Advertisement

Cinemacraft: exploring fidelity cues in collaborative virtual world interactions

  • Siddharth NarayananEmail author
  • Nicholas Polys
  • Ivica Ico Bukvic
Original Article
  • 135 Downloads

Abstract

The research presented in this paper explores the contribution of avatar fidelity to social interaction in virtual environments and how sensory fusion can improve these interactions. Specifically, we vary levels of interaction fidelity to investigate how responsiveness and behavioural realism affect people’s experience of interacting with virtual humans. This is accomplished through the creation of Cinemacraft, a technology-mediated immersive platform for collaborative human–computer interaction. Cinemacraft leverages a voxel game engine similar to Minecraft to facilitate collaborative interaction in a virtual 3D world and incorporates sensory fusion to improve the fidelity of real-time collaboration. The primary hypothesis of the study is that embodied interactions result in a higher degree of presence, and that sensory fusion can improve the quality of presence and co-presence. We tested our hypothesis through a user-study of 24 participants. Based on suggestions from existing literature, we sidestep the uncanny valley effect through the use of low fidelity avatars (a la Minecraft) and identify cues that impact users ratings of presence, co-presence and successful collaboration. The findings and ensuing data in this research can be applied to produce a more compelling platform for live collaborative interactions, performances, and empathetic storytelling. This research contributes to the field of immersive, collaborative interaction by making transparent the platform, methodology, instruments and code accessible for team members with less technological expertise, as well as developers aspiring to use interactive 3D media to promote further experimentation and conceptual discussions.

Keywords

Information systems Software engineering Virtual worlds software Computing methodologies Motion capture 

Notes

References

  1. Ahmaniemi T (2010) Gesture controlled virtual instrument with dynamic vibrotactile feedback. In: NIME, pp 485–488Google Scholar
  2. Albaum G (1997) The likert scale revisited. Mark Res Soc J 39(2):1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson A, Dossick CS, Iorio J, Taylor JE (2017) The impact of avatars, social norms and copresence on the collaboration effectiveness of aec virtual teams. J Inf Technol Constr (ITcon) 22(15):287–304Google Scholar
  4. Animesh SB, Pinsonneault OH (2011) An odyssey into virtual worlds: exploring the impacts of technological and spatial environments on intention to purchase virtual products. Mis Q 35(3):789–810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Argelaguet F, Hoyet (2016) The role of interaction in virtual embodiment: effects of the virtual hand representation. In: Virtual reality (VR), 2016 IEEE. IEEE, pp 3–10Google Scholar
  6. Bailey J, Bailenson JN, Won AS, Flora J, Armel KC (2012) Presence and memory: immersive virtual reality effects on cued recall. In: Proceedings of the international society for presence research annual conference, Oct, Citeseer, pp 24–26Google Scholar
  7. Bainbridge WS (2007) The scientific research potential of virtual worlds. Science 317(5837):472–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barnes B, Elsi G, Kiseleva M (2016) Cinemacraft: virtual minecraft presence using operacraft. Inst Creat Arts Technol (ICAT), pp 11–32Google Scholar
  9. Bianchi-Berthouze N (2013) Understanding the role of body movement in player engagement. Hum Comput Interact 28(1):40–75Google Scholar
  10. Bianchi-Berthouze N, Kim WW, Patel D (2007) Does body movement engage you more in digital game play? and why? In: International conference on affective computing and intelligent interaction. Springer, pp 102–113Google Scholar
  11. Biocca F, Harms (2001) The networked minds measure of social presence: pilot test of the factor structure and concurrent validity. In: 4th annual international workshop on presence, Philadelphia, pp 1–9Google Scholar
  12. Bray DA, Konsynski BR (2007) Virtual worlds: multi-disciplinary research opportunities. SIGMIS Database 38(4):17–25.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1314234.1314239 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Buecheler C (2010) Character: the next great gaming frontier? http://www.chicagotribune.com/sns-gamereview-feature-characters-story.html. Accessed 22 July 2018
  14. Bukvic I (2012) A behind-the-scenes peek at world’s first linux-based laptop orchestra–the design of l2ork infrastructure and lessons learned. In: Linux audio conference, Stanford, California, pp 55–60Google Scholar
  15. Bukvic II, Cahoon C, Wyatt A (2014) Operacraft: blurring the lines between real and virtual. In: ICMC, pp 6–7Google Scholar
  16. Carey B, Ulas B (2016) Vr’space opera’: mimetic spectralism in an immersive starlight audification system. arXiv preprint arXiv:161103081, pp 4–5
  17. Carlson PJ, Davis GB (1998) An investigation of media selection among directors and managers: from“self” to“other” orientation. MIS Q 22(3):335–362.  https://doi.org/10.2307/249669 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Choney S (2016) Microsoft stores offering free minecraft vr demos on oculus rift. https://blogs.microsoft.com/firehose/2016/09/29/microsoft-stores-offering-free-minecraft-vr, http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2910632. Accessed 4 Oct 2018
  19. Collingwoode-Williams T, Gillies M (2017) The effect of lip and arm synchronization on embodiment: a pilot study. In: Virtual reality (VR), 2017 IEEE. IEEE, pp 253–254Google Scholar
  20. Denisova A, Cairns P (2015) First person vs. third person perspective in digital games: do player preferences affect immersion? In: Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 145–148Google Scholar
  21. Duncan SC (2011) Minecraft, beyond construction and survival. Well Played J Video Games Value Mean 1(1):1–22Google Scholar
  22. Fritsch T, Ritter H, Schiller J (2005) The effect of latency and network limitations on mmorpgs: a field study of everquest2. In: Proceedings of 4th ACM SIGCOMM workshop on Network and system support for games. ACM, pp 1–9Google Scholar
  23. FUDI (2017) Fudi. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FUDI. Accessed 1 June 2018
  24. Garrelts N (2014) Understanding Minecraft: essays on play, community and possibilities. McFarland, JeffersonGoogle Scholar
  25. Heidicker P, Langbehn E, Steinicke F (2017) Influence of avatar appearance on presence in social vr. In: IEEE symposium on 3D user interfaces (3DUI), 2017. IEEE, pp 233–234Google Scholar
  26. Hirose M, Schmalstieg D, Wingrave CA, Nishimura K (2009) Higher levels of immersion improve procedure memorization performance. In: Proceedings of the 15th joint virtual reality eurographics conference on virtual environments, pp 121–128Google Scholar
  27. Huh Y, Duarte GT, El Zarki M (2018) Minebike: Exergaming with minecraft. In: 2018 IEEE 20th International conference on e-health networking, applications and services (Healthcom). IEEE, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  28. Institute for Creativity A, Technology (2016) Icat day 2016. https://www.icat.vt.edu/content/icat-day-2016
  29. Kastelein R (2013) The rise of machinima, the artform. http://insights.wired.com/profiles/blogs/the-rise-of-machinima-the-artform. Accessed 12 May 2018
  30. Kätsyri J, de Gelder B (2018) Uncanny slope instead of an uncanny valley: testing the uncanny valley hypothesis in painted, computer-rendered, and human faces, pp 4–9Google Scholar
  31. Kinect M (2017) Kinect kinect. http://www.xbox.com/en-US/xbox-one/accessories/kinect. Accessed 2 Jan 2019
  32. Kokkinara E, Slater M (2015) The effects of visuomotor calibration to the perceived space and body, through embodiment in immersive virtual reality. ACM Trans Appl Percept (TAP) 13(1):3Google Scholar
  33. Lay S, Brace N, Pike G, Pollick F (2016) Circling around the uncanny valley: design principles for research into the relation between human likeness and eeriness. i-Perception 7(6):2–6.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2041669516681309 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lecuyer A (2017) Playing with senses in vr: alternate perceptions combining vision and touch. IEEE Comput Gr Appl 37(1):20–26.  https://doi.org/10.1109/MCG.2017.14 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lombard M, Ditton T (1997) At the heart of it all: the concept of presence. J Comput Mediat Commun 3(2):0–0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Maister L, Slater M (2015) Changing bodies changes minds: owning another body affects social cognition. Trends Cogn Sci 19(1):6–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Makled E, Abdelrahman (2018) I like to move it: investigating the effect of head and body movement of avatars in vr on user’s perception. In: Extended abstracts of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, ACM, New York, CHI EA ’18, pp LBW099:1–LBW099:6.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3170427.3188573
  38. Mäntymäki M, Riemer K (2011) How social are social virtual worlds? an investigation of hedonic, utilitarian, social and normative usage drivers. In: PACIS, p 126Google Scholar
  39. Microsoft (2016) Impact minecraft education edition is making in classrooms. https://education.minecraft.net/. Accessed 2 August 2018
  40. Microsoft (2017b) Windows presentation foundation (wpf) is a next-generation presentation system for building windows client applications. https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa970268(v=vs.100).aspx. Accessed 3 July 2018
  41. Minetest (2016) Meet minetest. http://www.minetest.net/. Accessed 6 August
  42. Mori M, MacDorman KF, Kageki N (2012) The uncanny valley [from the field]. IEEE Robot Autom Mag 19(2):98–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mousas C, Anastasiou D, Spantidi O (2018) The effects of appearance and motion of virtual characters on emotional reactivity. Comput Hum Behav 86:99–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nah FFH, Eschenbrenner B, DeWester D (2011) Enhancing brand equity through flow and telepresence: a comparison of 2d and 3d virtual worlds. MIs Q 35(3):731–747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Narang S, Best A, Manocha D (2018) Simulating movement interactions between avatars & agents in virtual worlds using human motion constraints. In: 2018 IEEE conference on virtual reality and 3D user interfaces (VR). IEEE, pp 9–16Google Scholar
  46. Nash EB, Edwards GW, Thompson JA, Barfield W (2000) A review of presence and performance in virtual environments. Int J Hum Comput Interact 12(1):1–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Nowak KL, Biocca F (2003) The effect of the agency and anthropomorphism on users’ sense of telepresence, copresence, and social presence in virtual environments. Presence Teleoper Virtual Environ 12(5):481–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Park N, Lee KM, Jin SAA, Kang S (2010) Effects of pre-game stories on feelings of presence and evaluation of computer games. Int J Hum Comput Stud 68(11):822–833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Parker JR (2008) Buttons, simplicity, and natural interfaces. Loading 2(2)Google Scholar
  50. Polyak E (2012) Virtual impersonation using interactive glove puppets. In: SIGGRAPH Asia 2012 posters, ACM, New York, SA ’12, pp 31:1–31:1.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2407156.2407191
  51. Polys NF, Knapp B, Bukvic I (2015) Fusality: an open framework for cross-platform mirror world installations. In: Proceedings of the 20th international conference on 3D web technology. ACM, pp 171–179Google Scholar
  52. Ragan ED, Sowndararajan A, Kopper R, Bowman DA (2010) The effects of higher levels of immersion on procedure memorization performance and implications for educational virtual environments. Presence Teleoper Virtual Environ 19(6):527–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Ratcliffe J (2014) Hand motion-controlled audio mixing interface. Proc New Interfaces Musical Expr (NIME) 2014:136–139Google Scholar
  54. Roth D, Lugrin JL, Galakhov D, Hofmann (2016) Avatar realism and social interaction quality in virtual reality. In: Virtual reality (VR), 2016 IEEE. IEEE, pp 277–278Google Scholar
  55. Sacau A, Laarni J (2008) Influence of individual factors on presence. Comput Hum Behav 24(5):2255–2273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Saunders C, Rutkowski AF, van Genuchten M, Vogel D, Orrego JM (2011) Virtual space and place: theory and test. MIS Q 35(4):1079–1098CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Schroeder R (2012) The social life of avatars: presence and interaction in shared virtual environments. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  58. Schroeder R, Steed (2001) Collaborating in networked immersive spaces: as good as being there together? Comput Gr 25(5):781–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Schultze U (2011) The avatar as sociomaterial entanglement: a performative perspective on identity, agency and world-making in virtual worlds. In: Proceedings of the international conference on information systems, ICIS 2011, Shanghai, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  60. Schultze, Orlikowski (2010) Virtual worlds: a performative perspective on globally distributed, immersive work. Inf Syst Res 21(4):810–821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Seymour M, Riemer K, Kay J (2017) Interactive realistic digital avatars–revisiting the uncanny valley. In: Hawaii international conference on system sciences, HICSS-50, HonoluluGoogle Scholar
  62. Seymour M, Riemer K, Kay J (2018) Actors, avatars and agents: potentials and implications of natural face technology for the creation of realistic visual presence. J Assoc Inf Syst 19(10):953–981Google Scholar
  63. Shin D (2018) Empathy and embodied experience in virtual environment: to what extent can virtual reality stimulate empathy and embodied experience? Comput Hum Behav 78:64–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sia CL, Tan BC, Wei KK (2002) Group polarization and computer-mediated communication: effects of communication cues, social presence, and anonymity. Inf Syst Res 13(1):70–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sims K (1994) Evolving virtual creatures. In: Proceedings of the 21st annual conference on computer graphics and interactive techniques. ACM, pp 15–22Google Scholar
  66. Slater M (1999) Measuring presence: a response to the witmer and singer presence questionnaire. Presence Teleoper Virtual Environ 8(5):560–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Slater M, Sadagic (2000) Small-group behavior in a virtual and real environment: a comparative study. Presence Teleoper Virtual Environ 9(1):37–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Slater M, Spanlang B, Sanchez-Vives MV, Blanke O (2010) First person experience of body transfer in virtual reality. PloS one 5(5):e10564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Spante M, Heldal (2003) Is there a tradeoff between presence and copresence. In: Proceedings of presence 2003: 6th international workshop on presenceGoogle Scholar
  70. Swainston A, Jeanneret N, et al (2015) Wot opera: a joyful, creative and immersive experience. In: Music: educating for life. ASME XXth national conference proceedings, australian society for music education, p 99Google Scholar
  71. Tech V (2016) South by southwest 2016. http://www.vt.edu/sxsw.html. Accessed 7 May 2018
  72. Tech V (2017) Science museum of western virginia. http://www.icat.vt.edu/smwv. Accessed 7 May 2018
  73. Thon J-N (2008) Immersion revisited: on the value of a contested concept. In: Leino O, Wirman H, Fernandez A (eds) Extending experiences: structure, analysis and design of computer game player experience. Lapland University Press, Lapland, pp 29–43Google Scholar
  74. Tinwell A, Grimshaw M, Nabi DA, Williams A (2011) Facial expression of emotion and perception of the uncanny valley in virtual characters. Comput Hum Behav 27(2):741–749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Viniconis N (2011) Minecraft + kinect : building worlds! http://www.orderofevents.com/MineCraft/KinectInfo.htm. Accessed 14 Oct 2018
  76. Vivecraft (2016) Vivecraft. http://www.vivecraft.org/. Accessed 24 Oct 2018
  77. Witmer BG, Singer MJ (1998) Measuring presence in virtual environments: a presence questionnaire. Presence Teleoper Virtual Environ 7(3):225–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Wright M, Freed A, Momeni A (2003) Opensound control: state of the art 2003. In: Proceedings of the 2003 conference on new interfaces for musical expression. National University of Singapore, pp 153–160Google Scholar
  79. Yoo Y, Alavi M (2001) Media and group cohesion: relative influences on social presence, task participation, and group consensus. MIS Q 25(3):371–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Zhu L, Benbasat I, Jiang Z (2010) Let’s shop online together: an empirical investigation of collaborative online shopping support. Inf Syst Res 21(4):872–891CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State UniversityBlacksburgUSA

Personalised recommendations