Abstract
Modern immersive multisensory communication systems can provide compelling mediated social communication experiences that approach face-to-facecommunication. Existing methods to assess the quality of mediated social communication experiences are typically targeted at specific tasks or communication technologies. As a result, they do not address all relevant aspects of social presence (i.e., the feeling of being in the presence of, and having an affective and intellectual connection with, other persons). Also, they are typically unsuitable for application to social communication in virtual (VR), augmented (AR), or mixed (MR) reality. We propose a comprehensive, general, and holistic multi-scale (questionnaire-based) approach, based on an established conceptual framework for multisensory perception, to measure the quality of mediated social communication experiences. Our holistic approach to mediated social communication (H-MSC) assessment comprises both the experience of Spatial Presence (i.e., the perceived fidelity, internal and external plausibility, and cognitive, reasoning, and behavioral affordances of an environment) and the experience of Social Presence (i.e., perceived mutual proximity, intimacy, credibility, reasoning, and behavior of the communication partners). Since social presence is inherently bidirectional (involving a sense of mutual awareness) the multiscale approach measures both the internal (‘own’) and external (‘the other’) assessment perspectives. We also suggest how an associated multiscale questionnaire (the Holistic Mediated Social Communication Questionnaire or H-MSC-Q) could be formulated in an efficient and parsimonious way, using only a single item to tap into each of the relevant processing levels in the human brain: sensory, emotional, cognitive, reasoning, and behavioral. The H-MSC-Q can be sufficiently general to measure social presence experienced with any (including VR, AR, and MR) multi-sensory (visual, auditory, haptic, and olfactory) mediated communication system. Preliminary validation studies confirm the content and face validity of the H-MSC-Q. In this paper, we focus on the underlying concepts of the H-MSC-Q. We make the initial draft questionnaire available to the community for further review, development, and validation. We hope it may contribute to the unification of quality measures for mediated social communication.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Aim and motivation of this study
The quality of a mediated social communication experience depends on the extent to which one feels like being physically together (spatial presence) and having an affective and intellectual connection (social presence) with another person. Unfortunately, measuring the quality of a mediated social communication experience is not straightforward, since the concepts of spatial presence [1,2,3] and social presence [4,5,6] are both ill-defined. Both concepts have been operationalized in many different ways, adopting various aspects like involvement, engagement, attention, transportation (co-location), social richness (salience, mutual awareness), realism, and social actors [2, 5]. While there are many different spatial and social presence questionnaires [4, 7,8,9], most are constructed ad-hoc for particular research purposes and contain context, content, and user-dependent items. Only very few have been validated and contain neutral questions [10]. To achieve unification and standardization of concepts and measures, there have recently appeared calls for community efforts to validate already existing questionnaires [6] and to perform a meta-analytic review to identify the relative contribution of different items to the sense of social presence [5]. In response to these calls, we propose a general and unifying multilevel scale approach that addresses each of the relevant psychological processing levels in the human brain that contribute to the senses of spatial and social presence. For each level, we suggest associated items formulated in a general manner. In contrast to our holistic approach, existing questionnaires typically address only a subset of these levels, mostly in an ad-hoc and task-specific manner. In turn, we call upon the community to apply (and possibly update) our proposed multilevel scale in combination with existing (spatial and social) presence questionnaires. In this way, it will become possible to establish the relative contribution of the individual items from existing questionnaires to each of the different subdimensions of the multilevel scale proposed here. A full validation, including the convergent validity of our proposed scale, may ultimately lead to the unification and generalization of the different assessment tools, where items of existing scales may become subitems of the more generally formulated scales of our holistic social presence questionnaire.
Mediated social communication
Humans have an inherently social and personal need for communication to maintain their interpersonal relationships and mental wellbeing [11]. In our digital age, human social communication is often mediated. Technologies like videoconferencing software (e.g., Zoom, Microsoft Teams, Skype, etc.) are becoming increasingly popular as they afford a new form of virtual togetherness by facilitating shared and synchronous social activities, thereby substituting face-to-face (F2F) interactions [12, 13]. New immersive (VR, AR, or MR-based) communication systems extend regular video- or audio-conferencing tools by affording social experiences that more closely approximate the experience of F2F meetings. Sophisticated capturing, modeling and rendering techniques afford high-fidelity shared mediated experiences of remote communication partners and their physical environment [14,15,16,17,18,19]. For instance, VR-based collaborative communication systems can represent their users either as computer-generated avatars or as photorealistic point clouds and place them in shared virtual spaces in which they can interact and communicate [20]. The same holds for systems that take in other positions on Milgram’s reality-virtuality continuum [21], like AR, MR and augmented virtuality (AV) platforms that afford the blending of high-fidelity representations of remote users into shared collaboration spaces in which they can interact with the local users. Extended reality (XR, i.e., AR, VR, or MR) based communication systems attempt to merge the physical world with digital information (e.g., the mediated representation of the communication partners, elements from their own environment or computer generated objects) while preserving the (multisensory) coherence and plausibility of the overall representation. These systems can give local hosts the impression that their remote communication partners are actually present in their immediate (shared) environment [22, 23]. Systems stimulating multiple sensory channels (mulsemedia systems: [24]) can be particularly effective in eliciting a strong feeling of a shared space.
To develop and optimize social communication systems, there is a need for metrics that allow an efficient and full evaluation of the Quality of Experience (QoE; [23, 25]) of mediated social communication. To enable a reliable comparison of user experiences across systems, contexts and users, these QoE measures should quantify the intrinsic capability of a communication system to provide a compelling social communication experience that feels coherent, realistic, and plausible (see Table 1 for the working definitions of the concepts and constructs used in this study) at all psychological processing levels. They should also be independent of secondary (mediating) factors like context, content and user state and personality. Questionnaires are typically the preferred way to measure the quality of mediated social interactions since they can efficiently be applied to almost any system in any condition [7, 26]. Recent studies have argued that perceived realism, plausibility and coherence are the primary central outcomes of the sensory, perceptual, and cognitive processing layers in the human brain that determine the quality of a mediated experience [2, 3, 27]. However, most currently used QoE questionnaires predominantly measure secondary (content, context or user-dependent) factors like attention, involvement, enjoyment, and the sense of “being there” in the mediated (shared) environment (see Table 2). The sense of “being there” is strongly associated with secondary factors like attentional allocation [28], and is inherently an ambiguous concept [2, 3], that becomes even more ill-defined for systems situated further from the virtual towards the real environment along Milgram’s Virtuality continuum [29]. Hence, to reliably measure the QoE of mediated communication experiences, there is still a need for questionnaires that quantify the degree to which systems can provide experiences that are coherent, plausible, and realistic [2, 3, 9].
Quality assessment of mediated social communication
Effective mediated shared social communication experiences involve a sense of social presence together with a sense of spatial presence. The sense of social presence consists of two components: copresence [30]: the sense of being physically together with one’s communication partner in the same environment (physical proximity), and social interaction: the sense of having an affective and intellectual interaction with one’s communication partner [8, 31, 32]. The sense of spatial presence [33] also consists of two components: telepresence [28]: the feeling of being located in the mediated (shared) environment, and agency [34]: the feeling of being able to act within that environment. The difference between these two concepts is that social presence primarily deals with human–human relations, whereas spatial presence only pertains to human-object relations. Since physical proximity is a factor of social presence [4], feelings of spatial presence may enhance the perception of social closeness and intimacy to others [35, 36]. At the same time, since social information is a powerful driver of attention [37] and attention to the environment is a precondition for spatial presence [38], feeling the presence of others might also lead to increased spatial presence. As a result, spatial and social presence are typically correlated [39, 40]. A valid QoE metric for mediated social communication should quantify both social and spatial presence and their subcomponents.
Social interaction is inherently bidirectional, involving a sense of mutual awareness. A valid QoE assessment tool should therefore also be able to measure both the internal (‘one’s own’) and external (‘the other’s’) assessment perspectives.
The interaction with our environment and the people therein activates different (sensory, emotional, cognitive, reasoning, and behavioral) processing levels in our brain that all contribute to the subjective quality of the experience [41,42,43]. A valid QoE metric should therefore describe how a mediated social communication experience affects our brain at each of these different processing levels, and should link these levels to relevant perceptual, affective, cognitive, reasoning, and behavioral outcomes.
Attempts to link QoE to QoS parameters have only had very limited success because QoE is inherently a subjective, multidimensional, and multisensorial construct [44,45,46]. ITU-T [47] Sect. 6.212 defines QoS as “[The] Totality of characteristics of a telecommunica-tions service that bear on its ability to satisfy stated and implied needs of the user of the service.” Note that QoS is defined from a system’s perspective, in contrast to the QoE, which is defined entirely from the user’s perspective. QoS evaluations therefore typically rely exclusively on system performance parameters and metrics, such as bandwidth, latency, jitter, throughput, transmission delay, packet loss, etc. [48]. Hence, it is still not clear how QoS parameters relate to the affective, behavioral, and cognitive aspects of a mediated communication experience.
Next to the fidelity of the representation of a mediated environment and the persons therein, the experienced quality of a mediated social communication experience may also depend on highly subjective secondary factors like its personal relevance [49] and the user’s context (e.g., task, available information: [50, 51]), current (mental and physical) state, personality [52,53,54], engagement and involvement (e.g., enjoyment, flow, and mental absorption or attention, [55]). A QoE metric for social communication should primarily address the experiential fidelity [56] of social presence experiences to ensure that its outcomes are relatively independent of such secondary factors. In other words, a QoE metric should quantify the intrinsic capability of a communication system to provide a compelling social communication experience that feels realistic or natural at all psychological processing levels. In agreement with the media richness theory [57, 58] (see also [5]), this requirement is based on the hypothesis that the fidelity of the experience increases with the quality and the capability of the communication medium.
To summarize, a QoE metric for mediated social communication should satisfy the following four requirements:
-
1.
The metric should measure both social and spatial presence and their subcomponents (copresence + social interaction and telepresence + agency),
-
2.
The metric should assess both the internal (‘one’s own’) and external (‘the other’s’) assessment perspectives,
-
3.
The metric should address each of the relevant psychological processing levels (sensory, emotional, cognitive, reasoning, and behavioral), and
-
4.
The metric should measure a communication system’s experiential fidelity, i.e. the system’s intrinsic capability to provide a realistic or natural mediated social communication experience.
A wide range of methods has been developed to measure the sense of (social) presence [7,8,9]. The methods can be classified as objective (instrumental) and subjective (perception-based) measures [25]. Objective measures include biomarkers (e.g., heart rate, EEG and EMG measures, eye tracking [59], skin conductance and skin temperature), behavioral measures (e.g., gaze behavior [60], reflexive responses, postural sway), or measures related to social behavior, task performance and choice-making in the mediated environment [61,62,63]. Objective measures are generally costly and complex and have methodological limitations that do not allow their application in all conditions, while their interpretation is not unequivocal [5, 6]. Subjective measures are typically obtained through questionnaires, self-report ratings, or interviews. Presence questionnaires are still the preferred method of investigation since they are cheap and easy to administer and apply to almost any condition [7, 26]. Also, it has been argued that the use of presence questionnaires remains firmly grounded and legitimized because the sense of presence is the outcome of spatial cognitive processes and determines our reasoning and behavior [64].
In the next section, we first discuss the most widely used and related questionnaires for mediated social and spatial presence, and we identify their limitations for measuring the quality of mediated social communication experiences. In particular, we identify the need for QoE questionnaires that are independent of technology and of secondary factors like context, content and user personality. Then, we propose a new conceptual multiscale quality assessment approach that meets our requirements, and we propose an associated multiscale measurement tool (questionnaire). Next, we present the results of some initial studies investigating the content and face validity of the proposed questionnaire. Finally, we draw some conclusions and discuss the limitations of the new conceptual method in its current form. Although it has not yet been rigorously validated, we make our draft questionnaire available to the community for further evaluation studies and to stimulate the discussion on this topic.
Spatial presence questionnaires
A wide range of methods has been developed to measure the sense of telepresence in a mediated (possibly virtual) environment (for reviews, see [7,8,9]). The most widely applied telepresence questionnaire is the Presence Questionnaire (PQ: [65, 66]). Other frequently used methods are the Slater-Usoh-Steed Questionnaire (SUS: [67]) the Measurement, Effects, and Conditions Spatial Presence Questionnaire (MEC-SPQ: [68]), and the Igroup Presence Questionnaire (IPQ: [34]). While most questionnaires aim to quantify the same underlying construct (typically spatial presence), they differ widely in their scope (since they are based on different definitions of presence) and details (their items and subscales differ largely; for a review, see [7]). The SUS and PQ tap into different aspects of presence. The SUS addresses the user’s sense of being in the represented environment, the extent to which the represented environment replaces the user’s physical environment, and the extent to which the represented environment is remembered as an actual place. The PQ, IPQ, MEC-SPQ and Place Probe [69] also measure the user’s involvement. The PQ is more sensitive for factors related to technology and interaction while the SUS is more sensitive to personal factors [70]. However, both questionnaires are insensitive to variations in the internal consistency or plausibility of a represented environment [71], which is an essential factor contributing to the sense of spatial presence [38]. The IPQ also measures the experienced realism of the environment. The MEC-SPQ and the Place Probe also measure the amount of attention users devote to the represented environment and the quality of their mental spatial model of that environment.
The sense of agency in the mediated environment is typically measured through questionnaire items asking users to rate the extent to which their actions in the mediated space appear natural. Only a few existing presence questionnaires address the sense of agency: the PQ [66] includes six items related to agency, the MEC-SPQ [68] three items, and the Igroup Presence Questionnaire (IPQ: [34]) only one item.
Social presence questionnaires
Next to making strong assumptions about the technology that is used [31], most existing social presence questionnaires only implicitly and incompletely address the different processing levels in the human brain that are involved in mediated social communication experiences [10, 23, 72, 73]. An exception is the Virtual Experience Test (VET, [74]) that provides a more holistic measure of a mediated social presence experience by including affective, cognitive, active, and relational dimensions in addition to its sensory dimension. However, the instrument is designed for the development of virtual environments and games and is not sufficiently general for the evaluation of multisensory social communication systems. While the VET measures the experience of the environment at the sensory, emotional, and cognitive levels, it measures the experienced quality of social interaction only at the behavioral and reasoning levels. The Multimodal Presence Scale (MPS, [75]) measures three components of presence in a mediated environment: physical presence (the experience of the environment), social presence (the experience of the social actors in the environment), and self-presence (the extent to which the virtual representation of oneself is experienced as the actual self). Like the VET, this instrument was designed for the assessment of virtual environments and games, but not for MSC systems. Also, the MPS does not address the quality of social interaction at the emotional and reasoning processing levels. The Networked Minds Social Presence Inventory (NM-SPI, [10]) was specifically designed to measure social presence in mediated communication. It measures social interaction at the sensory, emotional, and behavioral processing levels from both the internal and external assessment perspectives, but contains no items related to the cognitive and reasoning levels. Also, its items measuring copresence do not relate to the sense of physical proximity (being in the same environment). The Social Presence Survey (SP Survey, [72]) measures social interaction from the ‘own’ perspective, explicitly at the sensory level and only implicitly at the emotional and cognitive levels. The Sense of Being Together questionnaire (SBT, [73]) measures social interaction only from the ‘own’ perspective, explicitly at the sensory level and only implicitly at the emotional and behavioral levels. The Social VR Questionnaire (SocialVR-Q, [23]) was designed to investigate photo-sharing experiences in immersive environments. It addresses social presence only from the ‘own’ perspective. Also, it contains no items that tap into the cognitive processing level of social interaction. The ITC Sense of Presence Inventory (ITC-SOPI: [76]) was developed as a standard cross-media presence measurement tool, intended to be usable across different media types, such as television programs or movies. Two of its four subscales (Sense of Physical Space and Naturalness) contain items related to spatial and social presence, while the other two subscales (Engagement and Negative Effects) only address secondary factors (e.g., appeal of the environment, tiredness, headache, eyestrain). The ITC-SOPI measures the experience of the environment explicitly at both the cognitive and behavioral levels and implicitly at both the sensory and emotional levels, but contains no items tapping into the reasoning level. Regarding social interaction, it measures the experienced quality of copresencence both from the ‘own’ and the ‘other’ perspectives, but it has no items that tap into any of the other four processing levels (Tables 3, 4).
Limitations of existing questionnaires
In this section, we systematically discuss the extent to which existing social and spatial presence questionnaires meet the four requirements for a mediated social communication QoE metric formulated in "Quality assessment of mediated social communication" section (see Table 5). Table 5 shows how ten of the most widely used presence questionnaires tap into each of the five relevant (sensory, emotional, cognitive, behavioral and decision making) processing levels for multisensory environmental stimuli [42], for both Spatial Presence and Social Presence and for both (‘one’s own’ or ‘the other’s’) assessment perspectives. This table also shows whether the items in these questionnaires explicitly (filled circles in Table 5) or implicitly (open circles) address each of these constructs.
Requirement 1: measure both social and spatial presence
The MPS is the only questionnaire that measures both social and spatial presence and their subcomponents (copresence + social interaction and telepresence + agency). All other questionnaires measure either only spatial presence (SUS, PQ, IPQ, MEC-SPQ, Place Probe) or social presence (SP Survey, SBT, NM-SPI, SocialVR-Q).
Requirement 2: measure both internal and external assessment perspectives
The NM-SPI measures both copresence and social interaction from both assessment perspectives. Social interaction is measured explicitly at the emotional level and only implicitly at the behavioral level.
The MPS explicitly measures copresence from both assessment perspectives. It measures social interaction implicitly and only from the ‘own’ perspective at the cognitive and behavioral psychological processing levels.
The SocialVR-Q measures copresence explicitly from the ‘own’ perspective and implicitly from the ‘the other’s’ perspective. It measures social interaction explicitly at the emotional level from both perspectives, and only from the ‘own’ perspective at the reasoning and behavioral levels.
Requirement 3: measure all relevant psychological processing levels
For Spatial Presence, only the PQ-v.3 and the MEC-SPQ address all five processing levels. However, the PQ-v.3 only explicitly addresses agency and telepresence at the emotional processing level, while the MEC-SPQ only implicitly addresses telepresence at the reasoning level.
For Social Presence, none of the questionnaires measures all relevant psychological processing levels. All social presence questionnaires (SP Survey, SBT, NM-SPI, MPS and SocialVR-Q) measure copresence (typically explicitly, except the NM-SPI). Most social presence questionnaires also measure social interaction at the emotional (except the MPS) and behavioral (except the SP Survey) processing levels.
The SocialVR-Q measures social interaction at three processing levels (all except the cognitive level) from the ‘own’ perspective. The SP Survey, SBT, NM-SPI, and MPS each measure social interaction at two processing levels from the ‘own’ perspective.
Requirement 4: measure a communication system’s experiential fidelity
All questionnaires listed in Table 5 that tap into the cognitive processing level, measure the fidelity of the (telepresence or social interaction) experience at this level. The PQ also measures the fidelity of spatial presence at the behavioral level (i.e., the fidelity of agency), while the SocialVR-Q measures the fidelity of social interaction at the behavioral level. None of the existing questionnaires measures the fidelity of a social communication experience at the sensory or reasoning levels.
Towards a holistic multiscale quality assessment method for mediated social communication
We adopt the feeling that one actually experiences a natural social interaction in a realistic shared environment (i.e., the experiential fidelity) as the overarching (holistic) quality construct for a mediated social communication experience. Thus, we explicitly exclude social communication experiences in simulated settings that afford super-human abilities (e.g., super-hearing, super-vision, teleportation, etc.) to their users. A high quality mediated social presence experience then implies that the communication system provides both a natural sense of spatial presence (with subcomponents telepresence and agency) and a natural sense of social presence (with subcomponents copresence and social interaction), without introducing any idiosyncrasies (sensory distortions) due to system limitations or abnormalities in the mediated representations of the environment and the persons therein.
In the next section we will first discuss an established conceptual holistic framework that describes how multisensory stimulation affects our brain at five different processing levels (sensory, emotional, cognitive, decision making, and behavioral), and we will link these levels to relevant perceptual, affective, and cognitive outcomes. Then, in the following two sections, we will show how this holistic framework can be used to characterize the overall quality of mediated social communication based on social and spatial presence (the Holistic Mediated Social Communication or H-MSC quality assessment method). We also propose an associated tool (the Holistic Mediated Social Communication Questionnaire or H-MSC-Q) that measures the quality of mediated social communication by tapping into each of the five relevant processing levels as defined in the conceptual framework. The H-MSC-Q measures the quality of social communication through (1) the sense of spatial presence (telepresence and agency) in the mediated environment and (2) social presence (copresence and social interaction) with the other person(s) therein. The items in the H-MSC-Q can for instance be scored on 5, 7 or 9-point Likert scales. In practice, a 7-point scale is preferred since it is near-optimal in terms of reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences [77,78,79].
A multiscale approach to multisensory perception
The new multiscale approach to the quality assessment of mediated social communication proposed in this paper is based on a holistic model that describes how multisensory stimulation affects our brain at the sensory or perceptual, emotional, cognitive, behavioral, and decision-making levels [42]. This holistic model distinguishes two assessment perspectives, related to the object of focus that is assessed and responded to: an external perspective in which individuals only assess and respond to information in their environment, and an internal perspective in which the internal reaction of the individual to the environmental information is assessed and responded to. For instance, if a person is asked to describe an experience, an internally focused assessment and response follows, e.g.: “I felt excited/stressed”. If a person is explicitly asked to provide an affective evaluation of an object or environment, an externally focused assessment and response follows, e.g.: “This conversation or environment is stimulating/boring”. Both assessment perspectives tap into different processes, as we will discuss next.
The first processing steps of environmental stimuli are mediated automatically and unconsciously through our senses and the primary sensory areas in our brain. In both assessment perspectives, this processing level results in the sensation of environmental stimuli. In these early processing stages, one can, however, already distinguish different processing routes, which are later linked to the different assessment perspectives [80, 81]. One route (that goes through the sensory cortices where feature extraction and sensory integration take place) serves to guide the external focus and performs an assessment of environmental stimuli (‘external assessment perspective’). This processing level involves a subtle interplay of lower-order and top-down processes, steering attention and resource allocation [82, 83]. This internal perspective is mediated by a secondary route via the limbic structures, prominently including the amygdala that affects the arousal level (‘internal assessment perspective’).
The second processing level involves both conscious and unconscious processing. From the external assessment perspective, the integration and interpretation of the sensory information results in a holistic percept (Gestalt) of an object or environment [84, 85], while it results in an emotional experience from the internal assessment perspective [86,87,88]. In this paper, we define an emotional experience or emotion as a short-term state that is directly related to the environmental stimuli.
The third processing level involves higher-order processes for cognitive processing. From the external assessment perspective, the primary outcome is an evaluation or appraisal of the percept [89]. Depending on the task, this appraisal can be affective (like or dislike of a percept) or functional (evaluation of the characteristics of a percept such as strength, size). From the internal assessment perspective, the cognitive processing may result in an emotional response (e.g., conscious feelings or behavioral intentions [90]).
The fourth processing level involves both conscious and unconscious behavioral responses. From the external perspective, environmental appraisals may trigger both highly trained (automated) reflexive behavior or more deliberate (externally motivated) behavioral responses [91]. From the internal assessment perspective, emotions and appraisals may elicit (unconscious or deliberate) approach and avoidance behaviors [92].
The fifth processing level involves decision-making processes. From the external assessment perspective, appraisals trigger cognitive functions such as working memory, reasoning, and planning [93]. From the internal assessment perspective, emotions and feelings drive our judgments and choices [94, 95].
In the next two sections, we will identify the characteristics of a mediated social communication experience that determine its perceived quality, by decomposing the experience into quality features [96] at each of the five relevant processing levels in the human brain [42]. Here we distinguish between quality factors and quality features [25]. A quality factor can be defined as ‘Any characteristic of a system, whose actual state or setting may influence the QoE for the user’ [97]. A quality feature can then be defined as “A perceivable, recognized and nameable characteristic of the individual’s experience of a service which contributes to its quality” [98]. Thus, features can be seen as a dimension of a multidimensional perceptual event. A feature becomes a quality feature when it is relevant for the experienced quality of the event. For the experience of social presence, we will identify associated quality factors and features at each of the five processing levels and formulate questionnaire items that can be used to rate the quality features. Since the new multiscale approach to the quality assessment of mediated social communication proposed in the next two sections is based on experiential fidelity, its associated quality factors are in between objective factors related to a system’s quality of service (QoS: system characteristics) and highly subjective context, task, and mood dependent secondary features like enjoyment, engagement, flow, and mental absorption or attention. This allows the formulation of an associated QoE questionnaire with items that are relatively insensitive for variations across conditions and personalities.
According to the neuroscientific theory of predictive encoding [99,100,101], the brain generates models at each level of perceptual and cognitive processing to predict what information it should be receiving from the level below it (i.e., top-down). The brain then compares the actual bottom-up sensory information with the model predictions. Only discrepancies between both (referred to as prediction errors or surprises) are passed to higher levels where they are used to update the current model or activate an alternative one. Model activation and updates are both directed at minimizing or suppressing prediction errors at a lower level [101, 102]. Note that the order between the different processing levels need not be fixed, and levels may even be skipped [42].
Quality of spatial presence
In this section, QoE will refer to the quality of the spatial presence component (i.e., the environment in which the social communication experience takes place) of a mediated social communication experience.
Sensory level
At the sensory level, the relevant quality factor for telepresence is the perceptual or sensory fidelity of the experience, i.e., the extent to which users fail to perceive or acknowledge the fact that (part of) their sensory input is mediated. Users should preferably experience the feeling that their sensory input originates directly from the represented environment (the illusion of non-mediation: [103, 104]). In other words, they should experience a natural and acute awareness of the (partially) mediated environment. At this level, quality features are related to individual sensory channels, such as visual features, auditory features or tactile features, and may also be linked to the perception via multiple senses in parallel (e.g., audio-visual features; [98]). Example quality features for the visual channel include color naturalness, sharpness, darkness (of black areas), brightness, contrast, flicker, blur, geometrical distortion, and coding and packet-loss induced degradations such as blocking, freezing, and slicing. Examples for the auditory channel include audio-streaming quality parameters like localization and timbre, and speech-transmission quality features like coloration, noisiness, or loudness [98]. At this level, QoE is directly related to the QoS or fidelity of the system mediating the remote or simulated environment [44]. Note that the fidelity of an experience can differ largely between the different sensory modalities. Such inconsistencies can lead to a strong sense of presence in one modality but not in another [105]. For services that address multiple sensory channels simultaneously, relevant features are e.g. balance and synchrony, and a QoE assessment should address the extent to which one feels like being in direct contact with the environment (one’s impression that one directly sees, hears, feels, or smells the environment). At this level, the overall QoE can be assessed by rating a statement like: “I feel in direct contact with the environment” (item 1 in Table 3).
Affective/emotional level
At the affective or emotional level, the relevant quality factor for telepresence is the internal plausibility or sensory congruity [106] of the experience, i.e. the extent to which users have the feeling that their multisensory input is coherent [71] and agrees (is congruent and consistent) with their mental model (expectations or memories) of the represented environment [38, 106, 107]. Hence, internal plausibility refers to the extent to which an experience is consistent within itself or with respect to the expectations raised by its genre [107]. The relevant quality feature at this level is the semantic consistency and congruency between all sensory signals, and the QoE can be quantified by rating a statement like: “My sensations are consistent and agree with the represented environment” (item 2 in Table 3).
Cognitive level
At the cognitive level, the relevant quality factor for telepresence is the external plausibility or environmental and thematic congruity [106] of the experience, i.e., the perceived fidelity [108], realness [3, 61] or illusion that the represented environment is authentic [109] and a place that can actually be visited [105, 110]. Hence, external plausibility refers to how consistent an experience is to the users’ real-world knowledge [107]. At this level, the QoE can be quantified by rating a statement like: “The represented environment appears real” (item 3 in Table 3).
Reasoning level
At the reasoning level, the relevant quality factor for telepresence is the degree of realism of the multisensory representation of the mediated environment [2]. A multisensory representation of the mediated environment with a high degree of fidelity and realism is expected to influence one’s reasoning in a similar way as its unmediated counterpart. At this level, the QoE can be quantified by rating a statement like: “The environment affects my thoughts as its real counterpart would” (item 4 in Table 3).
In the Spatial Presence subscale of the H-MSC-Q we collapsed both environmental assessment perspectives into a single item at each processing level. For this subscale, maintaining a distinction between the items tapping into the internal and external assessment perspectives on the environment would have resulted in items with only slight nuances in their formulation (asking people to assess either the capability of the environment to evoke their response or to assess their actual response to the environment on different processing levels). This would make these items hard to distinguish and would, therefore, most likely yield similar responses (not understanding the difference between the items, people would probably give the same answer to both items). Since the different perspectives are so closely linked, we believe this reduction in the number of items will not result in a significant loss of information on the experience of mediated social communication.
Behavioral level
At the behavioral level, the relevant quality factor for agency is the degree to which the mediated environment affords natural behavior without any limitations or restrictions, i.e., the feeling that one can interact with objects and persons in the represented environment as in reality. At this level, the QoE can be quantified by rating a statement like: “My interaction with the represented environment feels realistic” (item 5 in Table 3).
Quality of social presence
In this section, QoE will refer to the quality of the social presence component of a mediated social communication experience. Social presence inherently involves a bidirectional exchange of physical and emotional signals. Since the difference between the internal (‘own’) and external (‘the other’) assessment perspectives can be clearly formulated for social interaction, the distinction in both perspectives is maintained for the social presence subscale of the H-MSC-Q (see Table 3). However, by emphasizing the bidirectionality in the formulation of the items of this subscale, both assessment perspectives can also be collapsed into a single one to obtain a more concise version of this subscale (see Table 4).
Sensory level
At the sensory level, system factors should not affect the sensory impression that people have of one another, i.e., users should have the impression that they are in direct contact with each other (physical immediacy or the illusion of non-mediation [111]). At this level, the relevant quality factor for copresence is the feeling that the represented individuals are in one’s physical proximity or direct influence sphere (the feeling that one can make direct physical contact). The QoE can then be quantified from one’s own perspective by rating a statement like: “I feel the presence of the other person(s)” (item 6 in Table 3), and from the other’s viewpoint by rating a statement like: “The other person(s) appear to feel my presence” (item 7 in Table 3). Both perspectives can be assessed simultaneously by rating a statement like: “We feel each other’s presence” (first item in Table 4).
Affective / emotional level
At the affective or emotional level, the mediation process should not degrade the feeling of intimacy [111], i.e., the mediated representation of an individual should convey and evoke similar emotions as its unmediated counterpart. At this level, the relevant quality factor for social interaction is the feeling that one has an emotional and intellectual connection with the represented individual(s) [112,113,114]. The QoE can then be quantified from one’s own perspective by rating a statement like: “I feel an emotional and intellectual connection with the other person(s)” (item 8 in Table 3), and from the other’s viewpoint by rating a statement like: “The other person(s) appear to feel an emotional and intellectual connection with me” (item 9 in Table 3). Both perspectives can be assessed simultaneously by rating a statement like: “We feel a mutual emotional and intellectual connection” (second item in Table 4).
Cognitive level
At the cognitive level, the mediation process should not affect the natural appearance of the represented individuals (the credibility of their representation). At this level, the relevant quality factor for social interaction is the feeling that the represented individuals should look as in normal life. The QoE can then be quantified from one’s own perspective by rating a statement like: “The appearance of the other person(s) feels normal” (item 10 in Table 3), and from the other’s viewpoint by rating a statement like: “My appearance seems normal to the other person(s)” (item 11 in Table 3). Both perspectives can be assessed simultaneously by rating a statement like: “Our appearance feels normal” (third item in Table 4).
Reasoning level
At the reasoning level, the mediation process should not affect the reasoning processes of the communication partners. At this level, the relevant quality factor for social interaction is feeling that the communication system represents individuals in such a way that they affect one’s thinking as they would in normal life. The QoE can then be quantified from one’s own perspective by rating a statement like: “While communicating, my reasoning feels normal” (item 12 in Table 3), and from the other’s viewpoint by rating a statement like: “While communicating, the reasoning of the other person(s) feels normal” (item 13 in Table 3). Both perspectives can be assessed simultaneously by rating a statement like: “While communicating, our mutual reasoning feels normal” (fourth item in Table 4).
Behavioral level
At the behavioral level, the mediation process should not restrict the natural interaction between individuals. At this level, the relevant quality factor for social interaction is the feeling that one’s interaction with represented individuals is the same as in normal life. The QoE can then be quantified from one’s own perspective by rating a statement like: “While communicating, my behavior feels normal” (item 10 in Table 3), and from the other’s viewpoint by rating a statement like: “While communicating, the behavior of the other person(s) feels normal” (item 15 in Table 3). Both perspectives can be assessed simultaneously by rating a statement like: “While communicating, our mutual behavior feels normal” (fifth item in Table 4).
Content and face validity
Validity is the extent to which an instrument measures what it purports to measure [115, 116]. A full and rigorous validation of the H-MSC-Q requires the assessment of its criterion and construct validity, as well as its sensitivity and test–retest reliability. This will for instance involve (1) repeated application of the questionnaire using the same systems in similar scenarios to assess its reliability, (2) application to different social communication systems to assess its sensitivity, (3) comparison with related questionnaires to assess its convergent validity, etc.
Validation studies are typically performed in an iterative fashion, involving several rounds of review and revision. The H-MSC-Q presented here evolved from an initial version that was reviewed in a previous study [117]. This initial version underwent several rounds of revisions, using input from various user- and expert groups. In this study, we evaluated the content and face validity of the final version of the H-MSC-Q, to assess whether the instrument is comprehensive enough regarding conciseness, completeness, and clarity to establish its credibility.
A full and rigorous validation of this questionnaire will be a major and time-consuming effort, consisting of several phases [78]. In this paper we only performed the first phase, involving content and face validity assessment. Therefore, we make the initial draft questionnaire available to the community in the hope that it may be used in future studies for further review, development, and testing.
Measures
Content validity
Content validity refers to the extent to which an instrument measures all relevant aspects of a given construct (in this study: social presence). Content validity is typically assessed by a panel of experts familiar with the construct of interest. In this study, content validity was estimated both at the item level and at the overall scale level.
At the item level, content validity was rated for each sub-construct in the H-MSC-Q (C’s in Table 3) on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = “not relevant”, 2 = “somewhat relevant”, 3 = “quite relevant”, 4 = “very relevant”: [118, 119]). By classifying ratings of 1 and 2 as “not essential” and ratings of 3 and 4 as “essential”), the four ordinal responses were collapsed into two dichotomous response categories (‘content valid’ and ‘content invalid’). An item-level content validity index (I-CVI) was calculated by dividing the number of experts who rated an item as “essential” over the total number of experts [120,121,122]. Values of I-CVI range between 0 (the item is rated “not essential” by all experts) and 1 (the item is rated “essential” by all experts). For a panel consisting of 18 experts (this study), items with I-CVI values below 0.40 are considered “unacceptable “, those in the range of 0.40—0.59 are considered “questionable (in need of further improvement)”, those in the range of 0.60—0.74 are considered “good”, and those with values of 0.75 or higher are considered “excellent” [120].
Scale level content validity indices (S-CVI’s) were computed both for the Spatial Presence, Internal Perspective, External Perspective, and Social Presence subscales of the H-MSC-Q (see Table 3) and for the overall H-MSC-Q, as the average over the individual I-CVI’s in each (sub-)scale (i.e., the sum over all I-CVI’s divided by the total number of items: [121, 122]). Scales with S-CVI values exceeding 0.80 are considered to have good content validity, while values larger than 0.90 reflect excellent content validity [120].
Face validity
Face validity is the degree to which a measure appears to be related to a given construct in the judgement of both experts and non-experts. Thus, a test has face validity if its content appears relevant, reasonable, unambiguous and clear to the target population. In this study, the clarity of each item in the H-MSC-Q (Q’s in Table 3) was rated on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = “not clear”, 2 = “somewhat clear”, 3 = “quite clear”, 4 = “very clear”; e.g. [123]). By classifying ratings of 1 and 2 as “not clear” and ratings of 3 and 4 as “clear”, two dichotomous response categories were obtained (‘valid’ and ‘invalid’). Item-level Face Validity Indices (I-FVI’s) and scale Face Validity Indices (S-FVI’s) were then computed in a similar way as the I-CVI’s and S-CVI’s. Items with I-FVI values below 0.40 are considered “unacceptable”, those in the range of 0.40—0.59 are considered “questionable (in need of further improvement)”, those in the range of 0.60—0.74 are considered “good”, and those with values of 0.75 or higher are considered “excellent” [120]. Scales with S-FVI values exceeding 0.80 are considered to have good face validity, while values larger than 0.90 reflect excellent face validity [120].
Open remarks
A free text box on the score sheet gave respondents the opportunity to comment on each of the H-MSC-Q items regarding their grammatical construction, simplicity, representativeness, comprehension, or ambiguity, and to suggest modifications and/or additions or deletions.
Interrater agreement
The interrater reliability was quantified through the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) with its associated 95% confidence intervals, based on a mean-rating (k = 3), consistency, 2-way mixed-effects model [124, 125], using IBM SPSS Statistics 26 (www.ibm.com). ICC values less than 0.5 are indicative of poor agreement, values between 0.5 and 0.75 indicate moderate agreement, values between 0.75 and 0.9 indicate good agreement, while values greater than 0.9 indicate excellent agreement [125].
Procedure
The content and face validity of the H-MSC-Q were assessed through anonymous online surveys. A cover letter explained the aim of the survey, along with clear and concise instructions on how to rate each item, both for content and face validity. The online survey started with a brief description of a use case, asking the participants to imagine that they that just had experienced a meeting with a remote friend whom they had not seen for a while, using a novel multisensory communication system. This procedure served to provide all participants with a similar and clear mind frame about a possible setting in which the H-MSC-Q can be applied. After reading the introduction, the participants continued their evaluation of the H-MSC-Q by rating either content or face validity for each of its 15 constructs and associated items. Participants in the content validity study were 18 experts in different technologies across the reality-virtuality continuum colleagues (14 males, 4 females, mean age was 38.4 years, ranging from 23 to 70 years). Participants in the face validity study were 21 students and colleagues of the authors (14 males, 7 females, mean age was 26.4, ranging from 19 to 50 years).
Results and discussion
The ICC values for the content (N = 18) and face (N = 21) validity ratings returned by all participants were 0.88 [0.78, 0.95] and 0.76 [0.55, 0.89], indicating good agreement between the different raters.
The I-CVI and I-FVI values of all items in the H-MSC-Q exceed the critical level of 0.75. Hence, the underlying constructs of all items appear to be essential while their associated questions appear to be clearly formulated.
Three items (numbers 4, 11 and 14 in Table 3) obtained a minimal I-FVI value of 0.81. For item 4, four participants remarked that although they understood the construct, they found it hard to imagine how the representation of an environment could distract them from their conversation or otherwise affect their thinking. For item 14, two participants remarked that the distinction between the content (reasoning) and mode (behavior) of the communication could be more clearly formulated. For items 10 and 11, several participants remarked that the word “normal” should be replaced by “familiar”. This suggestion was probably inspired by the use case scenario presented in the introduction of the survey (a virtual meeting with a remote friend). We intentionally used the word “normal” in the H-MSC-Q to make it also applicable for the evaluation of mediated social communication between people who are not well acquainted (or even strangers).
The S-CVI value of the Spatial Presence scale (0.92) exceeds the critical level of 0.90, reflecting excellent content validity. The S-FVI value of this scale (0.89) exceeds the critical level of 0.80, indicating good face validity.
The content validity of Internal Perspective, External Perspective and Social Presence subscales is excellent (all S-CVI values exceed 0.90). The face validity of External Perspective and Social Presence subscales is also excellent, while the Internal Perspective subscale has a good face validity (S-FVI = 0.90).
To summarize, all items of the H-MSC-Q appear to be essential and clearly formulated. All subscales of the H-MSC-Q have excellent content validity, while their face validity ranges from good (Spatial Presence, Internal Perspective) to excellent (External Perspective, Social Presence).
The H-MSC multiscale method and an initial draft of the H-MSC-Q were presented as a poster at the EuroVR 2020 conference [117]. The final version of the H-MSC-Q presented here (see Table 3) evolved from this initial version after an iterative refinement process that involved several rounds of evaluations and discussions that served to improve the relevance and clarity of its questions. As a result, most items in the final version presented here are formulated (slightly) differently as in the initial draft version. The main difference between both versions is the replacement of the term “natural” by “real” (item 3) or “realistic” (item 5), and the term “normal” by “real” (in item 4) in the spatial presence subscale, and the replacement of the term “natural” by “normal” (items 10, 11, 14 and 15) in the social presence subscale. Also, the term “engaged” in items 8 and 9 was replaced by “an emotional and intellectual connection”, since “engaged” refers to a mind-state or intrinsic motivation of the user and does not reflect the system’s capability to afford a true emotional connection.
Conclusions
There is a need for efficient, validated, and standardized measures that fully characterize the QoE of mediated social communication experiences provided by systems on any position along the reality-virtuality continuum, in a way that is independent of secondary factors like context, content and user personality factors. To this aim, we propose a new multiscale approach to the quality assessment of mediated social communication (H-MSC) and suggest an associated questionnaire (the H-MSC-Q). The approach is based on an established conceptual framework for multisensory perception developed by Schreuder, van Erp, Toet and Kallen [42]. Since the multiscale H-MSC approach is based on experiential fidelity, the associated measurements are largely independent of context, media content, and personal factors. It is also technology-independent and can therefore be applied to a wide range of multisensory (visual, auditory, haptic, and olfactory) communication systems along the reality-virtuality continuum. The approach agrees with the latest theoretical insights that perceived realism, plausibility and coherence are the central outcomes of the sensory, perceptual, and cognitive processing layers in the human brain that determine the quality of a mediated experience [2, 3, 27]. In contrast to existing questionnaires, the H-MSC-Q does not rely on ambiguously formulated presence items that have no clear relation to VR/AR/MR experiences [2, 126, 127]. The H-MSC-Q is complete and parsimonious, using only a single item to tap into each of the relevant processing levels in the human brain: sensory, emotional, and cognitive, reasoning, and behavioral. It measures the quality of Spatial Presence (i.e., the perceived fidelity, internal and external plausibility, and cognitive, reasoning and behavioral affordances of an environment) and the experience of Social Presence (i.e., perceived mutual proximity, intimacy, credibility, reasoning and behavior of the communication partners). Initial (Phase 1: [78]) validation studies confirm the content and face validity of the H-MSC-Q.
Limitations
Scale development consists of three phases [78]. In the first or item development phase, items are generated, and their content and face validity is assessed. In the second or scale development phase, items are pretested and exploratory factor analysis is used to reduce the number of items and establish the number of factors. In the third or scale evaluation phase, the dimensionality is tested with confirmatory factor analysis and the scale reliability and validity are assessed. The multi-scale questionnaire proposed in this study has just passed its first stage of development and is therefore not yet fully validated. A full validation of this questionnaire will be a major and time-consuming effort that involves (1) repeated application of the questionnaire using the same systems in similar scenarios to assess its reliability, (2) application to different social communication systems to assess its sensitivity, (3) comparison with related questionnaires to assess its convergent validity, etc. By making the initial draft of our questionnaire available to the community we hope to further its validation and development in a joint effort and to stimulate the discussion on this topic.
In its current form, the multiscale H-MSC quality assessment approach and the associated H-MSC-Q only apply to social communication in (simulated) real-world settings. For certain thematic environments, such as those associated with science fiction or fantasy (that often involve fictional worlds and attribute superpowers to their users), several items in the questionnaire (e.g., external plausibility and agency) may need to be adapted.
To keep the questionnaire concise, high-level formulations were adopted for each of its items. Also, each of the individual constructs of the H-MSC-Q is measured by a single-item scale. Although it has been shown that single-item presence scales can be sensitive, valid, and reliable tools for measuring presence [128,129,130], additional subscales with items that for instance zoom-in on each of the individual sensory modalities (visual, auditory, haptics, olfactory) will be required to analyze the different factors underlying the quality or experience at each of the processing levels in more detail. Such subscales may result from an analysis of the convergent validity of our proposed scale with existing scales.
The H-MSC-Q does not contain items explicitly addressing secondary (content, context or user dependent) factors like appeal of the environment, attention, involvement, engagement, enjoyment, personal relevance, personality, mood, tiredness, headache, eyestrain etc. The H-MSC-Q scales measuring the experienced quality of the sensory fidelity, internal plausibility and agency of the simulation implicitly address each of these issues. For instance, factors contributing to cybersickness are distortions in the mediated representation (e.g., low frame rate, jitter, delay), information mismatches across sensory streams, and conflicts between observed and expected sensory cues (particularly with respect to visual-vestibular cue conflict; [131]). A full validation, including the convergent validity of our proposed scale, can show how existing assessment tools for each of these secondary factors may become subitems of the more generally formulated scales of our holistic social presence questionnaire.
As is the case with any questionnaire-based assessment tool, demand characteristics (implicit and explicit cues that may communicate the aim of the experiment: [132]) may bias user responses. To minimize response bias due to demand characteristics the H-MSC-Q should preferably be applied in naturalistic settings where people are minimally aware of being observed. The experimental procedure should be such that it stimulates a natural conversation between participants. A discussion about the characteristics of the system(s) that are to be judged should be avoided. The system(s) should be presented in a neutral manner (e.g., as an early prototype of an alternative communication mode); it should in no way be advertised as an improved, enhanced, modern, updated communication mode. Experimenters should show no involvement with the new system(s), so that participants have no need to please the observer. Preferably multiple (versions of) systems are tested so that participants will not be biased to one or the other system. Overall, we expect that the questionnaire is not very sensitive to demand characteristics, since it only involves rating the perceived intrinsic capability of a communication system to provide a compelling social communication experience, and the associated task (having a social interaction) does not require any specific behavior or performance on the part of the users.
The H-MSC-Q (Table 6) assesses the perceived quality of a mediated social presence experience through self-report or introspection. Although people are not able to directly observe their cognitive processes (metacognition: [133]), they are quite able to provide introspective reports on their conscious experiences and feelings [134]. Recent hierarchical Bayesian models of multisensory perception even suggest that human observers can introspect not only the final integrated (coherent) multisensory percept but also its constituting (unisensory) estimates and their causal relationships [135] (Table 6).
Availability of the questionnaire
The draft Holistic Mediated Social Communication Questionnaire (H-MSC-Q) is publicly available (both in Microsoft Word and interactive PDF format) from the Open Science Framework (OSF) repository at osf.io/9qkhr with https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/9QKHR under the CC-By Attribution 4.0 International license. Use is only allowed after complying with the following two conditions: (1) a credit line in publications and presentations reading: “The Holistic Mediated Social Communication Questionnaire (H-MSC-Q) is available from the OSF repository at https://osf.io/9qkhr,” and (2) a citation to the current article in any publication in which the H-MSC-Q is used.
Availability of data and material
The Holistic Mediated Social Communication Questionnaire (H-MSC-Q) is publicly available (both in Microsoft Word and interactive PDF format) from the Open Science Framework (OSF) repository at osf.io/9qkhr with https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/9QKHR under the CC-By Attribution 4.0 International license (see Table 6). Its use is allowed only after complying with the following two conditions: (1) a credit line in publications and presentations that reads: “The Holistic Mediated Social Communication Questionnaire (H-MSC-Q) is available from the OSF repository at osf.io/9qkhr,” and (2) a citation to the current article in any publication in which the H-MSC-Q is used.
References
Takac M, Collett J, Conduit R, De Foe A (2021) A cognitive model for emotional regulation in virtual reality exposure. Virtual Real. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-021-00531-4
Weber S, Weibel D, Mast FW (2021) How to get there when you are there already? Defining presence in virtual reality and the importance of perceived realism. Front Psychol 12(1538):1. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.628298
Latoschik ME, Wienrich C (2021) Coherence and plausibility, not presence?! Pivotal conditions for XR experiences and effects, a novel model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.04846
Oh CS, Bailenson JN, Welch GF (2018) A systematic review of social presence: definition, antecedents, and implications. Front Robot AI 5(114):1. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2018.00114
Cummings JJ, Wertz B (2018) Technological predictors of social presence: a foundation for a meta-analytic review and empirical concept explication. In: 10th Annual International Workshop on Presence
Sterna R, Zibrek K (2021) Psychology in virtual reality: toward a validated measure of social presence. Front Psychol 12(4357):1. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.705448
Grassini S, Laumann K (2020) Questionnaire measures and physiological correlates of presence: a systematic review. Front Psychol 11:1. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00349
Youngblut C (2003) Experience of presence in virtual environments, IDA Document D-2960, Institute for Defence Analysis, Alexandria, VA, USA
Skarbez R, Brooks FP, Whitton MC (2017) A survey of presence and related concepts. ACM Comput Surv 50(6):1. https://doi.org/10.1145/3134301
Harms C, Biocca F (2004) Internal consistency and reliability of the Networked Minds measure of social presence. Seventh Annual International Workshop: Presence 2004. Universidad Politecnica de Valencia, Valencia, Spain, pp 246–251
Kjeldskov J, Gibbs M, Vetere F, Howard S, Pedell S, Mecoles K, Bunyan M (2004) Using cultural probes to explore mediated intimacy. Australas J Inf Syst 11(2):102–115. https://doi.org/10.3127/ajis.v11i2.128
Hacker J, vom Brocke J, Handali J, Otto M, Schneider J (2020) Virtually in this together – how web-conferencing systems enabled a new virtual togetherness during the COVID-19 crisis. Eur J Inf Syst 29(5):563–584. https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2020.1814680
Shah SGS, Nogueras D, van Woerden HC, Kiparoglou V (2020) The COVID-19 Pandemic: A Pandemic of Lockdown Loneliness and the Role of Digital Technology. J Med Internet Res 22(11):e22287. https://doi.org/10.2196/22287
Gunkel SNB, Prins M, Stokking H, Niamut O (2017) Social VR platform: building 360-degree shared VR spaces. In: Adjunct Publication of the 2017 ACM International Conference on Interactive Experiences for TV and Online Video, Association for Computing Machinery, pp 83–84. https://doi.org/10.1145/3084289.3089914
Gunkel S, Stokking H, Prins M, Niamut O, Siahaan E, Cesar P (2018) Experiencing virtual reality together: social VR use case study. In: The 2018 ACM international conference on interactive experiences for TV and online video. ACM, pp 233–238. https://doi.org/10.1145/3210825.3213566
Gunkel SNB, Stokking HM, Prins MJ, van der Stap N, ter Haar FB, Niamut OA (2018) Virtual reality conferencing: multi-user immersive VR experiences on the web. In: 9th ACM multimedia systems conference. ACM, pp 498–501. https://doi.org/10.1145/3204949.3208115
Prins MJ, Gunkel SNB, Stokking HM, Niamut OA (2018) TogetherVR: a framework for photorealistic shared media experiences in 360-degree VR. SMPTE Motion Imag J 127(7):39–44. https://doi.org/10.5594/JMI.2018.2840618
Gunkel S, Stokking H, Hindriks R, Koninck TD (2019) VR conferencing: communicating and collaborating in photo-realistic social immersive environments. In: Virtual reality international conference (VRIC 2019), Laval Virtual
Rhee T, Thompson S, Medeiros D, Anjos R, d., and Chalmers A. (2020) Augmented virtual teleportation for high-fidelity telecollaboration. IEEE Trans Visual Comput Graphics 26(5):1923–1933. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2020.2973065
Sra M, Mottelson A, Maes P (2018) Your place and mine: designing a shared VR experience for remotely located users. In: The 2018 designing interactive systems conference. ACM, pp 85–97. https://doi.org/10.1145/3196709.3196788
Milgram P, Takemura H, Utsumi A, Kishino F (1995) Augmented reality: a class of displays on the reality-virtuality continuum. In: Telemanipulator and telepresence technologies, SPIE-2351. SPIE, pp 282–292. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.197321
De Simone F, Li J, Debarba HG, El Ali A, Gunkel SN, Cesar P (2019) Watching videos together in social Virtual Reality: an experimental study on user’s QoE. In: 2019 IEEE conference on virtual reality and 3D user interfaces (VR), IEEE, pp 890–891. https://doi.org/10.1109/VR.2019.8798264
Li J, Kong Y, Röggla T, De Simone F, Ananthanarayan S, de Ridder H, El Ali A, Cesar P (2019) Measuring and understanding photo sharing experiences in social virtual reality. In: Conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI 2019), New York, USA, pp 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300897
Comsa I, Trestian R, Ghinea G (2018) 360° Mulsemedia experience over next generation wireless networks—a reinforcement learning approach. In: 2018 10th International conference on quality of multimedia experience (QoMEX). IEEE, pp 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/QoMEX.2018.8463409
Raake A, Egger S (2014) Quality and quality of experience. In: Quality of experience: advanced concepts, applications and methods. Springer, pp 11–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02681-7_2
Hein D, Mai C, Hußmann H (2018) The usage of presence measurements in research: a review. In: Presence: proceedings of the international society for presence research annual conference. The International Society for Presence Research
Parola M, Johnson S, West R (2016) Turning presence inside-out: metanarratives. Electron Imaging 2016(4):1–9. https://doi.org/10.2352/ISSN.2470-1173.2016.4.ERVR-418
Steuer J (1992) Defining virtual reality: dimensions determining telepresence. J Commun 42(4):73–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1992.tb00812.x
Milgram P, Kishino F (1994) A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IEICE Trans Inf Syst 77(12):1321–1329
Zhao S (2003) Toward a taxonomy of copresence. Presence Teleoper Virtual Environ 12(5):445–455. https://doi.org/10.1162/105474603322761261
Biocca F, Harms C, Burgoon JK (2003) Toward a more robust theory and measure of social presence: review and suggested criteria. Presence Teleoper Virtual Environ 12(5):456–480. https://doi.org/10.1162/105474603322761270
Biocca F, Harms C, Gregg J (2001) The Networked Minds measure of social presence: Pilot test of the factor structure and concurrent validity. In: 4th Annual international workshop on presence. The International Society for Presence Research (ISPR), pp 1–9
Hartmann T, Wirth W, Vorderer P, Klimmt C, Schramm H, Böcking S (2015) Spatial presence theory: State of the art and challenges ahead. In: Immersed in media: telepresence theory, measurement & technology. Springer, pp 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10190-3_7
Schubert T, Friedmann F, Regenbrecht H (2001) The experience of presence: factor analytic insights. Presence Tele-oper Virtual Environ 10(3):266–281. https://doi.org/10.1162/105474601300343603
Maloney D, Freeman G (2020) Falling asleep together: what makes activities in social virtual reality meaningful to users. In: Proceedings of the annual symposium on computer-human interaction in play. Association for Computing Machinery, pp 510–521. https://doi.org/10.1145/3410404.3414266
Zamanifard S, Freeman G (2019) The togetherness that we crave: Experiencing social VR in long distance relationships. In: Conference companion publication of the 2019 on computer supported cooperative work and social computing. Association for Computing Machinery, pp 438–442. https://doi.org/10.1145/3311957.3359453
Klein JT, Shepherd SV, Platt ML (2009) Social attention and the brain. Curr Biol 19(20):R958–R962. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2009.08.010
Wirth W, Hartmann T, Böcking S, Vorderer P, Klimmt C, Schramm H, Saari T, Laarni J, Ravaja N, Gouveia FR, Biocca F, Sacau A, Jancke L, Baumgartner T, Jäncke T (2007) A process model of the formation of spatial presence experiences. Media Psychol 9(3):493–525. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213260701283079
Barreda-Ángeles M, Hartmann T (2022) Psychological benefits of using social virtual reality platforms during the Covid-19 pandemic: the role of social and spatial presence. Comput Hum Behav 127:107047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.107047
Pianzola F, Riva G, Kukkonen K, Mantovani F (2021) Presence, flow, and narrative absorption: an interdisciplinary theoretical exploration with a new spatiotemporal integrated model based on predictive processing [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. Open Res Europe 1(28):1. https://doi.org/10.12688/openreseurope.13193.2
Goldstein EB (2007) Sensation and Perception, 7th edn. Wadsworth Publishing Co Inc.
Schreuder E, van Erp J, Toet A, Kallen VL (2016) Emotional responses to multisensory environmental stimuli: a conceptual framework and literature review. SAGE Open 6(1):1–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016630591
Karakas T, Yildiz D (2020) Exploring the influence of the built environment on human experience through a neuroscience approach: A systematic review. Front Archit Res 9(1):236–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2019.10.005
Akhtar Z, Siddique K, Rattani A, Lutfi SL, Falk TH (2019) Why is multimedia quality of experience assessment a challenging problem? IEEE Access 7:117897–117915. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2936470
Barreda-Ángeles M, Battisti F, Boato G, Carli M, Dumic E, Gelautz M, Hewage C, Kukolj D, Le-Callet P, Liotta A, Pasquini C, Pereda-Baños A, Politis C, Sandic D, Tekalp M, Torres-Vega M, Zlokolica V (2019) Quality of experience and quality of service metrics for 3D content. In: 3D visual content creation, coding and delivery. Springer, pp 267–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77842-6_10
Chen Y, Wu K, Zhang Q (2015) From QoS to QoE: a tutorial on video quality assessment. IEEE Commun Surv Tutor 17(2):1126–1165. https://doi.org/10.1109/COMST.2014.2363139
ITU-T (2017) Vocabulary for performance, quality of service and quality of experience. Recommendation ITU-T P.10/G.100, International Telecommunication Union, Geneva, Switzerland
Bouraqia K, Sabir E, Sadik M, Ladid L (2020) Quality of experience for streaming services: measurements, challenges and insights. IEEE Access 8:13341–13361. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2965099
Toet A, Houtkamp JM, Vreugdenhil PE (2016) Effects of personal relevance and simulated darkness on the affective appraisal of a virtual environment. PeerJ 4(e1743):1–24. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1743
Hägni K, Eng K, Hepp-Reymond M-C, Holper L, Keisker B, Siekierka E, Kiper DC (2007) The effect of task and ownership on time estimation in virtual environments. Presence 2007: 10th Annual International Workshop on Presence, pp 145–150
Lee J, Kim M, Kim J (2020) RoleVR: Multi-experience in immersive virtual reality between co-located HMD and non-HMD users. Multimed Tools Appl 79(1):979–1005. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-019-08220-w
Hofer M, Wirth W, Kuehne R, Schramm H, Sacau A (2012) Structural equation modeling of spatial presence: the influence of cognitive processes and traits. Media Psychol 15(4):373–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2012.723118
Alsina-Jurnet I, Gutiérrez-Maldonado J (2010) Influence of personality and individual abilities on the sense of presence experienced in anxiety triggering virtual environments. Int J Hum Comput Stud 68(10):788–801. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2010.07.001
Sacau A, Laarni J, Hartmann T (2008) Influence of individual factors on presence. Comput Hum Behav 24(5):2255–2273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.11.001
Lee H (2020) A conceptual model of immersive experience in extended reality. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/sefkh
Stoffregen T, Bardy BG, Smart LJ, Pagulayan R (2003) On the nature and evaluation of fidelity in virtual environments. In: Virtual and adaptive environments: applications, implications, and human performance issues. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, pp 111–128. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781410608888.ch6
Daft RL, Lengel RH, Trevino LK (1987) Message equivocality, media selection, and manager performance: Implications for information systems. MIS Quarterly 355–366
Daft RL, Lengel RH (1986) Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Manag Sci 32(5):554–571. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.5.554
Slater M, Lotto B, Arnold MM, Sánchez-Vives MV (2009) How we experience immersive virtual environments: the concept of presence and its measurement. Anuario de Psicología 40(2):193–210
Slater M, Antley A, Davison A, Swapp D, Guger C, Barker C, Pistrang N, Sanchez-Vives MV (2006) A virtual reprise of the Stanley Milgram obedience experiments. PLoS ONE 1(e39):1–10
Khenak N, Vézien J, Bourdot P (2020) Spatial presence, performance, and behavior between real, remote, and virtual immersive environments. IEEE Trans Visual Comput Graphics 26(12):3467–3478. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2020.3023574
Skarbez R, Neyret S, Brooks FP, Slater M, Whitton MC (2017) A psychophysical experiment regarding components of the plausibility illusion. IEEE Trans Visual Comput Graphics 23(4):1369–1378. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2017.2657158
Murcia-López M, Collingwoode-Williams T, Steptoe W, Schwartz R, Loving TJ, Slater M (2020) Evaluating virtual reality experiences through participant choices. In: IEEE Conference on virtual reality and 3D user interfaces (VR). IEEE, 747–755. https://doi.org/10.1109/VR46266.2020.00098
Schubert TW (2009) A new conception of spatial presence: once again, with feeling. Commun Theory 19(2):161–187. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2009.01340.x
Witmer BG, Singer MJ (1998) Measuring presence in virtual environments- a presence questionnaire. Presence 7(3):225–240
Witmer BG, Jerome CJ, Singer MJ (2005) The factor structure of the presence questionnaire. Presence Teleoper Virtual Environ 14(3):298–312. https://doi.org/10.1162/105474605323384654
Slater M, Usoh M, Steed A (1994) Depth of presence in virtual environments. Presence Teleoper Virtual Environ 3(2):130–144
Vorderer P, Wirth W, Gouveia FR, Biocca F, Saari T, Lutz J, Böcking S, Schramm H, Gysbers A, Hartmann T, Christoph K, Laarni J, Ravaja N, Sacau A, Baumgartner T, Jäncke P (2004) MEC spatial presence questionnaire (MEC-SPQ): short documentation and instructions for application
Benyon D, Smyth M, O’Neill S, McCall R, Carroll F (2006) The place probe: exploring a sense of place in real and virtual environments. Presence Tele-oper Virtual Environ 15(6):668–687
Nystad E, Sebok A (2004) A comparison of two presence measures based on experimental results. In: Presence 2004, International Society for Presence Research, pp 266–273
Skarbez R, Brooks F, Whitton M (2021) Immersion and coherence: research agenda and early results. IEEE Trans Visual Comput Gr 27(10):3839–3850. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2020.2983701
Bailenson JN, Blascovich J, Beall AC, Loomis JM (2003) Interpersonal distance in immersive virtual environments. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 29(7):819–833. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203029007002
Basdogan C, Ho C-H, Srinivasan MA, Slater M (2000) An experimental study on the role of touch in shared virtual environments. ACM Trans Comput-Hum Interact 7(4):443–460. https://doi.org/10.1145/365058.365082
Chertoff DB, Goldiez B, LaViola JJ (2010) Virtual experience test: a virtual environment evaluation questionnaire. In: IEEE virtual reality conference 2010. IEEE Press, pp 103–110. https://doi.org/10.1109/VR.2010.5444804
Makransky G, Lilleholt L, Aaby A (2017) Development and validation of the multimodal presence scale for virtual reality environments: a confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory approach. Comput Hum Behav 72:276–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.066
Lessiter J, Freeman J, Keogh E, Davidoff JD (2001) A cross-media presence questionnaire: the ITC Sense of Presence Inventory. Presence Teleoper Virtual Environ 10(3):282–297
Preston CC, Colman AM (2000) Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta Physiol (Oxf) 104(1):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-6918(99)00050-5
Boateng GO, Neilands TB, Frongillo EA, Melgar-Quiñonez HR, Young SL (2018) Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: a primer. Front Public Health 6(149):1. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149
Krosnick JA, Presser S (2009) Question and questionnaire design. Handbook of Survey Research. Elsevier, pp 263–314
Brosch T, Sander D (2013) Comment: the appraising brain: Towards a neuro-cognitive model of appraisal processes in emotion. Emot Rev 5(2):163–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073912468298
Pessoa L, Adolphs R (2010) Emotion processing and the amygdala: from a “low road” to “many roads” of evaluating biological significance. Nat Rev Neurosci 11(11):773–783. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2920
Bishop SJ (2008) Neural mechanisms underlying selective attention to threat. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1129(1):141–152. https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1417.016
Pessoa L, Kastner S, Ungerleider LG (2002) Attentional control of the processing of neutral and emotional stimuli. Cogn Brain Res 15(1):31–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-6410(02)00214-8
O'Callaghan C (2012) Perception and multimodality. In: Oxford handbook of philosophy and cognitive science. Oxford University Press, pp 92–117. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195309799.013.0005
Barrett P, Barrett L, Davies F (2013) Achieving a step change in the optimal sensory design of buildings for users at all life-stages. Build Environ 67:97–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2013.05.011
Zadra JR, Clore GL (2011) Emotion and perception: the role of affective information. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cognit Sci 2(6):676–685. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.147
Anderson E, Siegel EH, Barrett LF (2011) What you feel influences what you see: The role of affective feelings in resolving binocular rivalry. J Exp Soc Psychol 47(4):856–860
Feldman Barrett L (2017) How emotions are made: The secret life of the brain. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
Russell JA, Snodgrass J (1987) Emotion and the environment 1:245–280
Frijda NH, Kuipers P, Ter Schure E (1989) Relations among emotion, appraisal, and emotional action readiness. J Pers Soc Psychol 57(2):212–228. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.2.212
Ibanez L, Roussel S (2021) The effects of induced emotions on environmental preferences and behavior: An experimental study. PLoS ONE 16(9):e0258045. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258045
Cosmides L, Tooby J (2000) Evolutionary psychology and the emotions. In: Handbook of emotions, 2nd ed, . Guilford, pp 91–115
Ridderinkhof KR, Ullsperger M, Crone EA, Nieuwenhuis S (2004) The role of the medial frontal cortex in cognitive control. Science 306(5695):443–447. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1100301
Zeelenberg M, Nelissen RM, Breugelmans SM, Pieters R (2008) On emotion specificity in decision making: Why feeling is for doing. Judgm Decis Mak 3(1):18–27
Lerner JS, Li Y, Valdesolo P, Kassam KS (2015) Emotion and decision making. Annu Rev Psychol 66:799–823. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115043
Jekosch U (2005) Voice and speech quality perception: assessment and evaluation. Springer Science & Business Media
Reiter U, Brunnström K, De Moor K, Larabi M-C, Pereira M, Pinheiro A, You J, Zgank A (2014) Factors influencing quality of experience. In: Quality of experience: advanced concepts, applications and methods. Springer, pp 55–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02681-7_4
Möller S, Wältermann M, Garcia M-N (2014) Features of quality of experience. In: Quality of experience: advanced concepts, applications and methods. Springer, pp 73–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02681-7_5
Hohwy J (2013) The predictive mind. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK
Friston K (2012) Prediction, perception and agency. Int J Psychophysiol 83(2):248–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2011.11.014
Friston K, Kiebel S (2009) Predictive coding under the free-energy principle. Philos Trans R Soc B: Biol Sci 364(1521):1211–1221. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0300
Friston K, Mattout J, Kilner J (2011) Action understanding and active inference. Biol Cybern 104(1):137–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00422-011-0424-z
Lombard M, Ditton T (1997) At the heart of It all: the concept of presence. J Comput-Mediat Commun 3(2):1. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.tb00072.x
Lombard M, Reich RD, Grabe ME, Campanella CM, Ditton TB (2000) Presence and television: the role of screen size. In: Human communication research: proceedings of the 1995 annual conference of the international communication association, 26, pp 75–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2000.tb00750.x
Slater M (2009) Place illusion and plausibility can lead to realistic behaviour in immersive virtual environments. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 364:3549–3557. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0138
Cahill TJ (2018) Dimensions of congruity in immersive virtual environments: a framework for the schematic processing of multimodal sensory cues. In: 18th conference of the international society for presence research. International Society for Presence Research. http://matthewlombard.com/ISPR/Proceedings/2018/P2018-Cahill.pdf
Hofer M, Hartmann T, Eden A, Ratan R, Hahn L (2020) The role of plausibility in the experience of spatial presence in virtual environments. Front Virtual Real 1(2):1. https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2020.00002
Alexander AL, Brunyé T, Sidman J, Weil SA (2005) From gaming to training: a review of studies on fidelity, immersion, presence, and buy-in and their effects on transfer in PC-based simulations and games. In: The Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education Conference (I/ITSEC'05). DARWARS Training Impact Group, pp. 1–14
Gilbert SB (2017) Perceived realism of virtual environments depends on authenticity. Presence Teleoper Virtual Environ 24(4):322–324. https://doi.org/10.1162/PRES_a_00276
Gonçalves G, Melo M, Vasconcelos-Raposo J, Bessa M (2020) Impact of different sensory stimuli on presence in credible virtual environments. IEEE Trans Visual Comput Graphics 26(11):3231–3240. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2019.2926978
Hwang HS, Park S (2007) Being together: user’s subjective experience of social presence in CMC environments. In: Human-computer interaction. Interaction design and usability. 12th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, LNCS 4550, Springer, pp 844–853. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73105-4_93
Vanden Abeele M, Roe K, Pandelaere M (2007) Construct validation of the concepts social presence, emotional presence and connectedness and an application of Zajonc’s social facilitation theory to social presence research. In: Proceedings of 10th International Workshop on Presence, pp 215–224
IJsselsteijn W, van Baren J, van Lanen F (2003) Staying in touch: social presence and connectedness through synchronous and asynchronous communication media (Part III), Volume 2 of the Proceedings of HCI International 2003, pp 924–928
Rettie R. (2003) Connectedness, awareness and social presence. In: Presence 2003 (online proceedings)
Taherdoost H (2016) Validity and reliability of the research instrument: how to test the validation of a questionnaire/survey in a research. Int J Acad Res Manag 5:28–36. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3205040
Bolarinwa OA (2015) Principles and methods of validity and reliability testing of questionnaires used in social and health science researches. Niger Postgrad Med J 22(4):195
Toet A, Mioch T, Gunkel SNB, Sallaberry C, van Erp JBF, Niamut O (2020) Holistic quality assessment of mediated immersive multisensory social communication. In: Virtual reality and augmented reality. EuroVR 2020., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 12499, Springer, pp 209–215. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62655-6_13
Waltz CF, Bausell RB (1981) Nursing research: design, statistics, and computer analysis. F.A. Davis
Wynd CA, Schmidt B, Schaefer MA (2003) Two quantitative approaches for estimating content validity. West J Nurs Res 25(5):508–518. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945903252998
Polit DF, Beck CT, Owen SV (2007) Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Res Nurs Health 30(4):459–467
Lynn MR (1986) Determination and quantification of content validity. Nurs Res 35(6):382–385. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-198611000-00017
Polit DF, Beck CT (2006) The content validity index: Are you sure you know what’s being reported? critique and recommendations. Res Nurs Health 29(5):489–497. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20147
Kusi AA, Bam V, Stolt M, Korhonen J, Axelin A (2020) Evaluating the content validity of two versions of an instrument used in measuring pediatric pain knowledge and attitudes in the Ghanaian context. PLoS ONE 15(11):e0241983. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241983
Shrout PE, Fleiss JL (1979) Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 86(2):420–428. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420
Koo TK, Li MY (2016) A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med 15(2):155–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012
Wagner I, Broll W, Jacucci G, Kuutii K, McCall R, Morrison A, Schmalstieg D, Terrin J-J (2009) On the role of presence in mixed reality. Presence Teleoper Virtual Environ 18(4):249–276. https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.18.4.249
Benyon D (2012) Presence in blended spaces. Interact Comput 24(4):219–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2012.04.005
Hoffman HG, Richards T, Coda B, Richards A, Sharar SR (2003) The illusion of presence in immersive virtual reality during an fMRI brain scan. Cyberpsychol Behav 6(2):127–131. https://doi.org/10.1089/109493103321640310
Baus O, Bouchard S (2017) Exposure to an unpleasant odour increases the sense of presence in virtual reality. Virtual Reality 21(2):59–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-016-0299-3
Bouchard S, Robillard G, St-Jacques J, Dumoulin S, Patry MJ, Renaud P (2004) Reliability and validity of a single-item measure of presence in VR. In: The 3rd IEEE international workshop on haptic, audio and visual environments and their applications. pp 59–61. https://doi.org/10.1109/HAVE.2004.1391882
Kim J, Luu W, Palmisano S (2020) Multisensory integration and the experience of scene instability, presence and cybersickness in virtual environments. Comput Hum Behav 113:106484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106484
Orne MT (2009) Demand characteristics and the concept of quasi-controls. Artifacts in behavioral research. Oxfor University Press, pp 110–137
Overgaard M, Sandberg K (2012) Kinds of access: different methods for report reveal different kinds of metacognitive access. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 367(1594):1287–1296. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2011.0425
Nisbett RE, Wilson TD (1977) Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychol Rev 84(3):231–259. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.3.231
Deroy O, Spence C, Noppeney U (2016) Metacognition in multisensory perception. Trends Cogn Sci 20(10):736–747. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.08.006
Bland AJ, Topping A, Tobbell J (2014) Time to unravel the conceptual confusion of authenticity and fidelity and their contribution to learning within simulation-based nurse education. A Discuss Pap Nurse Educ Today 34(7):1112–1118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2014.03.009
INACSL Standards Committee (2016) INACSL Standards of Best Practice: SimulationSM: Simulation Glossary. Clin Simul Nurs 12:39-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2016.09.012
Ipakchian Askari S, Harjunen VJ, Haans A, Ravaja N, Ijsselsteijn W (2020) Does mediated social touch successfully approximate natural social touch? In: Annual International CyberPsychology, CyberTherapy & Social Networking Conference: VIRTUAL Edition (CYPSY25), In press
Lavoie P, Deschênes M-F, Nolin R, Bélisle M, Blanchet GA, Boyer L, Lapierre A, Fernandez N (2020) Beyond technology: A scoping review of features that promote fidelity and authenticity in simulation-based health professional education. Clin Simul Nurs 42:22–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2020.02.001
Schultze U, Brooks JAM (2019) An interactional view of social presence: making the virtual other “real.” Inf Syst J 29(3):707–737. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12230
Lindau A, Weinzierl S (2012) Assessing the plausibility of virtual acoustic environments. Acta Acust Acust 98(5):804–810. https://doi.org/10.3813/AAA.918562
Funding
This project was partially funded by the Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research TNO through the Early Research Programme ‘Social eXtended Reality’.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
J.v.E. had the idea for the article. A.T. performed the literature search and review and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors critically reviewed previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Toet, A., Mioch, T., Gunkel, S.N.B. et al. Towards a multiscale QoE assessment of mediated social communication. Qual User Exp 7, 4 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41233-022-00051-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41233-022-00051-2