Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Novel Approaches to Immersive Media: From Enlarged Field-of-View to Multi-sensorial Experiences

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Novel 3D Media Technologies

Abstract

This chapter presents a review of current evidence on the influence of immersion (defined in terms of the technical features of the system) on the user experience in multimedia applications. Section 2.1 introduces the concepts of media enjoyment, presence, and Quality of Experience (QoE) that frame our analysis from the user perspective. Section 2.2 discusses the bounding effects of multimodal perception on the previously defined metrics. Section 2.3 analyses the influence of relevant technical factors on presence, enjoyment, and QoE, with emphasis on those characterizing the level of immersion delivered by system across four dimensions: inclusiveness, extensiveness, surrounding, and vividness. Section 2.4 presents recent works integrating some of these factors into multi-sensorial media experiences and highlights open issues and research challenges to be tackled in order to deliver cost-effective multi-sensorial media solutions to the mass market.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Sherry JL (2004) Flow and media enjoyment. Commun Theory 14:328–347. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2004.tb00318.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ruggiero TE (2000) Uses and gratifications theory in the 21st century. Mass Commun Soc 3:3–37. doi:10.1207/S15327825MCS0301_02

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kapsner JC (2009) The encyclopedia of positive psychology. doi: 10.1111/b.9781405161251.2009.x

  4. Csikszentmihalyi M (1990) Flow: the psychology of optimal experience. Harper & Row, New York

    Google Scholar 

  5. Nakamura J, Csikzentmihalyi M (2003) The construction of meaning through vital engagement. In: Keyes CLM, Haidt J (eds) Flourishing Posit. Psychol. Life well-lived. American Psychological Association, Washington, pp 83–104

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Nabi RL, Krcmar M (2004) Conceptualizing media enjoyment as attitude: implications for mass media effects research. Commun Theory 14:288–310. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2004.tb00316.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Slater MD (2003) Alienation, aggression, and sensation seeking as predictors of adolescent use of violent film, computer, and website content. J Commun 53:105–121. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2003.tb03008.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Zillmann D, Vorderer P (2000) Media entertainment: the psychology of its appeal. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, p 282

    Google Scholar 

  9. Raney AA, Bryant J (2002) Moral judgment and crime drama: an integrated theory of enjoyment. J Commun 52:402–415. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02552.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Wechsung I, Schulz M, Engelbrecht K-P et al (2011) All users are (not) equal – the influence of user characteristics on perceived quality, modality choice and performance. In: Kobayashi T, Delgado RL-C (eds) Proceedings of the paralinguistic information and its integration in spoken dialogue systems workshop. Springer, New York, pp 175–186

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Tamborini R, Bowman ND, Eden A et al (2010) Defining media enjoyment as the satisfaction of intrinsic needs. J Commun 60:758–777. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01513.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Slater M, Wilbur S (1997) A framework for immersive virtual environments (FIVE): speculations on the role of presence in virtual environments. Presence-Teleop Virtual Environ 6:603–616

    Google Scholar 

  13. Riva G, Mantovani F, Capideville CS et al (2007) Affective interactions using virtual reality: The link between presence and emotions. Cyberpsychology Behav 10:45–56. doi:10.1089/cpb.2006.9993

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Västfjäll D (2003) The subjective sense of presence, emotion recognition, and experienced emotions in auditory virtual environments. Cyberpsychology Behav 6:181–188. doi:10.1089/109493103321640374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Sylaiou S, Mania K, Karoulis A, White M (2010) Exploring the relationship between presence and enjoyment in a virtual museum. Int J Hum Comput Stud 68:243–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Skalski P, Tamborini R, Shelton A et al (2010) Mapping the road to fun: Natural video game controllers, presence, and game enjoyment. New Media Soc 13:224–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Lombard M, Ditton T (1997) At the heart of it all: the concept of presence. J Comput Commun 3:0. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.tb00072.x

    Google Scholar 

  18. IJsselsteijn W (2000) Presence: concept, determinants, and measurement. In: Proc. SPIE. Spie. pp 520–529

    Google Scholar 

  19. Slater M, Steed A, McCarthy J, Maringelli F (1998) The influence of body movement on subjective presence in virtual environments. Hum Factors 40:469–477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Schuemie MJ, van der Straaten P, Krijn M, van der Mast CAPG (2001) Research on presence in virtual reality: a survey. Cyberpsychol Behav 4:183–201. doi:10.1089/109493101300117884

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Darken RP, Bernatovich D, Lawson JP, Peterson B (1999) Quantitative measures of presence in virtual environments: the roles of attention and spatial comprehension. Cyberpsychol Behav 2:337–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Lee S, Kim GJ (2008) Effects of visual cues and sustained attention on spatial presence in virtual environments based on spatial and object distinction. Interact Comput 20:491–502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Novak T, Hoffman D, Yung Y (2000) Measuring the customer experience in online environments: a structural modeling approach. Mark Sci 19:22–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Takatalo J, Nyman G, Laaksonen L (2008) Components of human experience in virtual environments. Comput Human Behav 24:1–15. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2006.11.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Weibel D, Wissmath B, Mast FW (2010) Immersion in mediated environments: the role of personality traits. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw 13:251–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Alsina-Jurnet I, Gutierrez-Maldonado J (2010) Influence of personality and individual abilities on the sense of presence experienced in anxiety triggering virtual environments. Int J Hum Comput Stud 68:788–801

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Le Callet P, Möller S, Perkis A (2012) Qualinet white paper on definitions of quality of experience. In: European network on quality of experience in multimedia systems and services (COST Action IC 1003), Lausanne, Switzerland, Version 1.1, June 3, 2012

    Google Scholar 

  28. Jumisko-Pyykkö S (2011) User-centered quality of experience and its evaluation methods for mobile television. Tampere University of Technology

    Google Scholar 

  29. Bracken C, Pettey G, Wu M (2011) Telepresence and attention: secondary task reaction time and media form. In: Proc. Int. Soc. Presence

    Google Scholar 

  30. Goldstein EB (2010) Sensation and perception. p 496

    Google Scholar 

  31. Lazarus RS (1993) From psychological stress to the emotions: a history of changing outlooks. Annu Rev Psychol 44:1–21. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.44.020193.000245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Bey C, McAdams S (2002) Schema-based processing in auditory scene analysis. Percept Psychophys 64:844–854

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Jennings JR, Van der Molen MW, Van der Veen FM, Debski KB (2002) Influence of preparatory schema on the speed of responses to spatially compatible and incompatible stimuli. Psychophysiology 39:496–504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Cui LC (2003) Do experts and naive observers judge printing quality differently? In: Miyake Y, Rasmussen DR (eds) Electron. Imaging 2004. International Society for Optics and Photonics, pp 132–145

    Google Scholar 

  35. Werner S, Thies B (2000) Is “Change Blindness” attenuated by domain-specific expertise? An expert-novices comparison of change detection in football images. Vis Cogn 7:163–173. doi:10.1080/135062800394748

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Sowden PT, Davies IR, Roling P (2000) Perceptual learning of the detection of features in X-ray images: a functional role for improvements in adults’ visual sensitivity? J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 26:379–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Curran T, Gibson L, Horne JH et al (2009) Expert image analysts show enhanced visual processing in change detection. Psychon Bull Rev 16:390–397. doi:10.3758/PBR.16.2.390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Sowden PT, Rose D, Davies IRL (2002) Perceptual learning of luminance contrast detection: specific for spatial frequency and retinal location but not orientation. Vision Res 42:1249–1258. doi:10.1016/S0042-6989(02)00019-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Neisser U (1976) Cognition and reality: principles and implications of cognitive psychology. p 230.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Dinh HQ, Walker N, Hodges LF, Kobayashi A (1999) Evaluating the importance of multi-sensory input on memory and the sense of presence in virtual environments. In: Proc. IEEE virtual real (Cat. No. 99CB36316). IEEE Comput. Soc., pp 222–228

    Google Scholar 

  41. Hecht D, Reiner M, Halevy G (2006) Multimodal virtual environments: response times, attention, and presence. Presence-Teleop Virtual Environ 15:515–523

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Coen M (2001) Multimodal integration-a biological view. In: Proc. Fifteenth Int. Jt. Conf. Artif. Intell. Seattle, WA, pp 1417–1424

    Google Scholar 

  43. Shimojo S, Shams L (2001) Sensory modalities are not separate modalities: plasticity and interactions. Curr Opin Neurobiol 11:505–509

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Mcgurk H, Macdonald J (1976) Hearing lips and seeing voices. Nature 264:746–748

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Rock I, Victor J (1964) Vision and touch: an experimentally created conflict between the two senses. Science 143:594–596

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Scheier C, Nijhawan R, Shimojo S (1999) Sound alters visual temporal resolution. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 40:4169

    Google Scholar 

  47. Chandrasekaran C, Ghazanfar AA (2011) When what you see is not what you hear. Nat Neurosci 14:675–676. doi:10.1038/nn.2843

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Skalski P, Whitbred R (2010) Image versus sound: a comparison of formal feature effects on presence and video game enjoyment. Psychology J 8:67–84, doi: Article

    Google Scholar 

  49. Biocca F, Kim J, Choi Y (2001) Visual touch in virtual environments: an exploratory study of presence, multimodal interfaces, and cross-modal sensory illusions. Presence-Teleop Virtual Environ 10:247–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Basdogan C, Ho C, Srinivasan MA, Slater MEL (2001) An experimental study on the role of touch in shared virtual environments. ACM Trans Comput Interact 7:443–460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Welch RB, Warren DH (1980) Immediate perceptual response to intersensory discrepancy. Psychol Bull 88:638–667

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. De Kort YAW, Ijsselsteijn WA, Kooijman J, Schuurmans Y (2003) Virtual laboratories: comparability of real and virtual environments for environmental psychology. Presence-Teleop Virtual Environ 12:360–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Bowman DA, McMahan RP (2007) Virtual reality: how much immersion is enough? Computer (Long Beach Calif) 40:36–43. doi:10.1109/MC.2007.257

    Google Scholar 

  54. Slater M (2009) Place illusion and plausibility can lead to realistic behaviour in immersive virtual environments. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 364:3549–3557. doi:10.1098/rstb.2009.0138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Slater M (2003) A note on presence terminology. Presence-Connect, pp 1–5

    Google Scholar 

  56. Steuer J (1992) Defining virtual reality: dimensions determining telepresence. J Commun 42:73–93. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1992.tb00812.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Ijsselsteijn W, de Ridder H, Freeman J et al (2001) Effects of stereoscopic presentation, image motion, and screen size on subjective and objective corroborative measures of presence. Presence-Teleop Virtual Environ 10:298–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Hands DS (2004) A basic multimedia quality model. IEEE Trans Multimedia 6:806–816. doi:10.1109/TMM.2004.837233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Hwang J, Kim GJ (2010) Provision and maintenance of presence and immersion in hand-held virtual reality through motion based interaction. Comput Animat Virtual Worlds 21:547–559

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Hendrix C, Barfield W (1995) Presence in virtual environments as a function of visual and auditory cues. In: Proceedings of Virtual Real Annu Int Symp. pp 74–82. doi: 10.1109/VRAIS.1995.512482

  61. Lin JJ-W, Duh HBL, Parker DE et al (2002) Effects of field of view on presence, enjoyment, memory, and simulator sickness in a virtual environment. In: Proc. IEEE Virtual Real. IEEE Comput. Soc., pp 164–171

    Google Scholar 

  62. Freeman J, Avons SE, Pearson DE, IJsselsteijn WA (1999) Effects of sensory information and prior experience on direct subjective ratings of presence. Presence-Teleop Virtual Environ 8:1–13. doi:10.1162/105474699566017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Bleumers L, Lievens B, Pierson J (2011) From sensory dream to television format: gathering user feedback on the use and experience of omnidirectional video-based solutions. In: ISPR 2011 Int. Soc. PRESENCE Res. Annu. Conf.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Slater M, Khanna P, Mortensen J, Yu I (2009) Visual realism enhances realistic response in an immersive virtual environment. IEEE Comput Graph Appl 29:76–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Welch RB, Blackmon TT, Liu A et al (1996) The effects of pictorial realism, delay of visual feedback, and observer interactivity an the subjective sense of presence. Presence-Teleop Virtual Environ 5:263–273

    Google Scholar 

  66. Barfield W, Hendrix C (1995) The effect of update rate on the sense of presence within virtual environments. Virtual Real 1:3–15. doi:10.1007/BF02009709

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Meehan M (2001) Physiological reaction as an objective measure of presence in virtual environments. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

    Google Scholar 

  68. Luque FP, Galloso I, Feijoo C, Martín CA, Cisneros G (2014) Integration of multisensorial stimuli and multimodal interaction in a hybrid 3DTV system. ACM Trans Multimedia Comput Commun Appl 11(1s):16:1–16:22. doi:10.1145/2617992

  69. Beerends JG, De Caluwe FE (1999) The influence of video quality on perceived audio quality and vice versa. J Audio Eng Soc 47:355–362

    Google Scholar 

  70. Slater M, Usoh M, Steed A (1995) Taking steps: the influence of a walking technique on presence in virtual reality. ACM Trans Comput Interact 2:201–219. doi:10.1145/210079.210084

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. De Ruyter B, Aarts E (2004) Ambient intelligence: visualizing the future. In: Proc. Work. Conf. Adv. Vis. interfaces – AVI’04. ACM Press, New York, p 203

    Google Scholar 

  72. Waltl M, Timmerer C, Hellwagner H (2010) Increasing the user experience of multimedia presentations with sensory effects. In: 11th Int. Work Image Anal. Multimed. Interact. Serv. (WIAMIS). IEEE, Desenzano del Garda, pp 1–4

    Google Scholar 

  73. Ademoye OA, Ghinea G (2009) Synchronization of olfaction-enhanced multimedia. IEEE Trans Multimed 11:561–565. doi:10.1109/TMM.2009.2012927

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Murray N, Qiao Y, Lee B et al (2013) Subjective evaluation of olfactory and visual media synchronization. In: Proc. 4th ACM Multimed. Syst. Conf. ACM, New York, pp 162–171

    Google Scholar 

  75. Ghinea G, Ademoye O (2012) The sweet smell of success: enhancing multimedia applications with olfaction. ACM Trans Multimed Comput Commun Appl 8:1–17. doi:10.1145/2071396.2071398

    Google Scholar 

  76. Pallavicini F, Cipresso P, Raspelli S et al (2013) Is virtual reality always an effective stressors for exposure treatments? Some insights from a controlled trial. BMC Psychiatry 13:1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. (1990) ITU-T J.100 Recommendation. Tolerance for transmission time differences between vision and sound components of a television signal. International Telecommunication Union (ITU) – Telecommunication sector.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Slutsky DA, Recanzone GH (2001) Temporal and spatial dependency of the ventriloquism effect. Neuroreport 12:7–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. IJsselsteijn WA, de Ridder H, Vliegen J (2000) Effects of stereoscopic filming parameters and display duration on the subjective assessment of eye strain. In: Proc. SPIE 3957, Stereosc. Displays Virtual Real. Syst. VII. pp 12–22

    Google Scholar 

  80. Kooi FL, Toet A (2004) Visual comfort of binocular and 3D displays. Displays 25:99–108. doi:10.1016/j.displa.2004.07.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Meesters L, IJsselsteijn W (2003) Survey of perceptual quality issues in threedimensional television systems. Proc. SPIE

    Google Scholar 

  82. Banos RM, Botella C, Alcaniz M et al (2004) Immersion and emotion: their impact on the sense of presence. Cyberpsychology Behav 7:734–741

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Timmerer C, Waltl M, Rainer B, Hellwagner H (2012) Assessing the quality of sensory experience for multimedia presentations. Signal Process Image Commun 27:909–916

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. ISO/IEC 23005-3 (2013) Information technology – Media context and control – Part 3: Sensory information. p 104

    Google Scholar 

  85. Waltl M, Rainer B, Timmerer C, Hellwagner H (2013) An end-to-end tool chain for Sensory Experience based on MPEG-V. Signal Process Image Commun 28:136–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Yoon K (2013) End-to-end framework for 4-D broadcasting based on MPEG-V standard. Signal Process Image Commun 28:127–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Kim J, Lee C-G, Kim Y, Ryu J (2013) Construction of a haptic-enabled broadcasting system based on the MPEG-V standard. Signal Process Image Commun 28:151–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CeDInt-UPM., Campus de Montegancedo, Pozuelo de Alarcón, 28223, Madrid, Spain

    Iris Galloso, Claudio Feijóo & Asunción Santamaría

Authors
  1. Iris Galloso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Claudio Feijóo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Asunción Santamaría
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Iris Galloso .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Digital Technologies, Loughborough University in London, Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park, London, United Kingdom

    Ahmet Kondoz

  2. School of Science and Technology, Hellenic Open University, Patras, Greece

    Tasos Dagiuklas

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Galloso, I., Feijóo, C., Santamaría, A. (2015). Novel Approaches to Immersive Media: From Enlarged Field-of-View to Multi-sensorial Experiences. In: Kondoz, A., Dagiuklas, T. (eds) Novel 3D Media Technologies. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2026-6_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2026-6_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-2025-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-2026-6

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation