skip to main content
10.1145/3491102.3517447acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

There Is No First- or Third-Person View in Virtual Reality: Understanding the Perspective Continuum

Published:29 April 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

Modern games make creative use of First- and Third-person perspectives (FPP and TPP) to allow the player to explore virtual worlds. Traditionally, FPP and TPP perspectives are seen as distinct concepts. Yet, Virtual Reality (VR) allows for flexibility in choosing perspectives. We introduce the notion of a perspective continuum in VR, which is technically related to the camera position and conceptually to how users perceive their environment in VR. A perspective continuum enables adapting and manipulating the sense of agency and involvement in the virtual world. This flexibility of perspectives broadens the design space of VR experiences through deliberately manipulating perception. In a study, we explore users’ attitudes, experiences and perceptions while controlling a virtual character from the two known perspectives. Statistical analysis of the empirical results shows the existence of a perspective continuum in VR. Our findings can be used to design experiences based on shifts of perception.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

3491102.3517447-video-figure.mp4

mp4

142.2 MB

3491102.3517447-video-preview.mp4

mp4

17.8 MB

3491102.3517447-talk-video.mp4

mp4

246.5 MB

References

  1. Jose Ameijeiras-Alonso, Rosa M Crujeiras, and Alberto Rodríguez-Casal. 2019. Mode testing, critical bandwidth and excess mass. Test 28, 3 (2019), 900–919.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Matthew Botvinick and Jonathan Cohen. 1998. Rubber hands ‘feel’touch that eyes see. Nature 391, 6669 (1998), 756–756.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Pierre Bourdin, Itxaso Barberia, Ramon Oliva, and Mel Slater. 2017. A virtual out-of-body experience reduces fear of death. PloS one 12, 1 (2017), e0169343.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Lucie Bréchet, Robin Mange, Bruno Herbelin, Quentin Theillaud, Baptiste Gauthier, Andrea Serino, and Olaf Blanke. 2019. First-person view of one’s body in immersive virtual reality: Influence on episodic memory. PLOS ONE 14, 3 (03 2019), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0197763Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Valve Corporation. 2020. A Fisherman’s Tale. [https://store.steampowered.com/app/559330/A_Fishermans_Tale/].Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Carla de Juan-Ripoll, José L Soler-Domínguez, Jaime Guixeres, Manuel Contero, Noemi Álvarez Gutiérrez, and Mariano Alcañiz. 2018. Virtual reality as a new approach for risk taking assessment. Frontiers in psychology 9 (2018), 2532.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Alena Denisova and Paul Cairns. 2015. First person vs. third person perspective in digital games: do player preferences affect immersion?. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 145–148.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Katharina Emmerich, Andrey Krekhov, Sebastian Cmentowski, and Jens Krueger. 2021. Streaming VR Games to the Broad Audience: A Comparison of the First-Person and Third-Person Perspectives. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445515Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. LLC. Facebook Technologies. 2020. Chronos. [https://www.oculus.com/experiences/rift/929508627125435/]- Last accessed: Jan 2022.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. LLC. Facebook Technologies. 2020. A Fisherman’s Tale. [https://www.oculus.com/experiences/quest/2299967930057156/?locale=en_US]- Last accessed: Jan 2022.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. LLC. Facebook Technologies. 2020. Lucky’s Tale. [https://www.oculus.com/experiences/rift/909129545868758/]- Last accessed: Jan 2022.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. LLC. Facebook Technologies. 2020. Moss. [https://www.oculus.com/experiences/rift/1942343732456615/?locale=en_US]- Last accessed: Jan 2022.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. LLC. Facebook Technologies. 2020. Trover Saves the Universe. [https://www.oculus.com/experiences/rift/1769388509760051/?locale=en_US]- Last accessed: Jan 2022.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Henrique Galvan Debarba, Sidney Bovet, Roy Salomon, Olaf Blanke, Bruno Herbelin, and Ronan Boulic. 2017. Characterizing first and third person viewpoints and their alternation for embodied interaction in virtual reality. PloS one 12, 12 (2017), e0190109.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Azucena Garcia-Palacios, Hunter Hoffman, Albert Carlin, Thomas A Furness III, and Cristina Botella. 2002. Virtual reality in the treatment of spider phobia: a controlled study. Behaviour research and therapy 40, 9 (2002), 983–993.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Geoffrey Gorisse, Olivier Christmann, Etienne Armand Amato, and Simon Richir. 2017. First-and Third-Person Perspectives in immersive Virtual environments: Presence and Performance analysis of embodied Users. Frontiers in Robotics and AI 4 (2017), 33.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Sarra Graja, Phil Lopes, and Guillaume Chanel. 2020. Impact of Visual and Sound Orchestration on physiological arousal and tension in a horror game. IEEE Transactions on Games(2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Scott W Greenwald, Zhangyuan Wang, Markus Funk, and Pattie Maes. 2017. Investigating social presence and communication with embodied avatars in room-scale virtual reality. In International Conference on Immersive Learning. Springer, 75–90.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. LLC Gunfire Games. 2015. CHRONOS. [http://gunfiregames.com/chronos] - Last accessed: Jan 2022.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Wijnand A IJsselsteijn, Yvonne AW de Kort, and Karolien Poels. 2013. The game experience questionnaire. Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven 46, 1 (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Wijnand A IJsselsteijn, Yvonne A W de Kort, and Antal Haans. 2006. Is this my hand I see before me? The rubber hand illusion in reality, virtual reality, and mixed reality. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 15, 4(2006), 455–464.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Heather Iriye and Peggy L St Jacques. 2021. Memories for third-person experiences in immersive virtual reality. Scientific reports 11, 1 (2021), 1–14.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Matthew Kay and Jacob O Wobbrock. 2016. Package ‘ARTool’. CRAN Repository (2016), 1–13.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. B Keshavarz. [n.d.]. Hecht H (2011b) Validating an efficient method to quantify motion sickness. Hum Factors 53, 4 ([n. d.]), 415–426.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Konstantina Kilteni, Raphaela Groten, and Mel Slater. 2012. The sense of embodiment in virtual reality. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 21, 4(2012), 373–387.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Mingyu Kim, Jiwon Lee, Changhun Kim, and Jinmo Kim. 2018. Tpvr: User interaction of third person virtual reality for new presence and experience. Symmetry 10, 4 (2018), 109.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Thomas Kosch, Robin Boldt, Matthias Hoppe, Pascal Knierim, and Markus Funk. 2016. Exploring the Optimal Point of View in Third Person Out-of-Body Experiences. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM International Conference on PErvasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments (Corfu, Island, Greece) (PETRA ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 68, 4 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/2910674.2910720Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Bigna Lenggenhager, Tej Tadi, Thomas Metzinger, and Olaf Blanke. 2007. Video ergo sum: manipulating bodily self-consciousness. Science 317, 5841 (2007), 1096–1099.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Daniele Leonardis, Antonio Frisoli, Michele Barsotti, Marcello Carrozzino, and Massimo Bergamasco. 2014. Multisensory feedback can enhance embodiment within an enriched virtual walking scenario. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 23, 3(2014), 253–266.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC. 2020. ASTRO BOT Rescue Mission. [https://www.playstation.com/en-us/games/astro-bot-rescue-mission-ps4/]- Last accessed: Jan 2022.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC. 2020. Moss. [https://www.playstation.com/en-us/games/moss-ps4/]- Last accessed: Jan 2022.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Matthew R Longo, Friederike Schüür, Marjolein PM Kammers, Manos Tsakiris, and Patrick Haggard. 2008. What is embodiment? A psychometric approach. Cognition 107, 3 (2008), 978–998.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Angelo Maravita and Atsushi Iriki. 2004. Tools for the body (schema). Trends in cognitive sciences 8, 2 (2004), 79–86.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Daniel Medeiros, Rafael K. dos Anjos, Daniel Mendes, João Madeiras Pereira, Alberto Raposo, and Joaquim Jorge. 2018. Keep My Head on My Shoulders! Why Third-Person is Bad for Navigation in VR. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology (Tokyo, Japan) (VRST ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 16, 10 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3281505.3281511Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Diego Monteiro, Hai-Ning Liang, Wenge Xu, Marvin Brucker, Vijayakumar Nanjappan, and Yong Yue. 2018. Evaluating enjoyment, presence, and emulator sickness in VR games based on first-and third-person viewing perspectives. Computer Animation and Virtual Worlds 29, 3-4 (2018), e1830.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Joschka Mütterlein. 2018. The three pillars of virtual reality? Investigating the roles of immersion, presence, and interactivity. In Proceedings of the 51st Hawaii international conference on system sciences.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. 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 22, 3 (2013), 779–787.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Valeria Ivanova Petkova, Mehrnoush Khoshnevis, and H Henrik Ehrsson. 2011. The perspective matters! Multisensory integration in ego-centric reference frames determines full-body ownership. Frontiers in psychology 2 (2011), 35.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Informa PLC. 2020. ’Lucky’s Tale’: The Unexpected Delight of Third-Person Virtual Reality, a Technical Postmortem. [https://www.gdcvault.com/play/1023666/-Lucky-s-Tale-The]- Last accessed: Jan 2022.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Marieke Rohde, Massimiliano Di Luca, and Marc O Ernst. 2011. The rubber hand illusion: feeling of ownership and proprioceptive drift do not go hand in hand. PloS one 6, 6 (2011), e21659.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Patrick Salamin, Daniel Thalmann, and Frédéric Vexo. 2006. The benefits of third-person perspective in virtual and augmented reality?. In Proceedings of the ACM symposium on Virtual reality software and technology. 27–30.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Jonas Schjerlund, Kasper Hornbæk, and Joanna Bergström. 2021. Ninja Hands: Using Many Hands to Improve Target Selection in VR. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–14.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Thomas Schubert, Frank Friedmann, and Holger Regenbrecht. 2001. The experience of presence: Factor analytic insights. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments 10, 3(2001), 266–281.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Valentin Schwind, Pascal Knierim, Lewis Chuang, and Niels Henze. 2017. ” Where’s Pinky?” The Effects of a Reduced Number of Fingers in Virtual Reality. In Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play. 507–515.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Valentin Schwind, Pascal Knierim, Lewis Chuang, and Niels Henze. 2017. ”Where’s Pinky?”: The Effects of a Reduced Number of Fingers in Virtual Reality. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 507–515. https://doi.org/10.1145/3116595.3116596Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. 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 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1577–1582.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Sofia Seinfeld, J Arroyo-Palacios, G Iruretagoyena, R Hortensius, LE Zapata, D Borland, B de Gelder, M Slater, and MV Sanchez-Vives. 2018. Offenders become the victim in virtual reality: impact of changing perspective in domestic violence. Scientific reports 8, 1 (2018), 1–11.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Mel Slater, Solène Neyret, Tania Johnston, Guillermo Iruretagoyena, Mercè Álvarez de la Campa Crespo, Miquel Alabèrnia-Segura, Bernhard Spanlang, and Guillem Feixas. 2019. An experimental study of a virtual reality counselling paradigm using embodied self-dialogue. Scientific reports 9, 1 (2019), 1–13.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Mel Slater, Daniel Pérez Marcos, Henrik Ehrsson, and Maria V Sanchez-Vives. 2009. Inducing illusory ownership of a virtual body. Frontiers in neuroscience 3 (2009), 29.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. 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 (2010), e10564.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  51. Laurie N Taylor. 2002. Video games: Perspective, point-of-view, and immersion. (2002).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Gerald A Voorhees, Joshua Call, and Katie Whitlock. 2012. Guns, grenades, and grunts: First-person shooter games. Bloomsbury Publishing USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Daniel PO Wiedemann, Peter J Passmore, and Magnus Moar. 2016. Virtual Reality 3rd person camera behavior modes. (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Paweł W. Woźniak, Jakob Karolus, Florian Lang, Caroline Eckerth, Johannes Schöning, Yvonne Rogers, and Jasmin Niess. 2021. Creepy Technology:What Is It and How Do You Measure It?Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445299Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. Paul Zimmons and Abigail Panter. 2003. The influence of rendering quality on presence and task performance in a virtual environment. In IEEE Virtual Reality, 2003. Proceedings. IEEE, 293–294.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. There Is No First- or Third-Person View in Virtual Reality: Understanding the Perspective Continuum

      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
        CHI '22: Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
        April 2022
        10459 pages
        ISBN:9781450391573
        DOI:10.1145/3491102

        Copyright © 2022 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 the author(s) 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: 29 April 2022

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed limited

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

        Upcoming Conference

        CHI '24
        CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
        May 11 - 16, 2024
        Honolulu , HI , USA

      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