Experience Probes: Immersion and Reflection Between Reality and Virtuality

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10516)


This research addresses the issue of the memory-experience gap, the disconnect between momentary perceptions and post experience reporting as relates to HCI research methodologies and the study of immersive technology-mediated experiences in particular. The paper presents an overview of contemporary understanding of immersion and examines HCI methods that investigate participant experiences. We introduce Experience Probes, an integrated design and evaluation methodology that affords momentary reporting by blending states of reflection and immersion in a structured activity situated within the immersive experience. A pilot study is presented that examines an immersive soundscape installation and an Experience Probe enacted through participant-authored sound maps. The maps provide data for thematic analysis, and are coded for signs of self-perception and a sense of place to evaluate participants’ sensations of presence and immersion. Preliminary results are discussed in relation to the reality-virtuality continuum and suggest that the reflective act of reporting, and the experience of immersion within the soundscape installation are not mutually exclusive. This research seeks to extend HCI methods by overcoming the memory-experience gap in the evaluation of technology-mediated experiences.


HCI evaluation methods Immersive experiences Momentary assessment Mixed reality environments 



Special thanks to the organizers of COOP2016 and to Melissa Cate Christ. This work was supported by a fellowship from TIM.


  1. 1.
    Al-Shamaileh, O., Sutcliffe, A.: Investigating a multi-faceted view of user experience. In: Proceedings of the 24th Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference, Melbourne, Australia, pp. 9–18. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bilda, Z., Costello, B., Amitani, S.: Collaborative analysis framework for evaluating interactive art experience. CoDesign 2(4), 225–238 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bødker, S.: Third-wave HCI, 10 years later—participation and sharing. Interactions 22(5), 24–31 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bruun, A., Ahm, S.: Mind the gap! Comparing retrospective and concurrent ratings of emotion in user experience evaluation. In: Abascal, J., Barbosa, S., Fetter, M., Gross, T., Palanque, P., Winckler, M. (eds.) INTERACT 2015, Part I. LNCS, vol. 9296, pp. 237–254. Springer, Cham (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-22701-6_17 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Buchenau, M., Suri, J.F.: Experience prototyping. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods, and Techniques, pp. 424–433. ACM, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Candy, L., Ferguson, S.: Interactive experience, art and evaluation. In: Candy, L., Ferguson, S. (eds.) Interactive Experience in the Digital Age: Evaluating New Art Practice. SSCC, pp. 1–10. Springer, Cham (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-04510-8_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Carlson, M.: Performance: A Critical Introduction, 2nd edn., 276 p. Routledge, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Christ, M.C.: Hong Kong Stair Archive. Cited 19 April 2017
  9. 9.
    Csikszentmihalyi, M.: Beyond Boredom and Anxiety. 25th Anniversary edn., xxx, 231 p. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco (2000)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Csikszentmihalyi, M.: Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. Harper Collins, New York (1994)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Edmonds, E.A.: Human computer interaction, art and experience. In: Candy, L., Ferguson, S. (eds.) Interactive Experience in the Digital Age: Evaluating New Art Practice. SSCC, pp. 11–23. Springer, Cham (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-04510-8_2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Forlizzi, J., Battarbee, K.: Understanding experience in interactive systems. In: Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods, and Techniques, Cambridge, MA, USA, pp. 261–268. ACM (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gaver, W.: Cultural commentators: Non-native interpretations as resources for polyphonic assessment. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 65(4), 292–305 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gaver, W.W., et al.: Cultural probes and the value of uncertainty. Interactions 11(5), 53–56 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hansen, L.K.: Contemplative interaction: alternating between immersion and reflection. In: Proceedings of the 4th Decennial Conference on Critical Computing: Between Sense and Sensibility, Aarhus, Denmark, pp. 125–128. ACM (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Höök, K., Sengers, P., Andersson, G.: Sense and sensibility: evaluation and interactive art. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, USA, pp. 241–248. ACM (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jacucci, G., et al.: ParticipArt: exploring participation in interactive art installations. In: 2010 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality - Arts, Media, and Humanities (2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Waterworth, J., Fallman, D.: Dealing with user experience and affective evaluation in HCI design: a repertory grid approach. In: CHI 2005 Workshop on Evaluating Affective Interfaces - Innovative Approaches (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kahneman, D., Jason, R.: Living, and thinking about it: two perspectives on life. In: Huppert, F.A., Baylis, N., Keverne, B. (eds.) The Science of Well-Being. Oxford University Press (2005)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, K., Roto, V., Hassenzahl, M.: Towards practical user experience evaluation methods. In: Meaningful Measures: International Workshop on Valid Useful User Experience Measurement (VUUM), Reykjavik, Iceland (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Isbister, K., Höök, K., Sharp, M., Laaksolahti, J.: The sensual evaluation instrument: developing an affective evaluation tool. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, pp. 1163–1172. ACM (2006)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kaye, J.J.: Evaluating experience-focused HCI. In: CHI 2007 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, San Jose, CA, USA, pp. 1661–1664. ACM (2007)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kwastek, K.: Aesthetics of Interaction in Digital Art, xxii, 357 p. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2013)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    MacDonald, C.M., Atwood, M.E.: Changing perspectives on evaluation in HCI: past, present, and future. In: CHI 2013 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Paris, France, pp. 1969–1978. ACM (2013)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mateas, M.: A neo-Aristotelian theory of interactive drama. In: AAAI Spring Symposium on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Entertainment, Palo Alto, California (2000)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Miron-Shatz, T., Stone, A., Kahneman, D.: Memories of yesterday’s emotions: does the valence of experience affect the memory-experience gap? Emotion 9(6), 885–891 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Murray, J.H.: Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace, 324 p. The Free Press (1997)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Milgram, P., Kishino, F.: A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IEICE Trans. Inf. Syst. E77-D(12), 1321–1329 (1994)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Peters, C., Castellano, G., de Freitas, S.: An exploration of user engagement in HCI. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Affective-Aware Virtual Agents and Social Robots, Boston, Massachusetts, pp. 1–3. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Riva, G., Mantovani, F.: Extending the self through the tools and the others: a general framework for presence and social presence in mediated interactions. In: Riva, G., Waterworth, J., Murray, D. (eds.) Interacting with Presence: HCI and the Sense of Presence in Computer-mediated Environments, pp. 12–34. De Gruyter Open, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Schön, D.A.: The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, x, 374 p. Basic Books, New York (1983)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Smyth, J.M., Stone, A.A.: Ecological momentary assessment research in behavioral medicine. J. Happiness Stud. 4(1), 35–52 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Spagnolli, A., Gamberini, L.: A place for presence. Understanding the human involvement in mediated interactive environments. PsychNology J. 3, 6–15 (2005)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Vermeeren, A.P.O.S., et al.: User experience evaluation methods: current state and development needs. In: Proceedings of the 6th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Extending Boundaries, Reykjavik, Iceland, pp. 521–530. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Georgiou, Y., Kyza, E.A.: The development and validation of the ARI questionnaire: an instrument for measuring immersion in location-based augmented reality settings. Hum. Comput. Stud. 98, 24–37 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Obrenovic, Z., Martens, J.-B.: Sketching interactive systems with sketchify. ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact. 18(1), 1–38 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.SKIL Joint Open Lab TIMTrentoItaly
  2. 2.University of TrentoTrentoItaly
  3. 3.University of LincolnLincolnUK
  4. 4.Fondazione Bruno KesslerTrentoItaly

Personalised recommendations