skip to main content
10.1145/3534086.3534329acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmmsysConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper

Does having a virtual body make a difference during cinematic vr experiences?

Published:11 July 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

Cinematic VR, either as an in-game cutscene or a standalone 360° 3D movie, is a widespread narration tool for stories unfolding through Immersive Virtual Reality (IVR) experiences. Commonly, users experience cinematics from a 3rd or 1st person perspective, while firmly positioned in specific proxemics zones of the characters or events they are meant to take in, with no interactivity options provided. This study examines whether having a virtual body (VB) amplifies users' emotional response, specifically their anxiety levels, and how dependent those are to the interpersonal distances between the VB and non-player characters.

References

  1. Murphy, S.C., 'Live in your world, play in ours': The spaces of video game identity. Journal of visual culture, 2004. 3(2): p. 223--238.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Kilteni, K., A. Maselli, K.P. Kording, and M. Slater, Over my fake body: body ownership illusions for studying the multisensory basis of own-body perception. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2015. 9: p. 141.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Kasapakis, V., E. Dzardanova, and C. Paschalidis. Conceptual and technical aspects of full-body motion support in virtual and mixed reality. in International Conference on Augmented Reality, Virtual Reality and Computer Graphics. 2018. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Nicolae, D.F., Spectator perspectives in virtual reality cinematography. The witness, the hero and the impersonator. Ekphrasis. Images, Cinema, Theory, Media, 2018. 20(2): p. 168--180.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Welsch, R., S. Rothe, and S. Mayer, Proxemics in Virtual Reality: What Should We Put to the Test in Social VR? 2021.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Hall, E.T. and E.T. Hall, The hidden dimension. Vol. 609. 1966: Anchor.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Sowizral, H.A., Virtual Reality and High Performance Computing, in Advances in Parallel Computing. 1995, Elsevier. p. 337--349.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Slater, M., B. Spanlang, M.V. Sanchez-Vives, and O. Blanke, First person experience of body transfer in virtual reality. PloS one, 2010. 5(5): p. e10564.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Kilteni, K., R. Groten, and M. Slater, The sense of embodiment in virtual reality. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 2012. 21(4): p. 373--387.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Kondo, R., M. Sugimoto, K. Minamizawa, T. Hoshi, M. Inami, and M. Kitazaki, Illusory body ownership of an invisible body interpolated between virtual hands and feet via visual-motor synchronicity. Scientific reports, 2018. 8(1): p. 1--8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Dooley, K., A question of proximity: Exploring a new screen grammar for 360-degree cinematic virtual reality. Media Practice and Education, 2020. 21(2): p. 81--96.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Bönsch, A., S. Radke, H. Overath, L.M. Asché, J. Wendt, T. Vierjahn, U. Habel, and T.W. Kuhlen. Social VR: How personal space is affected by virtual agents' emotions. in 2018 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR). 2018. IEEE.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Llobera, J., B. Spanlang, G. Ruffini, and M. Slater, Proxemics with multiple dynamic characters in an immersive virtual environment. ACM Transactions on Applied Perception (TAP), 2010. 8(1): p. 1--12.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Bergström, I., K. Kilteni, and M. Slater, First-person perspective virtual body posture influences stress: a virtual reality body ownership study. PloS one, 2016. 11(2): p. e0148060.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Rothe, S., H. Hußmann, and M. Allary. Diegetic cues for guiding the viewer in cinematic virtual reality. in Proceedings of the 23rd ACM symposium on virtual reality software and technology. 2017.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Critchley, H. D. Review: electrodermal responses: what happens in the brain. Neurosci 8: 132--142, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Keighrey, C., R. Flynn, S. Murray, S. Brennan, and N. Murray. Comparing user QoE via physiological and interaction measurements of immersive AR and VR speech and language therapy applications. in Proceedings of the on Thematic Workshops of ACM Multimedia 2017. 2017.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Does having a virtual body make a difference during cinematic vr experiences?

    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
      MMVE '22: Proceedings of the 14th International Workshop on Immersive Mixed and Virtual Environment Systems
      June 2022
      59 pages
      ISBN:9781450393829
      DOI:10.1145/3534086
      • General Chair:
      • Conor Keighrey

      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 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: 11 July 2022

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • short-paper

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate26of44submissions,59%
    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)22
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1

      Other Metrics

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader