Immersive Analytics: An Introduction

  • Tim Dwyer
  • Kim MarriottEmail author
  • Tobias Isenberg
  • Karsten Klein
  • Nathalie Riche
  • Falk Schreiber
  • Wolfgang Stuerzlinger
  • Bruce H. Thomas
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11190)


Immersive Analytics is a new research initiative that aims to remove barriers between people, their data and the tools they use for analysis and decision making. Here we clarify the aims of immersive analytics research, its opportunities and historical context, as well as providing a broad research agenda for the field. In addition, we review how the term immersion has been used to refer to both technological and psychological immersion, both of which are central to immersive analytics research.


Immersive analytics Multi-sensory 2D and 3D Data analytics Decision making 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Agarwal, R., Karahanna, E.: Time flies when you’re having fun: cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS Q. 24, 665–694 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Attfield, S., Kazai, G., Lalmas, M., Piwowarski, B.: Towards a science of user engagement (position paper). In: WSDM Workshop on User Modelling for Web Applications, pp. 9–12 (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bertin, J.: Semiology of Graphics: Diagrams, Networks, Maps. University of Wisconsin press, Madison (1983)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bian, Y., et al.: Exploring the weak association between flow experience and performance in virtual environments. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI), pp. 401:1–401:12. ACM (2018)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Biocca, F.: The cyborg’s dilemma: progressive embodiment in virtual environments. J. Comput.-Mediat. Commun. 3(2), 12–26 (1997)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Biocca, F., Harms, C., Burgoon, J.K.: Towards a more robust theory and measure of social presence: review and suggested criteria. Presence: Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 12(5), 456–480 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boyle, E.A., Connolly, T.M., Hainey, T., Boyle, J.M.: Engagement in digital entertainment games: a systematic review. Comput. Hum. Behav. 28(3), 771–780 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brehmer, M., Munzner, T.: A multi-level typology of abstract visualization tasks. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 19(12), 2376–2385 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brown, E., Cairns, P.: A grounded investigation of game immersion. In: CHI 2004 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1297–1300. ACM (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Burdea, G.C., Coiffet, P.: Virtual Reality Technology, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cairns, P., Cox, A., Nordin, A.I.: Immersion in digital games: review of gaming experience research. In: Angelides, M.C., Agius, H. (eds.) Handbook of Digital Games, vol. 339, pp. 337–361. Wiley, New York (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cairns, P., Cox, A.L., Day, M., Martin, H., Perryman, T.: Who but not where: the effect of social play on immersion in digital games. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 71(11), 1069–1077 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Calleja, G.: In-Game: From Immersion to Incorporation. MIT Press, Cambridge (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Card, S.K., Mackinlay, J.D., Shneiderman, B.: Readings in Information Visualization: Using Vision to Think. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1999)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Card, S.K., Robertson, G.G., Mackinlay, J.D.: The information visualizer, an information workspace. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 181–186. ACM (1991)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chandler, T., et al.: Immersive analytics. In: IEEE 2015 Big Data Visual Analytics (BDVA), pp. 1–8 (2015)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cleveland, W.S., McGill, R.: Graphical perception: theory, experimentation, and application to the development of graphical methods. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 79(387), 531–554 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cohen, I.B.: Howard aiken on the number of computers needed for the nation. IEEE Ann. Hist. Comput. 20(3), 27–32 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cruz-Neira, C., Sandin, D.J., DeFanti, T.A., Kenyon, R.V., Hart, J.C.: The CAVE: audio visual experience automatic virtual environment. Commun. ACM 35(6), 64–72 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Csikszentmihalyi, M.: Beyond Boredom and Anxiety. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco (1975)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Csikszentmihalyi, M., Abuhamdeh, S., Nakamura, J.: Flow and the Foundations of Positive Psychology, pp. 227–238. Springer, Netherlands (2014)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    De Kort, Y.A., IJsselsteijn, W.A., Poels, K.: Digital games as social presence technology: development of the social presence in gaming questionnaire (SPGQ). In: Proceedings of PRESENCE 195203 (2007)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dinh, H.Q., Walker, N., Hodges, L.F., Song, C., Kobayashi, A.: Evaluating the importance of multi-sensory input on memory and the sense of presence in virtual environments. In: Proceedings IEEE Virtual Reality, pp. 222–228 (1999)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dourish, P.: Where the Action is: The Foundations of Embodied Interaction. MIT Press, Cambridge (2004)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Draper, J.V., Kaber, D.B., Usher, J.M.: Telepresence. Hum. Factors 40(3), 354–375 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Durlach, N., Slater, M.: Presence in shared virtual environments and virtual togetherness. Presence: Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 9(2), 214–217 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dwyer, T., Riche, N.H., Klein, K., Stuerzlinger, W., Thomas, B.: Immersive analytics (Dagstuhl seminar 16231). Dagstuhl Reports 6(6), 1–9 (2016)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Engelbart, D.C., English, W.K.: A research center for augmenting human intellect. In: AFIPS 1968 (Fall, part I)Proceedings of the December 9–11, 1968, Fall Joint Computer Conference, Part I, pp. 395–410. ACM (1968)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ermi, L., Mäyrä, F.: Fundamental components of the gameplay experience: analysing immersion. In: Worlds in Play: International Perspectives on Digital Games Research, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 37–53 (2005)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Flach, J.M., Holden, J.G.: The reality of experience: Gibson’s way. Presence: Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 7(1), 90–95 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gajadhar, B.J., de Kort, Y.A.W., IJsselsteijn, W.A.: Shared fun is doubled fun: player enjoyment as a function of social setting. In: Markopoulos, P., de Ruyter, B., IJsselsteijn, W., Rowland, D. (eds.) Fun and Games 2008. LNCS, vol. 5294, pp. 106–117. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gerrig, R.J.: Experiencing Narrative Worlds: On the Psychological Activities of Reading. Yale University Press, New Haven (1993)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gorini, A., Capideville, C.S., De Leo, G., Mantovani, F., Riva, G.: The role of immersion and narrative in mediated presence: the virtual hospital experience. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 14(3), 99–105 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hartmann, T., Wirth, W., Vorderer, P., Klimmt, C., Schramm, H., Böcking, S.: Spatial presence theory: state of the art and challenges ahead. In: Lombard, M., Biocca, F., Freeman, J., IJsselsteijn, W., Schaevitz, R. (eds.) Immersed in Media, pp. 115–135. Springer, Cham (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hoffman, H.G.: Physically touching virtual objects using tactile augmentation enhances the realism of virtual environments. In: Proceedings IEEE 1998 Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium, pp. 59–63 (1998)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hoffman, H.G., Hollander, A., Schroder, K., Rousseau, S., Furness, T.: Physically touching and tasting virtual objects enhances the realism of virtual experiences. Virtual Reality 3(4), 226–234 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Huang, D., Tory, M., Aseniero, B.A., Bartram, L., Bateman, S., Carpendale, S., Tang, A., Woodbury, R.: Personal visualization and personal visual analytics. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 21(3), 420–433 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    IJsselsteijn, W.A., de Ridder, H., Freeman, J., Avons, S.E.: Presence: concept, determinants and measurement. In: Human Vision and Electronic Imaging, vol. 3959, pp. 520–529 (2000)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Irwin, H.J.: Pathological and nonpathological dissociation: the relevance of childhood trauma. J. Psychol. 133(2), 157–164 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Isenberg, P.: a metadata collection about IEEE visualization (VIS) publications. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 23(9), 2199–2206 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Itoh, T., Marriott, K., Schreiber, F., Wössner, U.: Immersive analytics: a new multidisciplinary initiative to explore future interaction technologies for data analytics. Shonan Reports (2016)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Jennett, C., et al.: Measuring and defining the experience of immersion in games. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 66(9), 641–661 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Jin, S.A.A.: Avatars mirroring the actual self versus projecting the ideal self: the effects of self-priming on interactivity and immersion in an exergame, wii fit. CyberPsychol. Behav. 12(6), 761–765 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kay, A., Goldberg, A.: Personal dynamic media. Computer 10(3), 31–41 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kerren, A., Schreiber, F.: Toward the role of interaction in visual analytics. In: Rose, O., Uhrmacher, A.M. (eds.) Proceedings Winter Simulation Conference, p. 420 (2012)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kober, S.E., Kurzmann, J., Neuper, C.: Cortical correlate of spatial presence in 2D and 3D interactive virtual reality: an EEG study. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 83(3), 365–374 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Laarni, J., Ravaja, N., Saari, T., Böcking, S., Hartmann, T., Schramm, H.: Ways to measure spatial presence: review and future directions. In: Lombard, M., Biocca, F., Freeman, J., IJsselsteijn, W., Schaevitz, R. (eds.) Immersed in Media, pp. 139–185. Springer, Cham (2015). Scholar
  48. 48.
    Latoschik, M.E., Roth, D., Gall, D., Achenbach, J., Waltemate, T., Botsch, M.: The effect of avatar realism in immersive social virtual realities. In: 23rd ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology (VRST), pp. 39:1–39:10 (2017)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Leap Motion. Accessed Jan 2018
  50. 50.
    Lee, K.M.: Presence, explicated. Commun. Theory 14(1), 27–50 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Lessiter, J., Freeman, J., Keogh, E., Davidoff, J.: A cross-media presence questionnaire: the ITC-sense of presence inventory. Presence: Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 10(3), 282–297 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Liu, J., Dwyer, T., Marriott, K., Millar, J., Haworth, A.: Understanding the relationship between interactive optimisation and visual analytics in the context of prostate brachytherapy. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 24(1), 319–329 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Lombard, M., Ditton, T.: At the heart of it all: the concept of presence. J. Comput.-Mediat. Commun. 3(2) (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Lombard, M., Jones, M.T.: Defining presence. In: Lombard, M., Biocca, F., Freeman, J., IJsselsteijn, Schaevitz, R. (eds.) Immersed in Media. Springer, Cham (2015)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Makowski, D., Sperduti, M., Nicolas, S., Piolino, P.: Being there and remembering it: presence improves memory encoding. Conscious. Cogn. 53, 194–202 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    International journal of man-machine studies (From 1969 to 1993)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Mantovani, G., Riva, G.: “Real” presence: how different ontologies generate different criteria for presence, telepresence, and virtual presence. Presence: Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 8(5), 540–550 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    McCormick, B.H.: Visualization in scientific computing. Comput. Graph. 21(6), 1–14 (1987)Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Meehan, M., Insko, B., Whitton, M., Brooks Jr., F.P.: Physiological measures of presence in stressful virtual environments. ACM Trans. Graph. (TOG) 21(3), 645–652 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Microsoft Kinect. Accessed Jan 2018
  61. 61.
    Milgram, P., Kishino, F.: A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IEICE Trans. Inf. Syst. 77(12), 1321–1329 (1994)Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Minsky, M.: Telepresence. Omni (1980)Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Munzner, T.: Exploring large graphs in 3D hyperbolic space. IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl. 18(4), 18–23 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Nakamura, J., Csikszentmihalyi, M.: The concept of flow. In: Flow and the Foundations of Positive Psychology, pp. 239–263. Springer, Dordrecht (2014). Scholar
  65. 65.
    Nell, V.: Lost in a Book: The Psychology of Reading for Pleasure. Yale University Press, New Haven (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Nguyen, T.T.H., Duva, T.: A survey of communication and awareness in collaborative virtual environments. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Workshop on Collaborative Virtual Environments (3DCVE) (2014)Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Nowak, K.: Defining and differentiating copresence, social presence and presence as transportation. In: Presence 2001 Conference, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 1–23 (2001)Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Nowak, K.L., Biocca, F.: The effect of the agency and anthropomorphism on users’ sense of telepresence, copresence, and social presence in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 12(5), 481–494 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    O’Brien, H.L., Toms, E.G.: What is user engagement? a conceptual framework for defining user engagement with technology. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 59(6), 938–955 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    O’Brien, H.L., Toms, E.G.: The development and evaluation of a survey to measure user engagement. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 61(1), 50–69 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    De la Peña, N., et al.: Immersive journalism: immersive virtual reality for the first-person experience of news. Presence: Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 19(4), 291–301 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Pirolli, P., Card, S.: The sensemaking process and leverage points for analyst technology as identified through cognitive task analysis. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Intelligence Analysis, vol. 5, pp. 2–4 (2005)Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Poels, K., De Kort, Y., Ijsselsteijn, W.: It is always a lot of fun!: exploring dimensions of digital game experience using focus group methodology. In: Proceedings of the 2007 Conference on Future Play, pp. 83–89. ACM (2007)Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Qin, H., Patrick Rau, P.L., Salvendy, G.: Measuring player immersion in the computer game narrative. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 25(2), 107–133 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Ranasinghe, N., et al.: Season traveller: Multisensory narration for enhancing the virtual reality experience. In: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI), pp. 577:1–577:13. ACM (2018)Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Ratan, R.: Self-presence, explicated: body, emotion, and identity. Identity in a Technological Society, Handbook of Research on Technoself (2012)Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Riva, G., Davide, F., Ijsselsteijn, W.: Being there: the experience of presence in mediated environments. In: Being there: Concepts, Effects and Measurement of User Presence in Synthetic Environments, vol. 5 (2003)Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Riva, G., et al.: Affective interactions using virtual reality: the link between presence and emotions. CyberPsychol. Behav. 