skip to main content
10.1145/3173574.3174057acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open Access
Honorable Mention

The Dream is Collapsing: The Experience of Exiting VR

Published:21 April 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Research on virtual reality (VR) has studied users' experience of immersion, presence, simulator sickness, and learning effects. However, the momentary experience of exiting VR and transitioning back to the real-world is not well understood. Do users become self-conscious of their actions upon exit? Are users nervous of their surroundings? Using explicitation interviews, we explore the moment of exit from VR across four applications. Analysis of the interviews reveals five components of experience: space, control, sociality, time, and sensory adaptation. Participants described spatial disorientation, for example, regardless of the complexity of the VR scene. Participants also described a window across which they exit VR, for example mentally first and then physically. We present six designs for easing or heightening the exit experience, as described by the participants. Based on these findings, we further discuss the ?moment of exit' as an opportunity for designing engaging and enhanced VR experiences.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

pn3940-file5.mp4

mp4

9 MB

References

  1. Ayman Alzayat, Mark Hancock, and Miguel Nacenta. 2014. Quantitative Measurement of Virtual vs. Physical Object Embodiment Through Kinesthetic Figural After Effects. In Proceedings of the 32Nd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '14), 2903--2912. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Jodi Aronson. 1995. A pragmatic view of thematic analysis. The qualitative report 2, 1: 1--3.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Mahdi Azmandian, Mark Hancock, Hrvoje Benko, Eyal Ofek, and Andrew D. Wilson. 2016. Haptic Retargeting: Dynamic Repurposing of Passive Haptics for Enhanced Virtual Reality Experiences. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '16), 1968--1979. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Domna Banakou, Raphaela Groten, and Mel Slater. 2013. Illusory ownership of a virtual child body causes overestimation of object sizes and implicit attitude changes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110, 31: 12846--12851.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Damien Besancenot, Delphine Dubart, and Radu Vranceanu. 2013. The value of lies in an ultimatum game with imperfect information. Journal of Economic Behavior&Organization 93: 239--247.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Frank Biocca. 1997. The Cyborg's Dilemma: Progressive Embodiment in Virtual Environments {1}. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 3, 2: 0-- 0.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Lung-Pan Cheng, Patrick Lühne, Pedro Lopes, Christoph Sterz, and Patrick Baudisch. 2014. Haptic Turk: A Motion Platform Based on People. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '14), 3463--3472. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Lung-Pan Cheng, Eyal Ofek, Christian Holz, Hrvoje Benko, and Andrew D. Wilson. 2017. Sparse Haptic Proxy: Touch Feedback in Virtual Environments Using a General Passive Prop. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '17), 3718--3728. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Lung-Pan Cheng, Thijs Roumen, Hannes Rantzsch, Sven Köhler, Patrick Schmidt, Robert Kovacs, Johannes Jasper, Jonas Kemper, and Patrick Baudisch. 2015. TurkDeck: Physical Virtual Reality Based on People. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software&Technology (UIST '15), 417--426. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Sophie Côté and Stéphane Bouchard. 2005. Documenting the efficacy of virtual reality exposure with psychophysiological and information processing measures. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback 30, 3: 217--232.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. S. R. Ellis. 1991. Nature and origins of virtual environments: a bibliographical essay. Computing Systems in Engineering 2, 4: 321--347.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. John M. Flach and John G. Holden. 1998. The Reality of Experience: Gibson's Way. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 7, 1: 90--95. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Daniel Freeman, Nicole Evans, Rachel Lister, Angus Antley, Graham Dunn, and Mel Slater. 2014. Height, social comparison, and paranoia: An immersive virtual reality experimental study. Psychiatry Research 218, 3: 348--352.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. J. Freeman, S. E. Avons, R. Meddis, D. E. Pearson, and W. IJsselsteijn. 2000. Using Behavioral Realism to Estimate Presence: A Study of the Utility of Postural Responses to Motion Stimuli. Presence 9, 2: 149--164. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Pedro Gamito, J. Oliveira, P. Santos, D. Morais, T. Saraiva, M. Pombal, and B. Mota. 2008. Presence, immersion and cybersickness assessment through a test anxiety virtual environment. Annual Review of CyberTherapy and Telemedicine 6: 83--90.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. A. Gevins and B. Cutillo. 1993. Spatiotemporal dynamics of component processes in human working memory. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology 87, 3: 128--143.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Mar Gonzalez-Franco and Jaron Lanier. 2017. Model of Illusions and Virtual Reality. Frontiers in Psychology 8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Jan Gugenheimer, Evgeny Stemasov, Julian Frommel, and Enrico Rukzio. 2017. ShareVR: Enabling CoLocated Experiences for Virtual Reality Between HMD and Non-HMD Users. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '17), 4021--4033. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. S. Haque and S. Srinivasan. 2006. A meta-analysis of the training effectiveness of virtual reality surgical simulators. IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine 10, 1: 51--58. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Austen L. Hayes, Amy C. Ulinski, and Larry F. Hodges. 2010. That Avatar Is Looking at Me! Social Inhibition in Virtual Worlds. In Intelligent Virtual Agents (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), 454--467. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Akira Ishii, Ippei Suzuki, Shinji Sakamoto, Keita Kanai, Kazuki Takazawa, Hiraku Doi, and Yoichi Ochiai. 2016. Optical Marionette: Graphical Manipulation of Human's Walking Direction. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST '16), 705--716. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Robert S. Kennedy, Norman E. Lane, Kevin S. Berbaum, and Michael G. Lilienthal. 1993. Simulator Sickness Questionnaire: An Enhanced Method for Quantifying Simulator Sickness. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology 3, 3: 203--220.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Christian R. Larsen, Jette L. Soerensen, Teodor P. Grantcharov, Torur Dalsgaard, Lars Schouenborg, Christian Ottosen, Torben V. Schroeder, and Bent S. Ottesen. 2009. Effect of virtual reality training on laparoscopic surgery: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 338: b1802.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Matteo Martini, D. Perez-Marcos, and M. V. SanchezVives. 2013. What Color is My Arm? Changes in Skin Color of an Embodied Virtual Arm Modulates Pain Threshold. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 7.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Michael Meehan, Brent Insko, Mary Whitton, and Frederick P. Brooks Jr. 2002. Physiological Measures of Presence in Stressful Virtual Environments. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques (SIGGRAPH '02), 645--652. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Thomas D. Parsons and Albert A. Rizzo. 2008. Affective outcomes of virtual reality exposure therapy for anxiety and specific phobias: A meta-analysis. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry 39, 3: 250--261.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Jorge Peña, Jeffrey T. Hancock, and Nicholas A. Merola. 2009. The Priming Effects of Avatars in Virtual Settings. Communication Research 36, 6: 838--856.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Claire Petitmengin. 2006. Describing one's subjective experience in the second person: An interview method for the science of consciousness. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 5, 3--4: 229--269.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Maria V. Sanchez-Vives and Mel Slater. 2005. From presence to consciousness through virtual reality. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 6, 4: 332--339.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. T. W. Schubert, Frank Friedmann, and H. T. Regenbrecht. 1999. Decomposing the sense of presence: Factor analytic insights. In 2nd international workshop on presence. Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/download/31976070/Schubert .pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Neal E. Seymour. 2008. VR to OR: A Review of the Evidence that Virtual Reality Simulation Improves Operating Room Performance. World Journal of Surgery 32, 2: 182--188.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Mel Slater and Anthony Steed. 2000. A Virtual Presence Counter. Presence: Teleoper. Virtual Environ. 9, 5: 413--434. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Mel Slater, Anthony Steed, John McCarthy, and Francesco Marinelli. The Virtual Ante-Room: Assessing Presence through Expectation and Surprise.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Mel Slater and Martin Usoh. 2013. An experimental exploration of presence in virtual environments. Retrieved from https://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456 789/4705/689_Slater&Usoh_1993.pdf'sequence=1Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Mel Slater, Martin Usoh, and Anthony Steed. 1994. Depth of Presence in Virtual Environments. Presence: Teleoper. Virtual Environ. 3, 2: 130--144. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Mel Slater, Martin Usoh, and Anthony Steed. 1995. Taking Steps: The Influence of a Walking Technique on Presence in Virtual Reality. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 2, 3: 201--219. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Mel Slater and Sylvia Wilbur. 1997. A Framework for Immersive Virtual Environments Five: Speculations on the Role of Presence in Virtual Environments. Presence: Teleoper. Virtual Environ. 6, 6: 603--616. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Kay Stanney and Gavriel Salvendy. 1998. Aftereffects and Sense of Presence in Virtual Environments: Formulation of a Research and Development Agenda. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 10, 2: 135--187.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Jonathan Steuer. 1992. Defining Virtual Reality: Dimensions Determining Telepresence. Journal of Communication 42, 4: 73--93.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Jari Takatalo, Jukka Häkkinen, Jeppe Komulainen, Heikki Särkelä, and Göte Nyman. 2006. Involvement and Presence in Digital Gaming. In Proceedings of the 4th Nordic Conference on Human-computer Interaction: Changing Roles (NordiCHI '06), 393--396. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Martin Usoh, Ernest Catena, Sima Arman, and Mel Slater. 2000. Using Presence Questionnaires in Reality. Presence: Teleoper. Virtual Environ. 9, 5: 497--503. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Pierre Vermersch. 1994. L'entretien d'explicitation. Esf Paris.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Jeenal Vora, Santosh Nair, Anand K Gramopadhye, Andrew T Duchowski, Brian J Melloy, and Barbara Kanki. 2002. Using virtual reality technology for aircraft visual inspection training: presence and comparison studies. Applied Ergonomics 33, 6: 559-- 570.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Bob G. Witmer and Michael J. Singer. 1998. Measuring Presence in Virtual Environments: A Presence Questionnaire. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 7, 3: 225--240. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Nick Yee and Jeremy Bailenson. 2007. The Proteus Effect: The Effect of Transformed Self-Representation on Behavior. Human Communication Research 33, 3: 271--290.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. Pavel Zahorik and Rick L. Jenison. 1998. Presence as Being-in-the-World. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 7, 1: 78--89. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Ruimin Zhang, James Walker, and Scott A. Kuhl. 2015. Improving Redirection with Dynamic Reorientations and Gains. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium on Applied Perception (SAP '15), 136--136. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. The Dream is Collapsing: The Experience of Exiting VR

    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
      CHI '18: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      April 2018
      8489 pages
      ISBN:9781450356206
      DOI:10.1145/3173574

      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 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: 21 April 2018

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      CHI '18 Paper Acceptance Rate666of2,590submissions,26%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader