Sound Research WIKINDX

List Resources

Displaying 1 - 20  of 29 (Bibliography: WIKINDX Master Bibliography)
Parameters
Order by

Ascending
Descending
Use all checked: 
Use all displayed: 
Use all in list: 
Barfield, W., & Weghorst, S. 1993, August 8–13, The sense of presence within virtual environments: A conceptual framework. Paper presented at Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Amsterdam.   
Last edited by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 9/11/18, 5:22 PM
Proposes a number of factors influencing presence in VEs (virtual presence):
  • display fidelity
  • environmental stability
  • sensory bandwidth (phenomenal richness)
  • interactive fidelity
  • person variables
  • task variables
  • context variables

 

Proposes a number of psychphysiological means to assess presence.
Attempting to assess presence: "we might expect a performance decrement on concurrent tasks defined solely in the natural environment. And when natural and virtual frames of reference call for conflicting responses, the direction of resolution of the conflict may also serve as an indicator of the degree of presence within each. Furthermore, as the sense of presence increases, the attentional resoures allocated to the objects or tasks performed in the virtual environment should increase. Therefore, we postulate that as the sense of presence increases, the virtual environment participant will pay less attention to sensory input external to the virtual environment."
Barfield, W., Zeltzer, D., Sheridan, T. B., & Slater, M. (1995). Presence and performance within virtual environments. In W. Barfield & T. A. Furness III (Eds), Virtual Environments and Advanced Interface Design (pp. 473–513). New York: Oxford University Press.   
Last edited by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 7/6/20, 9:01 AM
Note that presence can occur when only a subset of sensory modalities are engaged. Claim that many VEs "successfully invoke presence" via auditory and visual modalities only.
Bouchard, S., St-Jacques, J., Robillard, G., & Renaud, P. (2008). Anxiety increases the feeling of presence in virtual reality. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 17(4), 376–391.   
Last edited by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 8/14/20, 3:36 PM
Suggest that there is a limit to the linear equation between increasing sophistication of immersive technology/level of realism and development of presence.
Calleja, G. 2007, September 24–28, Revising immersion: A conceptual model for the analysis of digital game involvement. Paper presented at Situated Play, University of Tokyo.   
Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 8/23/09, 11:31 AM
Calleja's objection to the term 'immersion' is that it is a binary opposition between the player and the game world where the game screen, the computer monitor or TV, is the boundary with the represented game environment on one side and the real world on the other.
Chertoff, D. B., Schatz, S. L., McDaniel, R., & Bowers, C. A. (2008). Improving presence theory through experiential design. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 17(4), 405–413.   
Last edited by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 9/27/18, 4:27 PM  Mat.  10/10
Proposes 5 dimensions to presence (dimensions come from experience design theories):
  • sensory – sensory input and perceptions (VR: hardware and software)
  • cognitive – mental engagement (VR: task engagement [motivation, meaningfulness, continuity])
  • affective – emotional state (VR: emotions in VR mimic emotions in same RW scenario?)
  • active – personal connection, incorporation into personal narrative (VR: empathy, avatar identification etc.)
  • relational – social aspects (VR: co-experience and collaborative experience of VR)
Douglas, Y., & Hargadon, A. 2000, May 30–June 3, The pleasure principle: Immersion, engagement, flow. Paper presented at Proceedings of the eleventh ACM on Hypertext and hypermedia, San Antonio, Texas.   
Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 12/22/21, 10:24 AM
The authors make the distinction that immersion is pleasurable whereas engagement is stimulating to the intellect. What is confusing is their later statement that immersion and engagement are not in fact two separate states that can co-exist as flow but are polar opposites on a continuum.
Ellis, S. R. (1996). Presence of mind: A reaction to Thomas Sheridan's "further musings on the psychophysics of presence". Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 5(2), 247–259.   
Last edited by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 7/26/18, 10:46 AM
In suggesting that interface performance in virtual environments  can be improved by decreasing presence, Ellis suggests removing or controlling the realism of spatial information.
Harvey, M. A., & Sanchez-Vives, M. V. (2005). The binding problem in presence research. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 14(5), 616–621.   
Last edited by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 9/4/20, 2:51 PM
Explaining why virtual environments are capable of facilitating presence despite lacking sensory modalities, it is not absence of one modality or another but rather incongruity between them that will break presence. The brain can fill in missing sensory data. In a virtual world displaying a rose, "it should be less disruptive for the rose to have no smell than the wrong smell."
Heeter, C. (1992). Being there: The subjective experience of presence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 1(2), 262–271.   
Last edited by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 9/11/18, 5:20 PM
Suggests that different tasks in VR might require more or less sensory fidelity (compared to real world sensory environments) in order to attain a sense of presence.

Familiarity and experience with the virtual world might increase the sense of presence. Conversely (Heeter does not note the contradiction), familiarity breeds contempt as expectations rise and previously adequate presence experiences later suffer in light of new technological capability. cf Uncanny Wall (Tinwell, Grimshaw, & Williams 2011).



Tinwell, A., Grimshaw, M., & Williams, A. (2011). The Uncanny Wall. International Journal of Arts and Technology, 4(3), 326–341.
Although many real worlds do not respond to you, as if acknowledging your presence, the lack of response in VR might limit presence (cf environmental presence).
Different genders, ages etc. might have different criteria for presence. Equally, humans have preferred sensory channels and so this channel might be preferred for attaining presence: "Is one person's experience of presence in a virtual world the same as another's?"
Held, R. M., & Durlach, N. I. (1992). Telepresence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 1(1), 109–112.   
Last edited by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 9/11/18, 5:06 PM
Sensory factors contributing to telepresence:
  • high resolution and large field of view
  • transparent display system and lack of artifacts signalling display existence
  • consistency of information – sensations must describe same objective world and be consistent with what has been learned about the 'normal world'

Motor factors should allow "for a wide3 range of sensorimotor interactions."

For telepresence, the most important factor is the degree of correlation between actions of the remote robot displayed back to the operator and the operator's movements triggering those actions. Correlation is lessened (and telepresence correspondingly) with time delays, internal noise, and distortions between movements/intentions of operator and actions of robot.
Hendrix, C., & Barfield, W. (1996). Presence within virtual environments as a function of visual display parameters. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 5(3), 274–289.   
Last edited by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 9/11/18, 5:19 PM
Collating as ego-presence virtual presence and telepresence because they both imply presence within an environment other than the one the user is physically situated in (the former environment computer-generated, the latter a remote physical environment).
Discussing means of measuring presence – can be objective or subjective measurements and the former are mainly based around tasks.
Hendrix, C., & Barfield, W. (1996). The sense of presence within auditory virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 5(3), 290–301.   
Last edited by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 7/27/18, 8:52 AM
Auditory elements of virtual environments can be more susceptible to non-externalization than other elements such as visual, tactile etc. and this weakens presence.

Following Loomis, the authors describe the phenomenal world as the one we are perceptually aware of whereas the physical world is one that is inferred by observation and reasoning (Loomis 1992).



Loomis, J. M. (1992). Distal attribution and presence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 1(1), 113–119.
Kearney, P. R., & Pivec, M. 2007, June 13–15, Immersed and how? That is the question. Unpublished paper presented at Game in' Action, Sweden.   
Last edited by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 3/2/14, 5:38 PM
Immersion provides the motivation, or flow, required for the player to be repeatedly engaged with the game.
Based on previous work by Sweetser and Wyeth, the authors created a game analysis matrix with a scoring system relating to immersion among other factors:

  • The player should become less aware of their surroundings while playing
  • The player should become less self-aware and less worried about everyday life
  • The player should experience an altered sense of time
  • The player should feel emotionally involved in the game or committed to it through time and effort invested in the game.
The authors cite evidence that the more immersive the game, the less the eye movement and blink rate and that absorption of information is increased with less eye movement.
Lee, K. M. (2004). Presence, explicated. Communication Theory, 14(1), 27–50.   
Last edited by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 7/1/21, 7:58 AM

Points out that the term virtual presence refers to presence caused by the technology of virtual reality in order to differentiate it from the term telepresence (first used in the 1980s and 1990s to refer to the feeling of being physically transported – or being there – to a remote physical [not virtual] location) (Sheridan 1992; Minsky 1980).



Minsky, M. (1980). Telepresence. Omni, 45–51.
Sheridan, T. B. (1992). Musings on telepresence and virtual presence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 1(1), 120–127.
Follows others in arguing that, as perception is a mediation of sensation, there is mediation at play in the perception of both nautral (first-order mediated experience) and technological worlds (second-order mediated experiences).
Lee, K. M. (2004). Why presence occurs: Evolutionary psychology, media equation, and presence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 13(4), 494–505.   
Last edited by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 11/15/18, 11:30 AM
Discusses humans' natural tendency to accept incoming stimuli as sourced from reality first and only then to reject after assessment – a suggestion as to why users accept technologically mediated stimuli as real (thus presence).
A lack of knowledge of cause-effect structures poses a survival threat.
Noting that, despite knowing that virtual objects and effects are not real, "people keep using their old brains" and so their first reaction is to treat virtuality as real.
Discussing the reason why high fidelity of image is not necessary to presence – much of what we see is actually from peripheral vision and thus out of focus.
Lessiter, J., Freeman, J., Keogh, E., & Davidoff, J. (2001). A cross-media presence questionnaire: The ITC-sense of presence inventory. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 10(3), 282–297.   
Last edited by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 9/11/18, 5:19 PM
Summarizing determinants of presence:
  • media form: extent of sensory information provided, user's degree of control in positioning sensory systems in the environment, user's ability to modify the environment
  • media content: theme, narrative or story
  • user characteristics: individual characteristics affecting presence.

Make a difference between social presence and spatial presence (thus different display configurations required) (Mantovani & Riva 1999). However, they then come back to defining presence as spatial location only.



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.
Loomis, J. M. (1992). Distal attribution and presence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 1(1), 113–119.   
Last edited by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 9/11/18, 5:19 PM
There is a phenomenal world that can be divided into 'self' and 'nonself' – the physical self is closely tied to the phenomenal self but not necessarily (e.g. phantom limbs).

Distal attribution is the process of identifying sensory experience with a phenomenally external  space or the nonself. This identification (and thus distal attribution) results when afference (sensory input) is "lawfully related" to efference (motorsensory actions) – e.g. I do something and the sensory feedback I get accords with that action.

Loomis hypothesizes that "attribution to self occurs when afference and efference are completely unrelated or independent."

In arguing that distal attribution re telepresence is most clearly felt when the operators have become skilled with the equipment, Loomis suggests that with regard to a lawful relationship between efference and afference, the operator must be able to model this relationship. This 'linkage' becomes transparent with experience and this leads to the externalization of the distal environment.
Acknowledging that the operator of a teleoperation system experiences sensory information from remote/simulated environment and physical environment and that this often conflicts, Loomis makes use of Polyani's notions of subsidiary awareness and focal awareness. Where sensory stimulation from the remote environment is insufficient for true presence, the operator experiences a subsidiary awareness of the physical environment and/or teleoperation system he/she is actually in/using despite a focal awareness of the remote environment.

True telepresence is not possible as it is not possible to present the operator with precisely the same sensory stimulation they would receive were they to be actually in the remote environment.

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.   
Last edited by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 2/27/22, 7:21 PM

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.)



Schloerb, D. W. (1995). A quantitative measure of telepresence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 4(1), 64–80.
Murray, J. H. (1997). Hamlet on the holodeck: The future of narrative in cyberspace. Cambridge: The MIT Press.   
Last edited by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 8/21/06, 3:46 PM
Immersion is a participatory activity.
Ribbens, W., & Malliet, S. (2010). Perceived digital game realism: A quantitative exploration of its structure. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 19(6), 585–600.   
Last edited by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 10/17/18, 1:57 PM
Has a different take on authenticity than might be expected – one that is subjective rather than objective (i.e. the shotgun in Terminator is not objectively authentic but might be subjectively perceived as authentic).
1 - 20  |  21 - 29
WIKINDX 6.8.2 | Total resources: 1297 | Username: -- | Bibliography: WIKINDX Master Bibliography | Style: American Psychological Association (APA)