Improved Memory Elicitation in Virtual Reality: New Experimental Results and Insights

  • Joel HarmanEmail author
  • Ross Brown
  • Daniel Johnson
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10514)


Eliciting accurate and complete knowledge from individuals is a non-trivial challenge. In this paper, we present the evaluation of a virtual-world based approach, informed by situated cognition theory, which aims to assist with knowledge elicitation. In this approach, we place users into 3D virtual worlds which represent real-world locations and ask users to describe information related to tasks completed in those locations. Through an empirical A/B evaluation of 62 users, we explore the differences in recall ability and behaviour of those viewing the virtual world via a virtual reality headset and those viewing the virtual world on a monitor. Previous results suggest that the use of a virtual reality headset was able to meaningfully improve memory recall ability within the given scenario. In this study, we adjust experiment protocol to explore the potential confounds of time taken and tool usability. After controlling for these possible confounds, we once again found that those given a virtual reality headset were able to recall more information about the given task than those viewing the virtual world on a monitor.


  1. 1.
    Davis, A., Dieste, O., Hickey, A., Juristo, N., Moreno, A.M.: Empirical results derived from a systematic review. In: Proceedings of Requirements Engineering, pp. 179–188. IEEE (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Smith, E.A.: The role of tacit and explicit knowledge in the workplace. J. Knowl. Manag. 5(4), 311–321 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zowghi, D., Coulin, C.: Requirements elicitation: a survey of techniques, approaches, and tools. In: Aurum, A., Wohlin, C. (eds.) Engineering and Managing Software Requirements, pp. 19–46. Springer, Berlin (2005). doi: 10.1007/3-540-28244-0_2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Costain, G., McKenna, B.: Experiencing the elicitation of user requirements and recording them in use case diagrams through role-play. J. Inf. Syst. Educ. 22(4), 367 (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mace, J.H., Clevinger, A.M., Martin, C.: Involuntary memory chaining versus event cueing: which is a better indicator of autobiographical memory organisation? Memory 18(8), 845–854 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brown, J., Collins, A., Duguid, P.: Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educ. Res. 18(1), 32–42 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Harman, J., Brown, R., Johnson, D., Rinderle-Ma, S., Kannengiesser, U.: Augmenting process elicitation with visual priming: an empirical exploration of user behaviour and modelling outcomes. Inf. Syst. 62, 242–255 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Harman, J., Brown, R., Johnson, D.: The role of immersion during situated memory recall within virtual worlds. In: Proceedings of the 28th Australian Conference on Computer-Human Interaction, pp. 1–10. ACM (2016)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lave, J., Wenger, E.: Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dede, C., Nelson, B., Ketelhut, D.J., Clarke, J., Bowman, C.: Design-based research strategies for studying situated learning in a multi-user virtual environment. In: Proceedings of Learning Sciences 2004, pp. 158–165 (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dickey, M.D.: Teaching in 3D: pedagogical affordances and constraints of 3D virtual worlds for synchronous distance learning. Distance Educ. 24(1), 105–121 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Carassa, A., Morganti, F., Tirassa, M.: A situated cognition perspective on presence. In: Proceedings of Cognitive Science 2005, Sheridan Printing, pp. 384–389 (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mania, K., Chalmers, A.: The effects of levels of immersion on memory and presence in virtual environments: a reality centered approach. CyberPsychol. Behav. 4(2), 247–264 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Riva, G., Mantovani, F., Capideville, C.S., Preziosa, A., Morganti, F., Villani, D., Alcaiz, M., Gaggioli, A., Botella, C.: Affective interactions using virtual reality: the link between presence and emotions. CyberPsychol. Behav. 10(1), 45–56 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Renaud, P., Rouleau, J.L., Granger, L., Barsetti, I., Bouchard, S.: Measuring sexual preferences in virtual reality: a pilot study. CyberPsychol. Behav. 5(1), 1–9 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Duncan, I., Miller, A., Jiang, S.: A taxonomy of virtual worlds usage in education. British J. Educ. Technol. 43(6), 949–964 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Virvou, M., Katsionis, G.: On the usability and likeability of virtual reality games for education: the case of VR-ENGAGE. Comput. Educ. 50(1), 154–178 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Unity Technologies: Unity - Game Engine (2016). Accessed 13 June 2016.
  19. 19.
    Harman, J., Brown, R., Kannengiesser, U., Meyer, N., Rothschädl, T.: Model as you do: engaging an S-BPM vendor on process modelling in 3D virtual worlds. In: Fleischmann, A., Schmidt, W., Stary, C. (eds.) S-BPM in the Wild, pp. 113–133. Springer, Cham (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-17542-3_7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Roediger, H.L., Karpicke, J.D.: Test-enhanced learning taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychol. Sci. 17(3), 249–255 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ivanoiu, A., Adam, S., Van der Linden, M., Salmon, E., Juillerat, A.C., Mulligan, R., Seron, X.: Memory evaluation with a new cued recall test in patients with mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimers disease. J. Neurol. 252(1), 47–55 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Claes, J., et al.: Tying process model quality to the modeling process: the impact of structuring, movement, and speed. In: Barros, A., Gal, A., Kindler, E. (eds.) BPM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7481, pp. 33–48. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-32885-5_3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schumie, M.J., Van der Straaten, P., Krijn, M., Van der Mast, C.A.P.G.: Research on presence in VR: a survey. Cyberpsychol Behav. 4(2), 183–202 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    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
  25. 25.
    Schubert, T., Friedmann, F., Regenbrecht, H.: The experience of presence: factor analytic insights. Presence 10(3), 266–281 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sutcliffe, A.G., Kaur, K.D.: Evaluating the usability of virtual reality user interfaces. Behav. Inf. Technol. 19(6), 415–426 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lewis, J.R.: IBM computer usability satisfaction questionnaires: psychometric evaluation and instructions for use. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interac. 7(1), 57–78 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cohen, J.: A power primer. Psychol. Bull. 112(1), 155 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rosenthal, R.: Parametric measures of effect size. In: Cooper, H., Hedges, L.V. (eds.) The Handbook of Research Synthesis, pp. 231–244. Russell Sage Foundation, New York (1994)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Matterport: Immersive Spaces for Real-world Applications - Matterport (2016). Accessed 23 June 2016.

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer ScienceQueensland University of Technology (QUT)BrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations