skip to main content
10.1145/3208159.3208171acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescgiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Sensory and Perceptual Consistency for Believable Response in Action Feedback Loop

Authors Info & Claims
Published:11 June 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Most Virtual Reality1(VR) applications are dedicated to providing a realistic response to users. Prior works have argued that the importance of credibility or believability to evoke realistic responses. However, there are few empirical works focused on the concept of believability itself. This work further explores the evoke-condition of believability from the views of sensory and perceptual aspects. Sensory believability refers to the actions supported by the Virtual Environment (VE) match with common sense, whereas perceptual believability refers to the behaviors supported by the VE are consistent with the expectation formed during interactions or from prior experiences. Towards the end, an experiment that examines the sensory (rock appearance, environmental visual scene, environmental sound) and perceptual (dynamic behavior) factors of consistency on believable response in a virtual rock climbing environment was conducted. The results showed that the consistency of dynamics features contributed the most to perceptual believability, followed by a higher level of rock appearance along with climbing actions, even with the medium level of the environmental visual scene. In contrast, the medium and higher level of environmental visual scene contributed the most to sensory believability. This study suggests the sensory and perceptual consistency together could evoke the believable response in action feedback loop for VR.

References

  1. HTC Vive, https://www.vive.com/eu/, Retrieved on Nov, 06, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Cummings, J. J., and Bailenson, J. N., 2016. How immersive is enough? A meta-analysis of the effect of immersive technology on user presence. Media Psychology, 19:2, 272--309.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Slater, M. 2009. Place illusion and plausibility can lead to realistic behavior in immersive virtual environments. Phi. Trans. R. Soc. B, 364, 3549--3557.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Rovira, A., Swapp, D., Spanlang, B., and Slater, M., 2009. The use of virtual reality in the study of people's responses to violent incidents. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, Vol. 3, Article 59.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Skarbez, R., Neyret, S., Brooks, F. P., Slater, M., and Whitton, M. C., 2017. A psychophysical experiment regarding components of the plausibility illusion." IEEE Trans. on Visualization and Computer Graphics, Vol. 23, No. 4, 1322--1331. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. BergstrÖm, I., Azevedo, S., Papiotis, P., Saldanha, N., and Slater, M., 2017. The plausibility of a string quartet performance in virtual reality. IEEE Trans. on Visualization and Computer Graphics, Vol. 23, No. 4, 1332--1339. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Avradinis, N., Panayiotopoulos, T., and Anastassakis, G., 2013. Behavior believability in virtual worlds: agents acting when they need to. SpringerPlus, 2:246.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Magnenat-Thalmann, N., Kim, H., Egges, A., and Garchery, S., 2005. Believability and Interaction in Virtual Worlds." Proc. of the 11th International Multimedia Modelling Conference (MMM 05). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Slater, M., Khanna, P., Mortensen, J., and Yu, I., 2009. Visual realism enhances realistic response in an immersive virtual environment. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, Vol. 29, Issue 3, 76--84.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Mania, K., Wooldridge, D., Coxon, M., and Robinson, A., 2006. The effect of visual and interaction fidelity on spatial cognition in immersive virtual environments, IEEE Trans. on Visualization and Computer Graphics, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 396--404. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Schubert, T. W., & Crusius, J., 2002. Five theses on the book problem." Presence in books, film, and VR. In F. R. Gouveia & F. Biocca (Eds.), PRESENCE 2002 -- Proceedings of the fifth international workshop on Presence, Porto, Portugal: Universidad Fernando Pessoa, 53--59.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Bennett, A., Coxon, M., and Mania, K., 2010. The effect of stereo and context on memory and awareness states in immersive virtual environments. APGV '10 (Proc. of 7th Symposium on Applied Perception in Graphics and Visualization), Los Angeles, USA, 135--140. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Lindeman, R. W., and Beckhaus, S., 2009. Crafting memorable VR experiences using experiential fidelity. Proc. of ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software Techology (VRST 09). Kyoto, Japan, 187--190. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Gao, B., 2018. Believability of spatial user interactions in virtual environments. Ph.D. Dissertation, Konkuk University, Seoul, South Korea.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Kajastila, R., Holsti, L., and Hámáláinen, P., 2016. The augmented climbing wall: high-exertion proximity interaction on a wall-sized interactive surface. ACM CHI 16, San Jose, CA. USA, 758--769. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. The Climb Game, http://www.theclimbgame.com/, Retrieved on Nov. 14, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Kosmalla, F., Zenner, A., Speicher, M., Daiber, F., Herbig, N., and Krüger, A., 2017. Exploring rock climbing in mixed reality environments. ACM CHI 17, Denver, CO, USA, 1787--1793. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Slater, M., Usoh, M., and Steed, A., 1995. Taking steps: the influence of a walking technique on presence in virtual reality. TOCHI (ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction), Vol. 2, No. 3, 201--219. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Slater, M., Linakis, V., Usoh, M., Kooper, R., and Street, G., 1996. Immersion, presence, and performance in virtual environments: an experiment with tri-dimensional chess. Proc. of ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology (VRST 1996), 163--172.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Biocca, F., 1997. The cyborg's dilemma: progressive embodiment in virtual environments. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Vol. 3, Issue 2.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Slater, M., and Wilbur, S., 1997. A framework for immersive virtual environments (FIVE): speculations on the role of presence in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, Vol. 6, Issue 6, 603--616. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Witmer, B. G., and Singer, M. J., 1998. Measuring presence in virtual environments: a presence questionnaire. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, Vol. 7, Issue 3, 225-- 240. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Sheridan, T. B., 1992. Musings on Telepresence and Virtual Presence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, Vol. 1, Issue 1, 120--126.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Lee, K. M. 2004. Presence, Explicated. Communication Theory, Vol. 14, Issue 1, 27--50.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Wirth, W., Hartmann, T., BÖcking, S., Vorderer, P., Klimmt, P., Schramm, H., Saari, T., Laarni, J., Ravaja, N., Gouveia, F. R., Biocca, F., Sacau, A., Jäncke, L., Baumgartner, T., and Jäncke, P., 2007. A Process Model of the Formation of Spatial Presence Experiences. Media Psychology, 9:3, 493--525.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Wang, N., and Doube, W., 2011. How real is reality? A perceptually motivated system for quantifying visual realism in digital images. Proc. of International Conference on Multimedia and Signal Processing, 141--149. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Meijer, F., Geudeke, B. L., and Broek, E. L. V. D., 2009. Navigating through virtual environments: visual realism improves spatial cognition. CyberPsychology & Behav., 12(5), 517--521.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Greeno, J. G., 1994. Gibson's affordances, Psychological review, Vol. 101, No. 2, 336--342.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Warren, WH Jr., 1984. Perceiving affordances: visual guidance of stair climbing. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform, 10(5): 683--703.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Kim, H., Giacomo, T. D., Egges, A., Lyard, E., Garchery, S., Magnenat-Thalmann, N., 2004. Believable Virtual Environment: Sensory and Perceptual Believability." Workshop on Believability in Virtual Environment.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Slater, M., Spanlang, B., and Corominas, D., 2010. Simulating virtual environments within virtual environments as the basis for a psychophysics of presence, ACM Transactions on Graphics, vol. 29, p. Paper: 92. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Hendrix, C. and Barfield, W., 1996. The sense of presence within auditory virtual environments, Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, vol. 5, 290--301. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Bormann, K., 2005. Presence and the utility of audio spatialization, Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, vol. 14, 278--297. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Poeschl, S., Wall, K. and Doering, N., 2013. Integration of spatial sound in immersive virtual environments an experimental study on effects of spatial sound on presence. Proc. of IEEE Virtual Reality 2013, 129--130.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Slater, M., Usoh, M., and Chrysanthou, Y., 1995. The Influence of Dynamic Shadows on Presence in Immersive Virtual Environments, Eurographics Workshops Virtual Environments 1995. Springer. 8--21. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. VRTK, https://vrtoolkit.readme.io/docs, Retrieved on Nov, 13, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Usoh, M., Catena, E., Arman, S., and Slater, M., 2000. Using presence questionnaires in reality. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, Vol. 9, Issue. 5, 497--503. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Warren, W. H., 2006. The dynamics of perception and action. Psychological Review, Vol. 113, No. 2, 358--389.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Rock and Boulders 2, https://assetstore.unity.com/packages/3d/props/exterior/rock-and-boulders-2-6947, retrieved in Nov, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Tree pack 2, https://assetstore.unity.com/packages/3d/vegetation/trees/tree-pack-2-67117, retrieved in Nov, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Windy sound, https://freesound.org/, retrieved in Nov, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Sensory and Perceptual Consistency for Believable Response in Action Feedback Loop

    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 Other conferences
      CGI 2018: Proceedings of Computer Graphics International 2018
      June 2018
      284 pages
      ISBN:9781450364010
      DOI:10.1145/3208159

      Copyright © 2018 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 June 2018

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

      Acceptance Rates

      CGI 2018 Paper Acceptance Rate35of159submissions,22%Overall Acceptance Rate35of159submissions,22%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader