Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback

, Volume 30, Issue 3, pp 239–258 | Cite as

Review of Four Studies on the Use of Physiological Reaction as a Measure of Presence in StressfulVirtual Environments

  • Michael Meehan
  • Sharif Razzaque
  • Brent Insko
  • Mary Whitton
  • Frederick P. BrooksJr.
Article

Abstract

A common measure of effectiveness of a virtual environment (VE) is the amount of presence it evokes in users. Presence is commonly defined as the sense of being there in a VE. There has been much debate about the best way to measure presence, and presence researchers need and have sought a measure that is reliable, valid, sensitive, and objective. We hypothesized that to the degree that a VE seems real, it would evoke physiological responses similar to those evoked by the corresponding real environment, and that greater presence would evoke a greater response. To examine this, we conducted four experiments, each of which built upon findings that physiological measures in general, and heart rate in particular, are reliable, valid, sensitive, and objective presence measures. The experiments compare participants’ physiological reactions to a nonthreatening virtual room and their reactions to a stressful virtual height situation. We found that change in heart rate satisfied our requirements for a measure of presence, change in skin conductance did to a lesser extent, and that change in skin temperature did not. Moreover, the results showed that significant increases in heart rate measures of presence appeared with the inclusion of a passive haptic element in the VE, with increasing frame rate (30 FPS > 20 FPS > 15 FPS) and when end-to-end latency was reduced (50 ms > 90 ms).

Keywords

presence virtual environment stress heart rate skin conductance skin temperature physiological measures 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abelson, J. L., & Curtis, G. C. (1989). Cardiac and neuroendocrine responses to exposure therapy in height phobics. Behavior Research and Therapy, 27(5), 561–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andreassi, J. L. (1995). Psychophysiology: Human behavior and physiological response. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  3. Cowings, P., Jensen, S., Bergner, D., & Toscano, W. (2001). A lightweight ambulatory physiological monitoring system. California: NASA Ames.Google Scholar
  4. Dillon, C., Keogh, E., Freeman, J., & Davidoff, J. (2001). Presence: Is your heart in it?. 4th International Workshop on Presence, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  5. Ellis, S. R. (1996). Presence of mind: A reaction to Thomas Sheridan’s “Further musings on the psychophysics of presence.” Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 5(2), 247–259.Google Scholar
  6. Emmelkamp, P., & Felten, M. (1985). The process of exposure in vivo: Cognitive and physiological changes during treatment of acrophobia. Behavior Research and Therapy, 23(2), 219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Guyton, A. C. (1986). Textbook of medical physiology (pp. 688–697). Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders.Google Scholar
  8. Heeter, C. (1992). Being there: The subjective experience of presence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 1, 262–271.Google Scholar
  9. Hodges, L., Rothbaum, B., Kooper, R., Opdyke, D., Willford, J., Meyer, T., et al. (1994). Presence as the defining factor in a VR application. Technical Report GVU-94-06. Georgia Tech University, Graphics, Visualization, and Usability Center.Google Scholar
  10. Kleinbaum, D., Kupper, L., Muller, K., & Nizam, A. (1998). Applied regression analysis and other multivariate methods (3rd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury Press.Google Scholar
  11. Lipsey, M. W. (1998). Design sensitivity: Statistical power for applied experimental research. In L. Brickman & D. J. Rog (Eds.), Handbook of applied social research methods (pp. 39–68). Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Lombard, M., & Ditton, T. (1997). At the heart of it all: The concept of presence. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 3(2). Available at: http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol3/issue2/lombard.html
  13. Meehan, M. (2001). Physiological reaction as an objective measure of presence in virtual environments. Doctoral dissertation, Computer Science, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.Google Scholar
  14. Meehan, M., Insko, B., Whitton, M., & Brooks, F. P. (2002). Physiological measures of presence in stressful virtual environments. In Proceedings of ACM SIGGRAPH 2002.Google Scholar
  15. Meehan, M., Razzaque, S., Whitton, M., & Brooks, F. (2003). Effects of latency on presence in stressful virtual environments. Proceedings of IEEE Virtual Reality 2003 (Los Angeles, CA, March 2003) (pp. 141–148). IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
  16. Schubert, T. (2003). The sense of presence in virtual environments: A three-component scale measuring spatial presence, involvement, and realness. Zeitschrift für Medienpsychologie, 15, 69–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sheridan, T. B. (1996). Further musings on the psychophysics of presence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 5(2), 241–246.Google Scholar
  18. Singleton, R. A., Straits, B. C., & Straits, M. M. (1993). Approaches to Social Research. New York, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Slater, M. (1999). Measuring Presence: A Response to the Witmer and Singer Presence Questionnaire. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 8(5), 560–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Slater, M., Usoh, M., & Steed, A. (1994). Depth of presence in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 3(2), 130–144.Google Scholar
  21. Slater, M., Usoh, M., & Steed, A. (1995). Taking steps: The influence of a walking technique on presence in virtual reality. ACM Transactions on Computer Human Interaction (TOCHI), 2(3), 201–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Slater, M., & Steed, A. J. (2000) A virtual presence counter, Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 9(5), 413–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Slater, M. (2003). How colourful was your day? Why questionnaires cannot assess presence in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 13(4), 484–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Slonim, N. B. (Ed.). (1974). Environmental physiology. Saint Louis: C. V. Mosby.Google Scholar
  25. Sutherland, S. (1996). The international dictionary of psychology. New York: The Crossroads.Google Scholar
  26. Usoh, M., Arthur, K., Whitton, M., Bastos, R., Steed, A., Slater, M., et al. (1999). Walking > walking-in-place > flying in virtual environments. Proceedings of ACM SIGGRAPH99. pp. 359–364.Google Scholar
  27. Weiderhold, B. K., Gervirtz, R., & Wiederhold, M. D. (1998). Fear of flying: A case report using virtual reality therapy with physiological monitoring. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 1(2), 97–104.Google Scholar
  28. Witmer, B. G., & Singer, M. J. (1998). Measuring presence in virtual environments: A presence questionnaire. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 7(3), 225–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Meehan
    • 1
  • Sharif Razzaque
    • 2
  • Brent Insko
    • 3
  • Mary Whitton
    • 2
  • Frederick P. BrooksJr.
    • 2
  1. 1.Stanford UniversityStanfordCalifornia
  2. 2.Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of North CarolinaChapel HillNorth Carolina
  3. 3.Alabama

Personalised recommendations