Virtual Blindness - A Choice Blindness Experiment with a Virtual Experimenter

  • Martin Lingonblad
  • Ludvig Londos
  • Arvid Nilsson
  • Emil Boman
  • Jens Nirme
  • Magnus Haake
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9238)

Abstract

How are people facing a virtual agent affected by the vividness and graphical fidelity of the agent and its environment? A choice blindness (CB) experiment – measuring detection rate of hidden manipulations – was conducted presenting a high versus low immersion virtual environment. The hypothesis was that the lower quality virtual environment (low immersion) would increase the detection rate for the CB manipulations. 38 subjects participated in the experiment and were randomized into two groups (high and low immersion). Both conditions presented a virtual agent conducting the CB experiment. During the experiment, 16 pairs of portraits were shown two at a time for the participants who were then asked to choose which portrait they found most attractive. For eight of the pairs, participants were asked to justify their choice while in four cases their choice had been secretly switched to the portrait they had not chosen. If a participant stated that the chosen portrait had been switched, it was annotated as a concurrent detection.

The results revealed an increase in detection and earlier detection rate for the low immersion implementation compared to the high immersion implementation. Future research may involve experiments with higher degree of both immersion and presence, using for example head mounted display systems.

Keywords

Virtual agent Choice blindness Attention Presence Immersion 

References

  1. 1.
    Blascovich, J., Loomis, J., Beall, A.C., Swinth, K.R., Hoyt, C.L., Bailenson, J.N.: Immersive virtual environment technology as a methodological tool for social psychology. Psychol. Inq. 13(2), 103–124 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dehn, D.M., Van Mulken, S.: The impact of animated interface agents: a review of empirical research. Int. J. Hum Comput Stud. 52(1), 1–22 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Slater, M.: Measuring presence: a response to the witmer and singer presence questionnaire. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 8(5), 560–565 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Welsh, R.B., Blackman, T.T., Liu, A., Mellers, B.A., Stark, L.W.: The Effects of Pictorial Realism, Delay of Visual Feedback, and Observer Interactivity on the Subjective Sense of Presence. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 5(3), 263–273 (1996). MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schubert, T., Friedmann, F., Regenbrecht, H.: The experience of presence: factor analytic insights. Presence 10(3), 266–281 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Thomas, F., Johnston, O.: The Illusion of Life: Disney Animation. Abbeville Press, New York (1984)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Johansson, P., Hall, L., Sikström, S., Olsson, A.: Failure to detect mismatches between intention and outcome in a simple decision task. Science 310(5745), 116–119 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Johansson, P., Hall, L., Sikström, S.: From change blindness to choice blindness. Psychologia 51, 142–155 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Haake, M., Gulz, A.: Trust in Virtual Reality. (Manuscript)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Johansson, P., Hall, L., Gulz, A., Haake, M., Watanabe, K.: Choice Blindness and Trust in the Virtual World. Technical Report of IEICE: HIP, 107(60), 83–86 (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Witmer, B., Singer, M.: Measuring presence in virtual environments: a presence questionnaire. Presence 7(3), 225–240 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dahlbäck, N., Jönsson, A.: Empirical studies of discourse representations for natural language interfaces. In: Proceedings of the 4th Conference on European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (1989)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Slater, M., Usoh, M., Chrysanthou, Y.: The influence of dynamic shadows on presence in immersive virtual environments. In: Hansmann, W., Purgathofer, W., Sillion, F. (eds.) Eurographics: Virtual Environments 1995, pp. 8–21. Springer, Vienna (1995)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Garau, M., Slater, M., Pertaub, D.P., Razzaque, S.: The responses of people to virtual humans in an immersive virtual environment. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 14(1), 104–116 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    R Core Team: R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing [Computer Software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Lingonblad
    • 1
  • Ludvig Londos
    • 1
  • Arvid Nilsson
    • 2
  • Emil Boman
    • 2
  • Jens Nirme
    • 1
  • Magnus Haake
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Cognitive ScienceLund UniversityLundSweden
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceLund UniversityLundSweden

Personalised recommendations