Using interpretative phenomenological analysis to gain a qualitative understanding of presence in virtual reality

Quantitative methods have thus far been the predominant methodological stance of virtual presence research, leaving much to be desired in terms of qualitative understanding. Yet, virtual experiences are a highly personal engagement, unique to each individual, and their presence in virtual reality can be viewed in terms of its experiential individuality. This aspect of the virtual experience is overlooked by conventional quantitative methods, which clusters ratings or scores to form group deductions. Therefore, to address the qualitative gap in the literature and provide an appropriate examination of virtual experiences from the perspective of the individual, an Interpretative Phenomenological Approach was undertaken. This alternate methodology sought to reveal which aspects of virtual experiences users identify as enabling feelings of presence. Examination of common themes among accounts of individuals were performed, to investigate the generation of feelings of presence in virtual reality. Online recruitment provided six interviewees who participated in online semi-structured interviews, prior to Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis. Three superordinate themes were identified: visual satisfaction, freedom of interaction and suspension of real life. Expectance, realism and prevention of disbelief are among the sub-themes identified that contributed to the interviewee’s highly present experiences. The identified themes demonstrated the greatest influences of enabling a deeper sense of presence, in turn enhancing their experiences within virtual reality. In acknowledging these mitigating influences, it is hoped this may enable future virtual systems to build upon the research provided and produce consistently high-presence experiences. Consequently, this can aid educational, therapeutic and entertainment applications of virtual reality.


Virtual reality, presence and immersion
Virtual reality (VR) is a digitally generated 3D environment, with systems typically consisting of a powerful computer alongside a head-mounted display (HMD). Other more complex systems are available, such as the CAVE (Cave Automatic Virtual Environment). Virtual reality's aims to captivate users, often including peripheral devices for auditory and haptic stimuli, such as handheld sensors or fingertracking. Since its conception, a phenomenon has arisen in which people perceive virtual environments (VEs) as highly realistic or overtly disassociated from the real world. This is currently considered the result of at least two factors: the degree of immersion and level of presence a user experiences (Gorini et al. 2011;Shubert et al. 2001). VR's roles within healthcare (Hoffman et al. 2001a, b;Pillai and Mathew 2019), education (Merchant et al. 2014), tourism (Yung et al. 2021) and entertainment industries (Kodama et al.2017) depend upon successful user engagement, resulting from both presence and immersion. The stronger these factors, the greater associated user experience. It is hoped that by gaining insight into the mechanics of 'being present', we can continue to build upon our current understanding of virtual presence. This research aspires to assist VR applications across all sectors by influencing greater user engagement, improving its effectiveness as a therapeutic, educational and entertainment system. Immersion is described by Slater (2003) as the objective level of sensory fidelity that is provided by the electronic system. For example, the headset and accompanying devices synchronise to cultivate a vivid environment. Slater and Wilbur (1997) describe immersion in terms of features such as 'inclusivity' and 'surroundings'. That is, 'inclusivity' would, in a perfect world, fully exclude the non-virtual world, delivering only the virtual stimuli, meanwhile 'surroundings' would fully encompass the user with an unrestricted view of the virtual world, rather than provide a panoramic view of a single viewpoint. Primarily, immersion appears relatively quantifiable and can be manipulated in terms of frame rates, graphic fidelity and degrees of freedom.
Presence relates to the psychological state of participation and engagement of the user's environment. Whilst not a universal definition, Slater (2003) described presence as the user's subjective psychological response to a VR system, accrediting action and purpose to be as true to the virtual world, as in the real world. A highly present user should identify themselves within the virtual environment (VE), being able to act upon and influence their surroundings. Sheridan (1996) alternatively defines presence as where "the human participant feels herself to be present at a location which is synthetic", whilst Seth et al. (2012) states it is rather a more basic quality of normal consciousness during the experience. Sanchez-Vives and Slater (2005) also state presence as being the phenomenon of experiencing consciousness in virtual reality, and with that, the ability to respond to virtual stimuli as though they were real. The experience of becoming psychologically captivated by the VE describes the origins of presence, dissimilar to immersive aspects. The greater presence achieved for the user, the more realistic the outcome. However, issues occur in measuring presence when research adopts different definitions of presence, in absence of a unanimous concept.
Research regards immersion and presence as having complex simultaneous mechanisms yet does not appear to reliably indicate a direct relationship. Uno and Slater (1997) investigated immersive qualities, yielding mixed results in factors positively correlating with greater presence, while others failed to correlate. Cummings and Bailenson (2016) similarly highlighted numerous immersive factors as significant to presence, whilst others, such as image quality, were not. Contrastingly, Baños et al. (2004) observed how multiple displays and content produced results ranging from presence being mostly dependent on immersion for non-emotive content, to least important for emotive content. They concluded that both content and stimuli provide significant roles in presence, stating that the pursuit of presence should not focus on technology alone. Further, Krijn et al. (2004) found no difference between high and low fidelity VR when examining their effects during VR exposure therapy.
Difficulties arise when examining interactions between presence and immersion, often due to the lack of unanimous terminology, wherein after almost three decades of VR research, calls remain to unify these two definitions (Kardong-Edgren et al. 2019). This linguistic conflict was primarily addressed by Slater (2003) who highlights discrepancies between the Presence Questionnaire and the Immersive Tendencies Questionnaire as both being founded on misaligned concepts. It is vital that the VR community rapidly addresses this issue in order to guide us to a more unanimous disposition. In doing so, it is hoped that the variation amongst literature may clarify somewhat, and that future developments assist in stabilising future research. It can be concluded by most that presence is an internal psychological phenomenon, contrary to externally-influenced immersion.

'The presence problem'
VR literature primarily concerns itself with the manipulation of technological factors such as; frame rates (Raaen and Kjellmo 2015), fields-of-view (Ragan et al. 2015) and peripheral stimuli (Fröhlich and Wachsmuth 2013;Laukkanen, et al. 2022). Consequently, literature frequently describes how VEs appear to a user, side-lining how it feels to the individual. The role of immersion is suited to manipulating these quantifiable aspects; however, such experiments report results surrounding both presence and immersion through the same quantitative lens. The experimental method provides us with evidence such as that of Slater et al. (1996), who demonstrated the role of technological components, highlighting how VR may enhance situational performance. Similarly, Hoffman et al. (2006) provided evidence of analgesic influences of immersion. However, it is concerning that the quantitative methodology has gone unquestioned when applied to presence research, resulting in its submission to computer-manipulated experiments. This is further aggravated by research claiming to examine presence, when immersion is in fact the subject focus, as noted with Krijn et al. (2004). Successful applications of VR also fundamentally require a highly present experience to reach optimum potential (Jerome and Witmer 2002). They discuss how these phenomena indicate a causal relationship, where a highly captivating VE requires strong influences from both realms. Bowman and McMahan (2007) also investigated the contributions of presence specifically within a highly immersive environment, noting participants regarded the experience as a more involving platform when greater presence was observed.
Amongst VR literature, presence has been approached as though it and immersion were of the same origins, disregarding the fundamentals of presence as an internal quality, unique to individuals, as demonstrated by a survey paper by Schuemie et al. (2001). It is proposed that when trying to measure experiences of presence, other methods have been considered. Undeniably, quantitative methods are successful in many ways, yet we remain unable to explain the phenomenon of presence, whilst claiming to be able to measure it. Whilst investigating immersion experimentally, it is unclear if it is possible to control for presence, nor to observe any extraneous relationship between the two. The quantitative method has remained the favourable domain for investigating presence, yet alternative methods have not sufficiently been considered in favour of the classic experiment.
VR literature currently employs multiple questionnaires to investigate presence such as; the Temple Presence Inventory (Lombard et al. 2000), the Igroup Presence Questionnaire (Schubert et al. 2001), the ITC-Sense of Presence Inventory (Lessiter et al. 2001) and Witmer et al.'s Presence Questionnaire (2005). These do indeed differ, for example the Temple Presence Inventory concerns itself with social presence, compared with the ITC establishing a cross-media measurement. They therefore have varied approaches on how to measure presence using different variables as their respective focus.
It is a concern that when observing an individual's experience of presence, the use of questionnaires demonstrates reductionist efforts to capture the user's degree of cognitive engagement at the expense of explanatory information. Their application risks loss of informative data surrounding the experience, in favour of rapid numerical analysis. This view is shared by Slater (2003), who also recognises that questionnaires are not a preferable option to measure presence. Instead, qualitative data could provide insight into the user's subjective experience, providing a wealth of critical information that may otherwise have gone unexplored.
There are well-established techniques that are frequently used to explore individuals' personal experiences, and these lie within qualitative psychology (Brocki and Wearden 2006). The use of qualitative methods is grossly less frequent than those of quantitative, contrary to the conclusions of Usoh et al. (2000) and Freeman et al. (1999). Those discussed by Usoh et al. are that within the experimental method of self-reported presence data, participants "relativise" their responses to the context of the domain, signifying their design to be inappropriate. Similarly, limitations discussed by Freeman et al. of the experimental method to interpret presence scores via handheld sliders, stated their own data acquisition methods may be potentially unstable, noting future research should recognise this.
The validity of quantitative analyses should then be challenged within this research realm. Aside from the well-recognised risks of using questionnaires as a methodology, such as respondent subjectivity, questionnaires themselves carry potential investigator biases of constructional intentions and leading concepts. Consequently, it is surprising that within the wealth of academia surrounding virtual reality, so little has been provided from the qualitative approach.
Technological and individual factors have both been the subject of interest surrounding presence, yet the literature has yet to reach conclusive evidence, using quantitative methods, as to why such experiential variations occur. The ability to measure and observe differences in presence has been noted, usually through experimental manipulation of immersive factors; however, it cannot be inferred by any research observed so far that we understand the source of presence, nor how to observe this phenomenon independent from immersive technological manipulation. Therefore, it is proposed to take a novel approach to understanding the experiences of virtual reality, solely using qualitative methods.

A novel approach
The interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) method specialises in developing our understanding through the perspectives of others, examining personal experiences and their meanings for the individual, taking interest in their own construction of events (Smith et al. 2009). The nature of this project, experiences of virtual presence, therefore lends itself towards the IPA method, rather than other qualitative approaches, and so was elected the most appropriate technique. With IPA adopting an idiographic approach, and concerning itself with phenomenology, the uniqueness and importance of an individual's own interpretations of the experience will be the focus of the analysis, acknowledging that no two people experience phenomena in the same way (Smith and Osborn 2003).
However, in following Heidegger's (1992) line of thought, the researcher is intrinsically a part of any phenomenological research, initially with 'being there' to extract the nature of the experience. He discusses how reality is put forth by the researcher, in describing the subject-matter, yet should strive to validate the phenomenon 'as itself'. The challenge with IPA, however, lies within the knowledge that natural experiences are observed as a "person-in-context". That is, we are surrounded by preconceptions of the subject and interpretations from the participant's own understanding. It will therefore be key to observe the analytical focus of participants, from as objective a standpoint as possible. Adopting a realist approach will enable analysis to focus directly on the phenomenon individuals have experienced, in the hope of investigating the experience as true to itself as possible. And so, with a research focus of 'experiences of presence within a virtual environment', this should methodologically complement our aim to gain an understanding of how one interprets themselves within the situation. That is, the focus lies with the user's constructs of presence, whilst within the VE.
IPA will permit access to verbal self-reports surrounding how users truly felt about their experiences, free from the constraints of questionnaires and scales, allowing for greater data enrichment and a more intrapersonal perspective. This method permits analysis of individuals' unique constructs, and what contributes to their individual experiences of virtual presence. Using IPA, interview data will be analysed for concurrent themes in order to gain insight into common features that influence feelings of presence in VR. By allowing each participant to discuss their perspective from an idiographic approach, to guide the conversation as they see fit, the constraints of quantitative responses are removed in place of rich and insightful data surrounding how present they consider themselves. Interpretive phenomenological analysis is critical to gaining a qualitative understanding of an individual's true, idiographic, lived experience (Smith 2017).

Methodology
With over 330 million active users, the online forum Reddit. com facilitated potential candidates for this research. Reddit.com is the world's 19th largest website, and the largest online forum-dedicated website (http:// www. alexa. com/ topsi tes, 2020). It has been previously noted as a resource for research purposes by Shatz (2017), who recognised its open community participation and suitability for researchers.
Its user-moderated design permits its use for the public domain as non-copyrighted, as well as providing adequate scope, reach and fit for approaching populations with similar interests as the project, such as the 'sub-Reddit' r/virtual reality. Within this sub-forum, a thread was opened outlining the purpose of the research, paraphrasing the information sheet, inviting contact through a University email address. A targeted, purposeful sample was achieved by those initiating contact. Typically, literature surrounding VR research employs opportunist University students (Baños et al. 2000), though other samples are also recognised (Hoffman et al. 2000). However, the nature of interpretive phenomenological analysis (IPA) research requires a homogenous group, and the topics of discussion to be as personal as possible (Pietkiewicz and Smith 2014), therefore student populations were deemed less desirable, as a wider range of potential incentives may occur (course credit or shared research interests) than those solely with the intent to participate.
In order to achieve homogeneity, only those having used an Oculus VR system were eligible, with the environment having been provided via a head-mounted display (HMD). The Oculus was chosen for being the most popular virtual hardware, aside from the Sony (which typically comes with a games console bundle). This ensures the research engages the interests of the wider population by utilising the most popular hardware, whilst ensuring as similar virtual experience as possible. Aside from participants being required to have experienced an Oculus system, exclusion criteria dictated that interviewees must be aged eighteen or above, as this technology is popular with users of all ages. Additionally, candidates must have no mental or physical vulnerabilities that may affect participation, as well as no history of adverse reactions to virtual reality. These were essential to minimise potential risk for the researcher and potential harm for those wishing to participate.
To further ensure homogeneity, the participants' experiences were required to be one in which users engage with only the environment, as opposed to including AI's, 'bots', or other real-world VR users, in order to avoid the additional complexity of VR social interactions (Riva et al. 2003). For example, the relevance of high-vs-low resolution engagement, emotional recognition and quality of interaction are not fully understood. Although literature has examined variables such as shared environments and co-presence (Schroeder 2012), this research takes a novel qualitative approach; therefore, it does not seem appropriate to involve additional complexities at this time. Experience of presence as an individual VR user may deviate from group interactions, as in the real world, with the company of others significantly altering one's behaviours (Li and Zhao 2019). Thus, it is required that those participating have experienced an exploratory environment.
Demographic exclusion criteria were considered, however were found to be irrelevant, as virtual reality has been shown to be resilient to such variations. A large 3-study paper by Sharar et al. (2007) demonstrated no variations in age, ethnicity nor sex when using VR in a clinical setting. Whilst the only paper of its kind, comprehensively observing multiple demographics, it demonstrates results consistent with other literature. Consideration was given to the duration users spend within virtual experiences; this was found to be an inconsequential factor (Hoffman et al. 2001a, b;Hoffman et al. 2001). Therefore, although considered, there does not appear to be justification for their use as exclusion criterion. With homogenous criteria, alongside a target sample population, the intended represented population are the typical VR users who seek to use the technology for leisure (i.e. nonresearch) purposes. Although inclusion/exclusion criteria were outlined on the sub-forum to establish participation requirements, these were later re-confirmed via screening during the consent process.
Upon establishing contact, participants were provided with the information, consent and interview schedule forms. This outlined that participation was voluntary, informed of their involvement and data security and highlighted their right to withdraw. Informed consent was obtained via email by returning a consent document, acknowledging each exclusion criteria and requiring an electronic signature prior to their interview to ensure full transparency of the research intentions.
Participants selected a pseudonym which they signed on the consent form, with transcripts and recordings being stored using this false identity to protect confidentiality. Interviews were conducted via Skype or Zoom, depending on the participants' preference. Interviewees were not required, nor requested, to engage in a visual interview, however each initiated visual contact without prompting. Any identifying information disclosed in the interview was redacted during transcription to further ensure confidentiality, with all data being securely stored and erased within an appropriate time frame. Participants were verbally and scripturally debriefed post-interview. Protective measures were discussed should any participant have become distressed, with support services outlined; however, no such support was requested and no concerns observed. Participants were reminded of their right to withdraw from the study at any point up to two weeks after the interview, without reason, which was clearly outlined in the information sheet, and debrief, provided immediately after each interview. Six participants were achieved.
As is typical with IPA, a semi-structured interview approach was undertaken in order to guide the conversation whilst allowing for free-flowing discussions, encouraging interviewees to lead conversations with their own line of thought (Miles and Gilbert 2005). Interviews were conducted on a one-to-one basis in order to avoid co-construction of experiences, deemed most appropriate in accordance with guidance from Smith et al. (2009). The interview schedule consisted of three discussion topics with fourteen prompt items, though not to be strictly adhered to. The interview items were developed using items from the Presence Questionnaire (PQ) (Witmer et al. 2005). Witmer and Singer first produced the PQ in 1994 (Witmer and Singer 1994) and have since refined it on multiple occasions. Furthermore, their work surrounds presence as VR involvement, which is more relevant to this paper than other questionnaires concerned with spatial presence, for example. Their 2005 paper illustrated their most recent revision of the PQ, re-exploring the concept of presence with greater validity.
To effectively select the most appropriate items from the PQ to translate into the interview schedule, those most powerfully relating to 'involvement' were of greatest, but not selective, interest. Justification for this lies within Witmer et al. 's, paper (2005), in which a tripartite factor analysis found that the most influential contributor repeatedly encountered is that of 'involvement'. They state "Involvement is clearly the most dominant dimension measured by the Presence Questionnaire" whilst examining the multifacticity of presence. The PQ totals 29 questions, 12 of which surround 'involvement'. In order to solidify a strong theoretical basis for our selection, factor loading coefficients of question items across both the most recent 2005 publication and the earlier 1998 version were analysed (Witmer and Singer 1998). Using these coefficients, the greater each item's strength, the greater the theoretical basis for its inclusion in the schedule. Six items were confirmed as the strongest predictors of presence (3, 6, 1, 2, 8, 18), five of which were also the strongest items within the involvement factor, a confirmatory basis for their inclusion. Item 18 was supported by remarks of being "a conceptually pure involvement item" (page 308). Items reporting lower coefficients were then used to guide the creative development of further items in the schedule to elicit discussion without restricting the dialogue to involvement alone, particularly those strongly supporting presence.
During development, questions relating to individual preferences were included with the intention of inducing in-depth engagement on a personal level, aiding personal engagement. These then established three discussion topics, with additional prompts, to guide the interviews if required. The first discussion surrounded recent VR experiences and users' feelings surrounding this, in order to elicit discussion. The second topic led to discuss feelings of VR whilst playing, to shift the focus on to individuals' feelings of presence or absence from the virtual environment (VE). The final topic approached the similarities and differences between the real world and the virtual, in order to highlight the distinct nature and provide a greater, more complex insight of the users' experiences.
It remained vital that the developed schedule encouraged the participant to reflect upon their personal experiences, in order to discuss them in a retrospective light. All interview items were therefore adapted into an open-ended style, to elicit the interviewee to assume control of the dialogue and address their own experiences. This inductive emphasis provides a greater voice to the participant, rather than the researcher. This included only minor linguistic adjustments, to refrain from bias or leading phrases. Post-interview, audio files were transferred from the dictation device to secure digital storage using the participant's desired pseudonym. Recordings were transcribed verbatim on an ad-hoc basis, in order to allow reflection on style and technique, with audio files being destroyed post-transcription.
Guidance from Smith et al. (2009) was critical to ensuring adherence to the theoretical framework and phenomenological underpinning of IPA. Each individual's experience was considered "as is" with vital consideration of hermeneutics, and how research should attempt to focus on the individual's own personal experience, free from outsider influences and interpretations. Double hermeneutics, for example, are a concern of IPA research, requiring a reflexive mind-set in order to minimise any potential impacts.
Furthermore, Alase (2017) also provides a comprehensive guide centred on accessing the "lived experience" of another 1 3 without distortion. With virtual presence and individual experiences at the core of this paper, IPA is undoubtedly the most appropriate route to adopt with its fundamentals lying in phenomenology, hermeneutics and idiographic focus. Further comprehensive advice by both Pietkiewicz and Smith (2014) and Breakwell (2008) were also considered to follow the phenomenological approach adopted in this paper, as was those of Creswell and Poth (2016). In particular, his arguments for the usefulness of internet-based data collection aided in establishing an interview format over a digital platform, with an appropriate anticipation of its deviance from the standard face-to-face interview.
Transcripts were revisited multiple times in order to refamiliarise and become immersed in the perspective of the interviewee by paying specific attention to the reports of the individual, and how they themselves experienced VR. Note taking followed, with exploratory remarks and relevant content outlined at the side. Reflective comments were then noted and followed by a more abstract, in-depth examination for conceptually similar emerging themes. This process was repeated for each transcript, relationships between emergent themes were sought within the entire dataset, in order to cluster themes together, creating superordinate themes and noteworthy subordinate sub-themes within each. IPA analysis was undertaken on a case-wise basis in order to remain true to its idiographic origins.

Analysis
Within this stage, several themes emerged, generating a greater range of superordinate themes than expected, covering an array of subordinate themes across the dataset. Of these, three demonstrated the greatest importance to the research aims and were analysed in greater depth, which are listed in Table 1 along with corresponding subordinate themes. Regrettably, it was not possible to explore each theme in detail due to the quantity of data provided and research limitations, and so those best fitting to address the research question were specifically selected to report upon.

Visual satisfaction
Analysis highlighted that visual satisfaction played a large role in our interviewees' sense of presence in the VE. This was not in terms so much as graphic fidelity as much as being mentally satisfied with the environment observed. Visual expectations, and the degree of satisfaction these were met with, were found to be associated with feelings of realism and presence.
"So it won't just be like, a wall with wallpaper. it'll have reality-wear on the wall that looks as if it's been there a long time. so, there's all these visual clues that make you, it adds, sort of context. and urm, it adds history. so your brain will start to fill in the gaps".
L discusses the cognitive role of the visual environment observed. He assigns a unique context to his environment, aided by the detail the VE provides. The addition of context permits the environment to be more understood, with a purpose in his virtual space. This demonstrates the environment having a role in VR, irrespective of his attendance. This detail legitimises his virtual world, in that his environment has experienced a history prior to his own presence there. He describes this as "reality-wear", as though to appear more real to him, or that the wear is in fact real. He has built a mental framework around his VE, enabling a greater sense of reality. This satisfies the literature's definition of presence. This extract from M highlights how his satisfactions with the virtual environment induces greater feelings of realism. During his exploration of a VE, he found "just what you'd expect" and found this "rewarding" and "realistic". In finding reward from his expectations, the VR provided him with satisfaction, and high realism. This suggests he typically finds things different from his expectations, less satisfying and subsequently less real. The degree of feeling "realistic" relates directly to visual expectations being satisfied within VEs. This realism is complementary to higher presence and can be drawn from satisfying users' visual expectations.
"I remember an experience which was a seated experience, and not so much exploration in the sense of moving around, where the scenery changed when you N reported feeling "like, you know, there", emphasising his feelings of presence in VR. This is prompted by observing "something impossible", or rather it happens off screen "where you didn't see it". The continuity of the unobserved is synonymous to true life. However, the impossibility of the event conflicts with this. The event is "not possible in real life, but possible in VR", asserting that VR can provide users with experiences not possible in the real world. This "stays with" him, as a lasting, memorable experience. Therefore, he considers VR a method to experience extraordinary things, in which he feels "there", although not true-to-life. Event realism can therefore be assumed of little importance to him. Yet observing something possible only in VR induced a response that could "still make you feel" as though he were truly "there". For N, visual events provided realistic presence, in the absence of true realism.
"It's like a platforming game, but it's just this huge lush jungle. As far as you can see. And you're right in the middle of it playing with a little mouse. But like, the appeal of the game isn't necessarily the platform. It's more this believable forest-scape with, you know, the beautiful lighting and the butterflies floating through the trees. And you're like 'holy shit that, that is real'. You know, it's such a strong sense of atmosphere that it teleports you to another place".
O finds himself "right in the middle" of this VE, stating his "appeal" to originate from "this believable forest-scape". Believability, being able to ascertain the VE as genuine, demonstrates his satisfaction that his environment is realistically convincing. These feelings are strongly exclaimed as he shares "holy shit that, that is real". The influence of 'believability' provides him with "such a strong sense of atmosphere" that "teleports" him "to another place", this being the VE. In being deeply satisfied with the credibility of the visual environment, and being able to indulge in the atmosphere, he is powerfully compelled to believe in the VE, influencing his presence within it.

Freedom of interaction
Individuals' sense of freedom to interact, and the degree to do so at will, became apparent during analysis. The ability to act, and interact, within an environment enabled the users to engage within a novel realm and aided in creating a sense of presence, of 'being' within the VE. This co-operative relationship between user & VE, the cause and effect, demonstrated a higher level of experiential depth. Users must feel 'able'; able to manipulate, to experience, and to explore at their own desire. Discussions found that in having the freedom to interact within respective VEs, users felt a greater degree of presence within VR. "The first time you do it your brain goes 'it's definitely not the same set of actions'. But like, after a few repetitions, your brain goes 'well, that's just the action that we need to pick things up right now, so we'll just accept that', and then it just disappears from your mind. And again, kinaesthetic projection kicks in and you forget that there's any real difference. You just sort of think 'I want to do this' and then you do the thing. It's with, with full presence, I think like, all of that none one-to-one stuff, it stops mattering, it all fades away".
Here, O describes how his interactions in VR enabled his sense of presence. He reports noticing no "real difference" between real-world and virtual actions. This demonstrates being able to replicate his real-world impact. When he feels as though "I want to do this" and then being able to "do the thing", he highlights his lack of restriction and freedom to act as desired. Regardless of the "none one-to-one", to which he refers to the translation between his physical actions and his virtual, he recalls this "stops mattering". He discusses an interesting consequence of how being fully present permitted his action disparity to have little importance. Therefore, his virtual actions clearly relate directly to his feelings of presence. Finally, he highlights how his brain "accepts" dissimilarities between real-world and virtual action, and how this "disappears from your mind". He points out that this took "a few repetitions" suggesting that acceptance of his actions was gained by experience and is not a natural phenomenon. Once achieved, his interaction was accepted and it 'disappears from his mind'. The interaction became more natural, in turn enabling presence.

"You're constantly interacting with either people, or things. You can pick things up and play with them. And in Eleven Eleven it's a viewing narrative experience, so whilst you can go off and explore the world I couldn't like, pick up a flower or go in the tavern and pick up the drink".
R describes a high level of constant interaction in an experience and recalls her interactions as "play". This symbolises her interactions evoke a sense of fun and enjoyment. She also, however, describes the limitations she reaches in a VE. She contrasts "so whilst you can" and "I couldn't" as though she wishes to be able to perform the described actions. Being unable to "play" with her surroundings therefore is cast in a negative light, with potentially less enjoyment. She chose to mention her inability to act upon objects, after describing how a user is in constant interaction. This acts to iterate that the inability to do so is noteworthy to her. And so, the freedom or restriction of potential action is clearly a distinguishable feature that can empower or restrict the user. It is this ability to engage that users sought to experience, aiding in feeling present and joyful during VR.
"I would probably say it's more about the level of sort of interaction and control that I myself am allowed to dictate, whether it's based on the controllers or uh whatever I'm using to, you know, move within the simulation, opposed to just the headset tracking me and being allowed to be more free" Here, M indicates his preference towards VEs that provide him with a level of "interaction and control". His ability to control and interact as he wishes enables him to feel present. In "being allowed to be more free", this assists in the transference from his real-world setting to that of the virtual. This appears to be irrespective of "whatever I'm using to, you know, move", suggesting that this freedom can be provided through either technology or in-VR action. And so, whilst real-world translation of action is not key, to feel present in VR he requires the ability to "dictate" his own actions with the freedom of real life. Restrictive aspects, or inability to lead the VE, therefore inevitably obstruct presence.
"It's also about the, oh, what's the, I think the similitude. Like with racing simulations and flight simulation speed. Being able to do something that approximates the real thing has really boosted up by being in VR, like really having the feeling of sitting in a cockpit be it a race car or an aeroplane". For N, "being able" induces "the feeling of sitting in a cockpit". Stating he felt "boosted up" by VR, his ability to perform within the VE with "similitude" to real life enabled "really having the feeling". His ability within VR coincides with his feelings of realism. He recalls how his freedom to act as he wishes, unrestrictedly, provided him with a greater sense of truth to VR. His ability to perform "something that approximates the real thing" is what provides his sense of pseudo-reality. This similarity, but not perfect replication, of real life within VR, provided enough of a sense of "really having the feeling". Consequently, his presence improves from "being able" to act, and to do so with "similitude" to the real world. Providing the freedom to perform actions, and avoiding disparity, enables his virtual presence.

Suspending real life
The ability to place on-hold one's attentiveness to the realworld frequently arose during interviews. Attending the real world is incompatible with a highly present virtual experience. Instead, users were able to suspend their real-world focus in favour of the virtual. This was discussed as a passive role, rather than an active commitment.

"Urm and I was playing it one summer when it was really hot, so I put my fan on my desk, and I had this
cold air fan blowing on to me so that I was you know, cooling down and the VR headset wasn't getting too hot. And in the same, I stood out on this bridge over a river…it just, the wind blowing in my face suddenly just made me completely forget I was in VR…I was fully there in that space in time".
In this extract, L is subjected to a real-world haptic stimulus whilst immersed in VR, and passively experiences the stimulus in a hybrid state. He verbally identifies within VR, stating "he stood out on this bridge". He refers specifically to his position in virtual space, speaking as though it were his physical body, self-locating within the VE. Simultaneously, he experiences "the wind blowing" in his face. This stimulus had the potential to influence his mental positioning and was covertly assigned to his virtual embodiment. He experiences the wind as his virtual self, supporting his digital embodiment, which "just made me completely forget I was in VR", eliminating his awareness of his true body. In being "made" to forget, he addresses this not as a choice, but rather a consequence of the presented stimuli. He had, to some degree, assumed the role of his virtual self, which resulted in an additional stimulus being subconsciously assigned, dispelling the fact it was a true body experience. This encouraged his commitment to VR, as he found himself "fully there".
"At times indistinguishable, I think, from reality. Urm, again, with the help of, like, the brain being such a malleable little bugger. It is. I mean I am using the knuckles and there's a there's a few games now designed for knuckles and at times it can be incredible just how much you forget that they're there and you can just reach out and grab an object. But even in crappy games like the sense of interaction with the physical world can feel so natural. Again, that your brain forgets that it's not doing a direct one-to-one. Sort of, you know, it's not one-to-one. But that non-translation happens really naturally".
