skip to main content
10.1145/3584931.3607004acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescscwConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Are You Anonymous? Inferring Personal Information from Nonverbal Behavior Data Tracked in Immersive Virtual Reality

Published:14 October 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

The growing adoption of virtual reality (VR) technology has raised concerns regarding individuals’ privacy. We explored people’s ability to infer personal information about others from representations of nonverbal behavior data tracked in VR. We conducted a within-subject experiment with 53 participants to explore if they could guess personal information from gestures, spatial behavior, and a combination of both represented through neutral avatars in VR. We found that participants could not guess better than random for most features, except for age and native English speaker status. Furthermore, there were almost no differences between the various types of behavior, except for native English speaker status. We discuss how our results contradict previous research on people’s identification from nonverbal behavior. Our study is the first to address people’s ability to infer other people’s information from nonverbal behavior in VR.

References

  1. Nadine Aburumman, Marco Gillies, Jamie A Ward, and Antonia F de C Hamilton. 2022. Nonverbal communication in virtual reality: Nodding as a social signal in virtual interactions. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 164 (Aug. 2022), 102819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2022.102819Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Dane Archer. 1997. Unspoken diversity: Cultural differences in gestures. Qualitative sociology 20, 1 (1997), 79–105. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024716331692Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Sarker Monojit Asish, Arun K Kulshreshth, and Christoph W Borst. 2022. User Identification Utilizing Minimal Eye-Gaze Features in Virtual Reality Applications. Virtual Worlds 1, 1 (2022), 42–61. https://doi.org/10.3390/virtualworlds1010004Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Catharine D Barclay, James E Cutting, and Lynn T Kozlowski. 1978. Temporal and spatial factors in gait perception that influence gender recognition. Perception & psychophysics 23, 2 (1978), 145–152. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03208295Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. James E Cutting and Lynn T Kozlowski. 1977. Recognizing friends by their walk: Gait perception without familiarity cues. Bulletin of the psychonomic society 9, 5 (1977), 353–356. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03337021Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Winand H Dittrich, Tom Troscianko, Stephen EG Lea, and Dawn Morgan. 1996. Perception of emotion from dynamic point-light displays represented in dance. Perception 25, 6 (1996), 727–738. https://doi.org/10.1068/p250727Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Brandon Falk, Yan Meng, Yuxia Zhan, and Haojin Zhu. 2021. POSTER: ReAvatar: Virtual Reality De-Anonymization Attack Through Correlating Movement Signatures. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (Virtual Event, Republic of Korea) (CCS ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2405–2407. https://doi.org/10.1145/3460120.3485345Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Harold Hill and Alan Johnston. 2001. Categorizing sex and identity from the biological motion of faces. Current biology 11, 11 (2001), 880–885. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-9822(01)00243-3Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Harold Hill and Frank E Pollick. 2000. Exaggerating temporal differences enhances recognition of individuals from point light displays. Psychological Science 11, 3 (2000), 223–228. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00245Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Elizabeth E Lloyd-Richardson, Steffani Bailey, Joseph L Fava, Rena Wing, Tobacco Etiology Research Network, 2009. A prospective study of weight gain during the college freshman and sophomore years. Preventive medicine 48, 3 (2009), 256–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2008.12.009Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Divine Maloney and Guo Freeman. 2020. Falling Asleep Together: What Makes Activities in Social Virtual Reality Meaningful to Users. In Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (Virtual Event, Canada) (CHI PLAY ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 510–521. https://doi.org/10.1145/3410404.3414266Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Goran Markovic and Slobodan Jaric. 2004. Movement performance and body size: the relationship for different groups of tests. European journal of applied physiology 92 (2004), 139–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-004-1076-7Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Mark Roman Miller, Fernanda Herrera, Hanseul Jun, James A Landay, and Jeremy N Bailenson. 2020. Personal identifiability of user tracking data during observation of 360-degree VR video. Scientific Reports 10, 1 (2020), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-74486-yGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Alec G. Moore, Ryan P. McMahan, Hailiang Dong, and Nicholas Ruozzi. 2021. Personal Identifiability of User Tracking Data During VR Training. In 2021 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces Abstracts and Workshops (VRW). 556–557. https://doi.org/10.1109/VRW52623.2021.00160Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Vicente Nacher, Javier Jaen, Elena Navarro, Alejandro Catala, and Pascual González. 2015. Multi-touch gestures for pre-kindergarten children. International journal of human-computer studies 73 (2015), 37–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2014.08.004Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Vivek Nair, Gonzalo Munilla Garrido, and Dawn Song. 2022. Exploring the Unprecedented Privacy Risks of the Metaverse. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2207.13176Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Ilesanmi Olade, Charles Fleming, and Hai-Ning Liang. 2020. Biomove: Biometric user identification from human kinesiological movements for virtual reality systems. Sensors 20, 10 (2020), 2944. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20102944Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Frank E Pollick, Helena M Paterson, Armin Bruderlin, and Anthony J Sanford. 2001. Perceiving affect from arm movement. Cognition 82, 2 (2001), B51–B61. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(01)00147-0Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Luc Rocher, Julien M Hendrickx, and Yves-Alexandre De Montjoye. 2019. Estimating the success of re-identifications in incomplete datasets using generative models. Nature communications 10, 1 (2019), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-10933-3Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Thomas W Schubert. 2004. The power in your hand: Gender differences in bodily feedback from making a fist. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 30, 6 (2004), 757–769. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204263780Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Juliette Stehlé, François Charbonnier, Tristan Picard, Ciro Cattuto, and Alain Barrat. 2013. Gender homophily from spatial behavior in a primary school: A sociometric study. Social Networks 35, 4 (2013), 604–613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2013.08.003Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Isaac Subirana, Héctor Sanz, and Joan Vila. 2014. Building Bivariate Tables: The compareGroups Package for R. Journal of Statistical Software 57, 12 (2014), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v057.i12Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. John Suler. 2004. The online disinhibition effect. Cyberpsychology & behavior 7, 3 (2004), 321–326. https://doi.org/10.1089/1094931041291295Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Shigemasa Sumi. 2000. Perception of point-light walker produced by eight lights attached to the back of the walker.Swiss Journal of Psychology/Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Revue Suisse de Psychologie 59, 2 (2000), 126–132. https://doi.org/10.1024/1421-0185.59.2.126Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Latanya Sweeney. 2000. Simple demographics often identify people uniquely. Health (San Francisco) 671, 2000 (2000), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1184/R1/6625769.v1Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Theresa Jean Tanenbaum, Nazely Hartoonian, and Jeffrey Bryan. 2020. " How do I make this thing smile?" An Inventory of Expressive Nonverbal Communication in Commercial Social Virtual Reality Platforms. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376606Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Nikolaus F Troje. 2002. Decomposing biological motion: A framework for analysis and synthesis of human gait patterns. Journal of vision 2, 5 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1167/2.5.2Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Nikolaus F Troje, Cord Westhoff, and Mikhail Lavrov. 2005. Person identification from biological motion: Effects of structural and kinematic cues. Perception & Psychophysics 67, 4 (2005), 667–675. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193523Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Nick Yee, Helen Harris, Maria Jabon, and Jeremy N Bailenson. 2011. The expression of personality in virtual worlds. Social Psychological and Personality Science 2, 1 (2011), 5–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550610379056Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Chen-Bo Zhong, Vanessa K Bohns, and Francesca Gino. 2010. Good lamps are the best police: Darkness increases dishonesty and self-interested behavior. Psychological science 21, 3 (2010), 311–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797609360754Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Are You Anonymous? Inferring Personal Information from Nonverbal Behavior Data Tracked in Immersive Virtual Reality

      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
        CSCW '23 Companion: Companion Publication of the 2023 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing
        October 2023
        596 pages
        ISBN:9798400701290
        DOI:10.1145/3584931

        Copyright © 2023 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: 14 October 2023

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed limited

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate2,235of8,521submissions,26%

        Upcoming Conference

        CSCW '24
      • Article Metrics

        • Downloads (Last 12 months)106
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)23

        Other Metrics

      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