10(1), 45–56 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Riva, G., Waterworth, J.A., Waterworth, E.L., Mantovani, F.: From intention to action: the role of presence. New Ideas Psychol. 29(1), 24–37 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Robertson, G.G., Mackinlay, J.D., Card, S.K.: Cone trees: animated 3D visualizations of hierarchical information. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 189–194. ACM (1991)Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Ryan, M.L.: Narrative as Virtual Reality: Immersion and Interactivity in Literature and Electronic Media. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore (2001)Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Sanchez-Vives, M.V., Slater, M.: From presence to consciousness through virtual reality. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 6(4), 332–339 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Schuemie, M.J., Van Der Straaten, P., Krijn, M., Van Der Mast, C.A.: Research on presence in virtual reality: a survey. CyberPsychol. Behav. 4(2), 183–201 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Schultze, U.: Embodiment and presence in virtual worlds: a review. J. Inf. Technol. 25(4), 434–449 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Sheridan, T.B.: Musings on telepresence and virtual presence. Presence: Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 1(1), 120–126 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Sheridan, T.B.: Further musings on the psychophysics of presence. Presence: Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 5(2), 241–246 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Shneiderman, B.: Direct manipulation: a step beyond programming languages. ACM SIGSOC Bull. 13(2–3), 143 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Slater, M.: Measuring presence: a response to the witmer and singer presence questionnaire. Presence: Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 8(5), 560–565 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Slater, M.: Place illusion and plausibility can lead to realistic behaviour in immersive virtual environments. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 364(1535), 3549–3557 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Slater, M., Lotto, B., Arnold, M.M., Sanchez-Vives, M.V.: How we experience immersive virtual environments: the concept of presence and its measurement. Anu. psicología/ UB J. Psychol. 40(2), 193–210 (2009)Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Slater, M., Wilbur, S.: A framework for immersive virtual environments five: speculations on the role of presence in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 6(6), 603–616 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Sutherland, I.E.: Sketchpad a man-machine graphical communication system. Transactions of the Society for Computer Simulation 2(5), R-3 (1964)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Sutherland, I.E.: A head-mounted three dimensional display. In: AFIPS 1968 (Fall, part I) Proceedings of the December 9–11, 1968, Fall Joint Computer Conference, Part I. pp. 757–764. ACM (1968)Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Tachi, S.: Telexistence. In: Brunnett, G., Coquillart, S., van Liere, R., Welch, G., Váša, L. (eds.) Virtual Realities. LNCS, vol. 8844, pp. 229–259. Springer, Cham (2015). Scholar
  95. 95.
    Thomas, B.H.: A survey of visual, mixed, and augmented reality gaming. Comput. Entertain. (CIE) 10(1), 3 (2012)Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Thomas, J.J., Cook, K.A.: Illuminating the path: the research and development agenda for visual analytics. National Visualization and Analytics Ctr (2005)Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Trevino, L.K., Webster, J.: Flow in computer-mediated communication: electronic mail and voice mail evaluation and impacts. Commun. Res. 19(5), 539–573 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Tufte, E.R.: Envisioning Information. Graphics press, London (1990)Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Tukey, J.W.: Exploratory Data Analysis. Reading, Addison-Wesley (1977)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Webster, J., Trevino, L.K., Ryan, L.: The dimensionality and correlates of flow in human-computer interactions. Comput. Hum. Behav. 9(4), 411–426 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Witmer, B.G., Singer, M.J.: Measuring presence in virtual environments: a presence questionnaire. Presence: Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 7(3), 225–240 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Zeltzer, D.: Autonomy, interaction, and presence. Presence: Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 1(1), 127–132 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tim Dwyer
    • 1
  • Kim Marriott
    • 1
    Email author
  • Tobias Isenberg
    • 2
  • Karsten Klein
    • 3
  • Nathalie Riche
    • 4
  • Falk Schreiber
    • 1
    • 3
  • Wolfgang Stuerzlinger
    • 5
  • Bruce H. Thomas
    • 6
  1. 1.Monash UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.Inria and University Paris-SaclayParisFrance
  3. 3.University of KonstanzKonstanzGermany
  4. 4.MicrosoftRedmondUSA
  5. 5.Simon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada
  6. 6.University of South AustraliaMawson LakesAustralia

Personalised recommendations