Sound Research WIKINDX |
![]() |
|
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 |
| Herrera, G., Jordan, R., & Vera, L. (2006). Agency and presence: A common dependence on subjectivity? Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 15(5), 539–552. |
|
| Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard Last edited by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 14/08/2020, 15:35 | |
|
"Presence, then, can be considered to be a conceptualization for virtual environments of the conscious awareness of self, as both agent and experiencer, which characterizes the experiencing self of natural environments (i.e., using Brewer’s conceptualization)." (Brewer 1986) |
|
| "Agency, then, is a regulating variable or, if preferred, one of the components that correlates with (and perhaps determines) the level and type of presence obtained." | |
| Their definition of agency is "the exercise of a capacity for first person experience [that includes] information-processing and control [and] self-knowledge that is available to agents and to agents alone." | |
|
"The perceptions we receive from our senses have a very important role in the configuration of the sense of being there as they keep us connected with reality at every moment. Relevant here is the concept of affordances as noted by Zahorik et al. (1998) in the context of artificial environments. Affordances, as Gibson suggested (Gibson & Walker, 1984), define the opportunities for perception and action offered by the environment in the context of the individual’s capacities: they are things that one perceives directly (without the need of a mental representation process)." |
|
|
"it is through inter-subjectivity that we are enabled to take a subjective stance and thus have a sense of presence."
|
|
| Mantovani, G., & Riva, G. (1999). "Real" presence: How different ontologies generate different criteria for presence, telepresence, and virtual presence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 8(5), 540–550. |
|
| Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard Last edited by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 27/02/2022, 18:21 | |
| In combining ecological perception with cultural psychology, the authors explain the resolution of everyday ambiguity: "Culture is the device that human societies use to reduce the ambiguity intrinsic to everyday situations: the space in which actors' interests and environmental affordances meet is defined and shaped by the mediation exerted by artifacts [...] Ambiguity of everyday situations does not disappear, but it is made tractable by the presence of the cultural tools and by the social negotiations of the meaning of situations that these tools make possible. This can happen to the extent to which an (at least partially) shared frame of reference exists among the participants." | |
|
|
|
Disputing Schloerb's (1995) "definition of objective presence as success in completing a task" the authors point out that it is possible to be present in an environment attempting to repair an engine but being unable to fix it. (Perhaps lacking the knowledge or tools to do so.) |