992), 127–132. https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.1992.1.1.127Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  78. Jing Zhang and Bernhard Hommel. 2016. Body ownership and response to threat. Psychological Research 80, 6 (2016), 1020–1029. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-015-0698-1Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  79. K. Zibrek, E. Kokkinara, and R. Mcdonnell. 2018. The Effect of Realistic Appearance of Virtual Characters in Immersive Environments - Does the Character’s Personality Play a Role?IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 24, 4(2018), 1681–1690.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  80. Katja Zibrek and Rachel McDonnell. 2019. Social Presence and Place Illusion Are Affected by Photorealism in Embodied VR. In Motion, Interaction and Games (Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom) (MIG ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 13, 7 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359566.3360064Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

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 '20: Proceedings of the 26th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology
    November 2020
    429 pages
    ISBN:9781450376198
    DOI:10.1145/3385956

    Copyright © 2020 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: 1 November 2020

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    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

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format .

View HTML Format