Advertisement

The experience of virtual reality: are individual differences in mental imagery associated with sense of presence?

  • T. IachiniEmail author
  • L. Maffei
  • M. Masullo
  • V. P. Senese
  • M. Rapuano
  • A. Pascale
  • F. Sorrentino
  • G. Ruggiero
Research Article

Abstract

The concept of “presence” describes the quality of subjective experience in immersive virtual reality (IVR). Presence refers to a specific state of consciousness: we behave and feel as if we actually were in the virtual world even though we know there is nothing there. In their handbook of Virtual Reality, Burdea and Coiffet (Virtual reality technology, Wiley, New York, 2003) suggested that the experience of presence in IVR would emerge from the combination of three Is: Immersion or capacity to isolate from the external world, Interaction or capacity to naturally exploring the virtual environment, and Imagination or individual aptitudes with mental imagery. So far, several studies have investigated the technological and psychological factors affecting the degree of immersion and interaction. However, no study has explored the relationship between perceived presence and mental imagery. Here we aim at filling this gap through a correlational study comparing self-reports about sense of presence and mental imagery abilities. After experiencing two IVR scenarios (an art gallery and a living room), 142 male and female users were administered with questionnaires assessing the degree of presence (Igroup Presence Questionnaire), the degree of vividness (Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire) and control (Test of Visual Imagery Control) of subjective mental images. Results showed a clear positive correlation between presence and vividness: the higher the vividness of mental images the stronger the reported sense of presence felt in IVR scenarios. Instead, the capacity to control mental imagery showed a weaker association with presence. We may conclude that individual differences in the degree of perceived presence and mental imagery ability are associated.

Keywords

Immersive virtual reality Presence Mental imagery ability Vividness of mental imagery Control of mental imagery Individual differences 

Notes

Funding

This study was not supported by grant or funding.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict interest

We know of no conflicts of interest associated with this publication, and there has been no significant financial support for this work that could have influenced its outcome. As Corresponding Author, I confirm that the manuscript has been read and approved for submission by all the named authors.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in the present study involving healthy participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Institutional Review Board of the Department of Psychology (University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli) and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Ahsen A (1990) AA-VVIQ and imagery paradigm: vividness and unvividness issue in VVIQ research programs. J Ment Imag 14(3–4):1–58Google Scholar
  2. Ashton R, White KD (1980) Sex differences in imagery vividness: an artifact of the test. Br J Psychol 71(1):35–38.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1980.tb02726.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Antonietti A, Crespi, M (1995) Analisi di tre questionari per la valutazione della vividezza dell’immagine mentale (Analysis of three questionnaires for assessing the vividness of mental image). Department of Psychology, Catholic University of The Sacred Heart. Technical reportGoogle Scholar
  4. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Barsalou LW (1999) Perceptions of perceptual symbols. Behav Brain Sci 22(4):637–660.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X99532147 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y (1995) Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc 57:289–300Google Scholar
  7. Blajenkova O, Kozhevnikov M, Motes MA (2006) Object-spatial imagery: a new self-report imagery questionnaire. Appl Cognit Psychol: J Appl Res Mem Cognit 20(2):239–263.  https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1182 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burdea GC, Coiffet P (2003) Virtual reality technology. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carlin AS, Hoffman HG, Weghorst S (1997) Virtual reality and tactile augmentation in the treatment of spider phobia: a case report. Behav Res Ther 35(2):153–158.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(96)00085-X CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Felnhofer A, Kothgassner OD, Hauk N, Beutl L, Hlavacs H, Kryspin-Exner I (2014) Physical and social presence in collaborative virtual environments: exploring age and gender differences with respect to empathy. Comput Hum Behav 31:272–279.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.045 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gordon R (1949) An investigation into some of the factors that favour the formation of stereotyped images. Br J Psychol 39:156–167.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1949.tb00215.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Harshman RA, Paivio A (1987) “Paradoxical” sex differences in self-reported imagery. Can J Exp Psychol 41(3):287–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hendrix CM (1994) Exploratory studies on the sense of presence in virtual environments as a function of visual and auditory display parameters. Unpublished master’s thesis, Human Interface Technology Laboratory of the Washington Technology Center at the University of WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  14. Holt RR (1964) Imagery: the return of the ostracized. Am Psychol 19(4):254–264.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046316 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Iachini T (2011) Mental imagery and embodied cognition: a multimodal approach. J Ment Imag 35(3–4):1–28Google Scholar
  16. Iachini T, Ruggiero G (2006) Egocentric and allocentric spatial frames of reference: a direct measure. Cognit Process 7:126–127.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-006-0100-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Iachini T, Ruggiero G (2010) The role of visual experience in mental scanning of actual pathways: evidence from blind and sighted people. Perception 39:953–969.  https://doi.org/10.1068/p6457 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Iachini T, Coello Y, Frassinetti F, Senese VP, Galante F, Ruggiero G (2016) Peripersonal and interpersonal space in virtual and real environments: effects of gender and age. J Exp Psychol 45:154–164.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.01.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Isaac AR, Marks DF (1994) Individual differences in mental imagery experience: developmental changes and specialization. Br J Psychol 85(4):479–500.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1994.tb02536.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Kihlstrom JF, Glisky ML, Peterson MA, Harvey EM (1991) Vividness and control of mental imagery: a psychometric analysis. J Ment Imag 15(3–4):133–142Google Scholar
  21. Kosslyn SM (1994) Image and brain: the resolution of the imagery debate. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  22. Kosslyn SM, Ganis G, Thompson WL (2001) Neural foundations of imagery. Nat Rev Neurosci 2:635–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. LeBoutillier N, Marks DF (2003) Mental imagery and creativity: a meta-analytic review study. Br J Psychol 94(1):29–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Linn MC, Petersen AC (1985) Emergence and characterization of sex differences in spatial ability: a meta-analysis. Child Dev 56(6):1479–1498.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1130467 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Loomis JM (1992) Distal attribution and presence. Presence Teleoper Virtual Environ 1(1):113–119.  https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.1992.1.1.113 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Marks DF (1973) Visual imagery differences in the recall of pictures. Br J Psychol 64(1):17–24.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1973.tb01322.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Marks DF (1989) Construct validity of the vividness of visual imagery questionnaire. Percept Mot Skills 69(2):459–465.  https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1989.69.2.459 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. McKelvie SJ (1995) The VVIQ as a psychometric test of individual differences in visual imagery vividness: a critical quantitative review and plea for direction. J Ment Imag 19(3–4):1–106Google Scholar
  29. Mihelj M, Novak D, Begus S (2014) Interaction with a virtual environment. Virtual Reality Technol Appl. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 205–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Morganti F, Gaggioli A, Castelnuovo G, Bulla D, Vettorello M, Riva G (2003) The use of technology-supported mental imagery in neurological rehabilitation: a research protocol. Cyberpsychol Behav 6(4):421–427.  https://doi.org/10.1089/109493103322278817 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Munzert J, Lorey B, Zentgraf K (2009) Cognitive motor processes: the role of motor imagery in the study of motor representations. Brain Res Rev 60(2):306–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Palmiero M, Belardinelli MO, Nardo D, Sestieri C, Di Matteo R, D’Ausilio A, Romani GL (2009) Mental imagery generation in different modalities activates sensory-motor areas. Cognit Process 10(2):268–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Regenbrecht H, Schubert T (2002) Real and illusory interactions enhance presence in virtual environments. Presence Teleoper Virtual Environ 11(4):425–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Richardson JT (1995) Gender differences in the Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire: a meta-analysis. J Ment Imag 19(3–4):177–187Google Scholar
  35. Riva G, Vatalaro F, Davide F, Alcaniz M (eds) (2005) Ambient intelligence: the evolution of technology, communication and cognition towards the future of human-computer interaction, vol 6. IOS press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  36. Rudkin SJ, Pearson DG, Logie RH (2007) Executive processes in visual and spatial working memory tasks. Q J Exp Psychol 60(1):79–100.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210600587976 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ruggiero G, Sergi I, Iachini T (2008) Gender differences in remembering and inferring spatial distances. Memory 16(8):821–835.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210802307695 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Ruggiero G, Frassinetti F, Coello Y, Rapuano M, Schiano di Cola A, Iachini T (2017) The effect of facial expressions on peripersonal and interpersonal spaces. Psychol Res 81(6):1232–1240.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-016-0806-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Sanchez-Vives M, Slater M (2005) From presence to consciousness through virtual reality. Nat Rev Neurosci 6:332–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schubert TW (2003) The sense of presence in virtual environments: a three-component scale measuring spatial presence, involvement, and realness. Z Medienpsychol 15(2):69–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schubert T, Friedmann F, Regenbrecht H (1999) Decomposing the sense of presence: factor analytic insights. Presented at the 2nd international workshop on presence, University of Essex, UKGoogle Scholar
  42. Schubert T, Friedmann F, Regenbrecht H (2001) The experience of presence: factor analytic insights. Presence Teleoper Virtual Environ 10(3):266–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Slater M (2009) Place illusion and plausibility can lead to realistic behaviour in immersive virtual environments. Philos Trans R Soc B 364(1535):3549–3557.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0138 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Slater M, Usoh M (1993) Representations systems, perceptual position, and presence in immersive virtual environments. Presence Teleoper Virtual Environ 2(3):221–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Slater M, Wilbur S (1997) A framework for immersive virtual environments (FIVE): speculations on the role of presence in virtual environments. Presence Teleoper Virtual Environ 6(6):603–616.  https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.1997.6.6.603 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS (1996) Using multivariate statistics, 3rd edn. Harper Collins, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  48. Voyer D, Voyer S, Bryden MP (1995) Magnitude of sex differences in spatial abilities: a meta-analysis and consideration of critical variables. Psychol Bull 117(2):250–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wallace B (1990) Imagery vividness, hypnotic susceptibility, and the perception of fragmented stimuli. J Pers Soc Psychol 58(2):354–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Witmer BG, Singer MJ (1994) Measuring immersion in virtual environments. ARI technical report 1014. Alexandria, VA: US Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social SciencesGoogle Scholar
  51. Witmer BG, Singer MJ (1998) Measuring presence in virtual environments: a presence questionnaire. Presence 7(3):225–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Marta Olivetti Belardinelli and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Campania “L. Vanvitelli”CasertaItaly
  2. 2.Department of Architecture and Industrial DesignUniversity of Campania “L. Vanvitelli”81031 AversaItaly

Personalised recommendations