Virtual Reality

, Volume 13, Issue 3, pp 153–158 | Cite as

Social cooperation and competition in the mixed reality space eXperience Induction Machine XIM

  • Martin InderbitzinEmail author
  • Sytse Wierenga
  • Aleksander Väljamäe
  • Ulysses Bernardet
  • Paul F. M. J. Verschure
Original Article


Although the architecture of mixed reality spaces is becoming increasingly more complex, our understanding of human behavior in such spaces is still limited. Despite the sophisticated methods deployed in ethology and behavioral biology to track and analyze the actions and movements of animals, we rarely find studies that focus on the understanding of human behavior using such instruments. Here, we address this issue by analyzing social behavior and physical actions of multiple humans who are engaging in a game. As a paradigm of social interaction, we constructed a mixed reality football game in which two teams of two players have to cooperate and compete in order to win. This paradigm was deployed in the, so-called, eXperience Induction Machine (XIM), a human accessible, fully instrumented space that supports full body interaction in mixed reality without the need for body-mounted sensors. Our results show that winning and losing strategies can be discerned by specific behavioral patterns and proxemics. This demonstrates that mixed reality systems such as XIM provide new paradigms for the investigation of human social behavior.


Human behavior Social behavior Cooperation Competition Proxemics Mixed reality XIM Game play 



We acknowledge the use of the Original Floor System developed by the Institute of Neuroinformatics of ETH Zurich and of the University of Zurich. This work was carried out as part of the PRESENCCIA project, a EU funded integrated project under the FP6-IST FET program (project number 27731).


  1. Axelrod R, Hamilton WD (1981) The evolution of cooperation. Science 217:1390–1396CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. Bailenson JN, Blascovich J, Beall AC, Loomis JM (2001) Equilibrium theory revisited: mutual gaze and personal space in virtual environments. Presence 10(6):583–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bailenson JN, Blascovich J, Beall AC, Loomis JM (2003) Interpersonal distance in immersive virtual environments. PSPB 29(7):819–833Google Scholar
  4. Bernardet U, Bermùdez i Badia S, Verschure PFMJ (2007) The eXperience Induction Machine and its role in the research on presence. In: Proceedings of the 10th annual international workshop on Presence 329–335Google Scholar
  5. Bialik C (2007) Tracking how far soccer players run. Wall Str J.
  6. Bobick AF, Intille SS, Davis JW, Baird F, Pinhanez CS, Campbell LW, Ivanov YA, Schütte A, Wilson A (2000) Perceptual user interfaces: the kid’s room. Commun ACM 43:60–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. DeFanti TA, Cruz-Neira C, Sandin DJ (1993) Surround-screen projection-based virtual reality: the design and implementation of the cave. In: SIGGRAPH ‘93: proceedings of the 20th annual conference on computer graphics and interactive technique pp 135–142Google Scholar
  8. Delbrück T, Whatley AM, Douglas RJ, Eng K, Hepp K, Verschure PFMJ (2007) A tactile luminous floor for an interactive autonomous space, robotics and autonomous systems. Robotics Auton Syst 55:433–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Deutsch M (1949) A theory of co-operation and competition. Hum Relat 2:129–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Edgecomb SJ, Norton KI (2006) Comparison of global positioning and computer-based tracking systems for measuring player movement distance during Australian football. J Sci Med Sport 9:25–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eng K, Klein D, Bäbler A, Bernardet U, Blanchard M, Costa M, Delbrück T, Douglas RJ, Hepp K, Manzolli J, Mintz M, Roth F, Rutishauser U, Wassermann K, Whatley AM, Wittmann A, Wyss R, Verschure PFMJ (2003) Design for a brain revisited: the neuromorphic design and functionality of the interactive space ‘Ada’. Rev Neurosci 14:145–180Google Scholar
  12. Eng K, Mintz M, Delbrück T, Douglas RJ, Whatley AM, Manzolli J, Verschure PFMJ (2006) An investigation of collective human behavior in large-scale, mixed reality spaces. Presence Teleoper Virtual Environ 15(4):403–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. GarageGames, Eugene, USA (2008) Torque game engine.
  14. Gillath O, McCall C, Shaver PR, Balscovich J (2008) What can virtual reality teach us about prosocial tendencies in real and virtual environments? Media Psychol 11:259–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hall ET (1963) A system for the notation of proxemic behavior. Am Anthropol 65:1003–1026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hall ET (1966) The hidden dimension. Doubelday, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Heldal I, Steed A, Spante M, Schroeder R, Bengtsson S, Partanen M (2005) Successes and failures in co-present situations. Presence 14(5):563–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Höllerer T, Kuchera-Morin JA, Amatriain X (2007) The Allosphere: a large-scale immersive surround-view instrument. In: Proceedings of the 2007 workshop on emerging displays technologies: images and beyond: the future of displays and interaction 252: article no 3Google Scholar
  19. Ickner WJ (1982) A behavioral game methodology for the study of proxemic behavior. PhD Thesis, Yale UniversityGoogle Scholar
  20. IQR simulator for large-scale neural systems (2008)
  21. Lefèvre S, Fluck C, Maillard B, Vincent N (2000) A fast snake-based method to track football players. In: Proceedings of IAPR international workshop on machine vision applications 501-504Google Scholar
  22. Linden Lab, San Francisco, USA (2003) Second life.
  23. Manzolli J, Verschure PFMJ (2005) Roboser: a real-world composition system. Comput Music J 29:55–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mathews Z, Bermùdez i Badia S, Verschure PFMJ (2007) A novel brain-based approach for multi-modal multi-target tracking in a mixed reality space. In: Proceedings of the 4th INTUITION international conference and workshop on virtual reality 26–34Google Scholar
  25. Poundstone W (1993) Prisoner’s dilemma. Anchor, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Schell J, Shochet J (2001) Designing interactive theme park rides IEEE computer graphics and applications 21(4):11–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Stanton D, Bayon V, Neale H, Ghali A, Benford S, Cobb S, Ingram R, O’Malley C, Wilson J, Pridmore T (2001) Classroom collaboration in the design of tangible interfaces for storytelling. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems 482–489Google Scholar
  28. Steed A, Spante M, Heldal I, Axelsson AS, Schroeder R (2003) Strangers and friends in caves: an exploratory study of collaboration in networked IPT systems for extended periods of time. In: Proceedings of the 2003 symposium on interactive 3D graphics 51–54Google Scholar
  29. Vogiazou Y, Eisenstadt M (2005) Designing multi player games to facilitate emergent social behaviors on line. Int J Interact Technol Smart Educ 2:117–130Google Scholar
  30. Xu M, Orwell J, Lowey L, Thirde D (2005) Architecture and algorithms for tracking football players with multiple cameras. In: IEE proceedings of vision, image and signal processing 152:232–241Google Scholar
  31. Yee N, Bailenson JN, Urbanek M, Chang F, Merget D (2007) The unbearable likeness of being digital: the persistence of nonverbal social norms on online virtual environments. CyberPsychol Behav 10(1):115–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Inderbitzin
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sytse Wierenga
    • 1
  • Aleksander Väljamäe
    • 1
  • Ulysses Bernardet
    • 1
  • Paul F. M. J. Verschure
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.SPECS, IUAUniversitat Pompeu FabraBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.ICREA, Institucio Catalana de Recerca i Estudis AvanatsBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations