Advertisement

Virtual Reality

, Volume 10, Issue 2, pp 119–133 | Cite as

Factors influencing flow of object focussed collaboration in collaborative virtual environments

  • David RobertsEmail author
  • Ilona Heldal
  • Oliver Otto
  • Robin Wolff
Original Article

Abstract

Creativity is believed to be helped by an uncluttered state of mind known as flow and as the trend grows towards less immersive displays to produce an uncluttered workplace, we ask the question “Does immersion matter to the flow of distributed group work?”. The aim of this work is to study the impact of level of immersion on workflow and presence during object focussed distributed group work, and to discuss the relevance of these and other factors to supporting flow and creativity. This is approached through a comprehensive literature survey and significant new results. The study attempts to introduce a breadth of factors and relationships as opposed to proving a hypothesis and thus takes a wide qualitative rather than deep quantitative approach to testing and analysis.

Keywords

Task Performance Video Conferencing Object Manipulation Subjective Impression Head Mount Display 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Anthony Steed from UCL and Ralph Schroeder from the Oxford Internet Institute for many valuable discussions and experimentation that led up to this work. HEFCE for funding the infrastructure used at Salford in these tests and for funding new infrastructure to support the future work on integration of modular multi-modal display displays and 3D reconstruction. We would also like to thank EPSRC for funding the further work into communicational eye-gaze.

References

  1. Benford SD et al (1995) User embodiment in collaborative virtual environments. In: CHI’95. ACM Press, DenverGoogle Scholar
  2. Bente G, Kraemer NC (2002) Virtual gestures: analyzing social presence effects of computer-mediated and computer-generated nonverbal behaviour. In: Fifth annual international workshop PRESENCE 2002. Porto, pp 233–244Google Scholar
  3. Blade RA, Padgett ML (2002) Virtual environments standards and terminology. In: Stanney KM (ed) Handbook of virtual environments. Design, implementation, and applications. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, London, pp 15–27Google Scholar
  4. Brogni A, Slater M, Steed A (2003) More breaks less presence. In: Presence 2003, The 6th annual international workshop on presence. Aalborg, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  5. Csikszentmihalyi M (1996) Creativity: flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. Harper Perennial, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Culnan MJ (1987) Information technologies. In: Jablin F et al (ed) Handbook of organizational communication. Sage Publication, Beverly Hills, pp 420–442Google Scholar
  7. Fencott C (1999) Content and creativity in virtual environment design. In: Proceedings of virtual systems and multimedia ‘99. University of AbertayGoogle Scholar
  8. Fjeld M et al (2002) Physical and virtual tools: activity theory applied to the design of groupware. Computer supported cooperative work 11, pp 153–180Google Scholar
  9. Garau M et al (2001) The impact of eye gaze on communication using humanoid avatars. In CHI ‘01: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM Press, New York, pp 309–316Google Scholar
  10. Goffman E (1986) Frame analysis: an essay on the organization of experience. Northeastern University Press, Boston, xviii, [4], 586 sGoogle Scholar
  11. Held R, Durlach N (1991) Telepresence, time delay and adaptation. In: Ellis SR, Kaiser MK, Grunwald AC (eds) Pictorial communication in virtual and real environments. Taylor & Francis, London pp 231–246Google Scholar
  12. Held RM, Durlach NI (1992) Telepresence. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ 1(1):109–112Google Scholar
  13. Heldal I (2004) Usability development for collaborative virtual environments. In: VIRART workshop: designing and evaluating virtual reality systems. NottinghamGoogle Scholar
  14. Heldal I et al (2005) Successes and failures in copresent situations. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ 14(5):563–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hindmarsh J et al (2000) Object-focused interaction in collaborative virtual environments. ACM Trans Comput Human Interact(ToCHI) 7(4):477–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Monk A (2003) Common ground in electronically mediated communication: clarks theory of language use. In: Carroll J (ed) HCI models, theories and frameworks. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, pp 263–290Google Scholar
  17. Nardi B, Whittaker S (2002) The role of face-to-face communication in distributed work. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 83–112Google Scholar
  18. Nilsson A et al (2002) The long-term uses of shared virtual environments: an exploratory study. In: Schroeder R (ed) The social life of avatars. Springer, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. Norman D (1998) The invisible computer. Why good products can fail, the personal computer is so complex, and information appliances ate the solution. The MIT Press, London. 0262140659Google Scholar
  20. Poston T, Serra L (1996) Dextrous virtual work. Communications of the ACM, pp 37–45Google Scholar
  21. Riva G (1999) Virtual reality as communication tool: a socio-cognitive analysis. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ 8(4):462–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Roberts D et al (2004) Supporting social human communication between distributed walk-in displays. In: VRST ‘04: ACM symposium on virtual reality software and technology, pp 81–88Google Scholar
  23. Roberts D et al (2005) Reducing fragmentation in telecollaboration by using IPT interfaces. In: IPT-EGVE workshop: Eurographics Association, Switzerland, pp 211–216Google Scholar
  24. Sadowski W, Stanney K (2002) Presence in virtual environments. In: Stanney KM (ed) Handbook of virtual environments. Design, implementation, and applications. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, London, pp 791–806Google Scholar
  25. Schroeder R et al (2001) Collaborating in networked immersive spaces: as good as being there together? Comput Graphics 25(5):781–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Scott CR (1999) Communication technology and group communication. In: Frey LR (ed) The handbook of group communication theory and research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 431–472Google Scholar
  27. Shneiderman B (2002) Leonardo’s laptop: human needs and the new computing technologies: MIT Press, Cambridge. 0262194767Google Scholar
  28. Short J, Williams E, Christie B (1976) The social psychology of telecommunications. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. Slater M, Steed A (2000) A virtual presence counter. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ 9(5):413–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Slater M, Wilbur S (1997) A framework for immersive virtual environments (FIVE): Speculations on the role of presence in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators Virtual Environ 6(6):603–606Google Scholar
  31. Slater M, Usoh M, Steed A (1994) Depth of Presence in Virtual Environments. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ 3(2):130–144Google Scholar
  32. Slater M et al (1996) Immersion, presence and performance in virtual environments: An experiment with tri-dimensional chess. In VRST ‘96: Proceedings of the ACM symposium on virtual reality software and technology, pp 163–172Google Scholar
  33. Stanney KM, Mourant RR, Kennedy RS (1998) Human factors issues in virtual reality: a review of the literature. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ 7(4):327–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tromp J, Steed A, Wilson J (2003) Systematic usability evaluation and design issues for collaborative virtual environments. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ 10(3):241–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vass M, Carroll JM, Shaffer CA (2002) Supporting creativity in problem solving environments. In: Proceedings of the fourth creativity & cognition conference. AMC Press, Leicestershire, pp 31–37Google Scholar
  36. Walther JB (2002) Time effects in computer-mediated groups: past, present, and future. In: Hinds P, Kiesler S (eds) Distributed work. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 235–257Google Scholar
  37. Wilson JR (2003) If VR has changed, then have its human factors? In: Waard Dd et al (eds) Human factors in the age of virtual reality, Shaker Publishing, Maastrich, pp 9–30Google Scholar
  38. Witmer BG, Singer MJ (1998) Measuring presence in virtual environments: a presence questionnaire. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ 7(3):225–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Roberts
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ilona Heldal
    • 2
  • Oliver Otto
    • 1
  • Robin Wolff
    • 1
  1. 1.The University of SalfordSalfordUK
  2. 2.Chalmers UniversityGothenburgSweden

Personalised recommendations