Quantifying Immersionin Virtual Reality

Randy Pausch Dennis Proffitt

George Williams

University of VirginiaSIGGRAPH 1997

Previous Work

• Taxonomies Robinett, Zeltzer• Subjective ratings Heeter• Fish-tank performance Arthur, McKenna• v. Hand-based analysis Chung

Quantifying Immersion

• A sense of “being there”• Justify VR research• Motivating factors

– Search for possibly existent item– Control with head v. hand– Tactile input v. implied

The subject “room”.

The Experiment

• VR mode– Input: 6DOF tracker– View: stereo vision headset,

moveable• Desktop mode

– Input: 6DOF tracker– View: stereo vision headset,

stationary• Target character (possibly)

embedded in camouflage Look familiar?

The Results• Target searching: no

VR advantage• No target present:

41% decrease• VR data was

predictable

Transfer Effects

• VR training improves spatial cognition

• Desktop use degrades “real-world” performance

Contributions

1. Indication of improved short-term memory (FoR)2. Improved traditional display use3. Suggestion 2D world limits spatial cognition4. Complement to definition of immersion

Possible Expansions

• Real-world manipulation (Voodoo dolls)• PUSH device• Further research on education through VR

manipulation for 2D tasks

Secret Slide

• Is it fair to equate the “desktop” experience with actual use?

• What is the relation in importance between target being present and not?

• Would more detailed tasks preserve the same trends?