O leads by remarking how he can find VR "at times indistinguishable" from reality. He attributes a high degree of presence to VR in being unable to distinguish the two. By stating "at times", he confirms that this is not a consistent state of mind but is instead subjective. His uncertainty is fuelled by "the help of, like, the brain", which he coins a "malleable little bugger". His interesting terminology playfully suggests his mind provides him with dissatisfaction, as if to concede his elected reality is beyond his control. Exclaiming that "it can be incredible just how much you forget that they're there", he demonstrates surprise at how inattentive he became to the handheld peripherals. This distraction from the devices resembles a cognitive shift from his real-world actuality to his virtual self. This is reinforced by his confidence in being able to "just reach out and grab an object" in VR when, in physicality, he cannot feel the item. As an individual, he powerfully assumes his role in VR, overlooking his true self. This can feel "so natural" to him, as his digital assumption is evident "even in crappy games", as well as being unaffected by "not doing a direct one-to-one" in terms of actions performed. His visual and haptic stimuli are both uninfluential to his mental location. This represents a powerful 'locking out' of the real world, only being able to confess "sort of, you know, it's not one-to-one" whilst admitting "that non-translation happens really naturally" within conscious decision.
"I was really there, you know, I mean for a while I, you know, the world was gone, and I had the headset on I was really there because I was so curious about the whole world. I mean, that one has to be the one that I was the most intensely immersed in of all the games I've played. Urm, because it was just so interesting. I mean it was almost real the things that went on and the sizes of things and you didn't have to suspend belief".
Here, A considers herself "really there" in her experience, although denotes this as "for a while". She points out this was not a permanent state, and so must be a degree of presence she transitioned into. Acknowledging "the world was gone" whilst she "had the headset on", she draws a contrast between recognising the role of physical hardware, and how this removed her awareness of the real world. Interestingly then, once wearing the headset, she was able to ignore its location as a real-world object on her. Evidentially, she states this occurred because "I was so curious about the whole world". This high-order cognition, the desire of exploration, provided a compelling 'draw' that she was able to become present in VR. Furthermore, "because it was so interesting" she remarks it as "the most intensely immersed" she had felt. Interest and curiosity therefore appear keyf to A as a mitigator of feeling highly present in VR and removing her sense of the real-world. These influences appear powerful enough to act passively, as she "didn't have to suspend belief" actively. Her highly present experience was conveyed greatly by cognition, allowing her to believe she was "really there" and the VE was "almost real" to her.
"So it is very frightening of how real it can be, but at the same time those sort of little bits of VR which make it just as equally as not very real and jumps you back into the world" M reported having difficulties maintaining presence which grants us an inverse view. He believes it to be "very frightening of how real it can be", meaning he has previously experienced presence sufficiently to initiate an emotional response. If it can be real, or cannot be, he does not experience these feelings consistently. His use of "can be" defines his experiences of 'real' as something that is triggered or influenced by something other than himself. He indicates that the source of this variation is a result of "those sort of little bits of VR" in that they "make it just as equally as not very real". And so, his perspective of "how real" depends on the VR system itself, rather than his own state of mind, reporting he feels that it "jumps you back into the world". In being the result of VR, he outlines a lack of control over his feelings of real or unreal. Accordingly, his depiction of 'real' is dictated by immersive technological aspects. This demonstrates he experiences a relationship between his mental acceptance of a 'real' VE and the headset. If the "bits of VR" do not permit a sense of "real", he finds himself unable to assimilate the VE and instead is left with a "not very real" experience.

Discussion
Interviewees provided accounts of their experiences of presence in VR and between them identified; visual satisfaction, freedom of interaction and suspension of real life as commonly noteworthy. Across each account, presence was considered a positive feature of virtual reality, inducing greater senses of a 'real environment' within the digital space. This confirms the definitions of presence in accordance with previous literature (Sanchez-Vives and Slater 2005;Sheridan 1996).
Self-accounts of visual satisfaction, the first theme, were reported across the range of individuals' experiences. Crossaccount analysis found frequent user expectations of what should be observed within the VE. This appears to originate from previous real-world experiences, such as expecting items to exhibit wear and tear, or for typical household items to be in a location suited to where one would expect. Interviewees reported experiences as either similar or dissimilar to their expectations, upon which, synonymous to life experiences satisfied the users' expectations. This visual satisfaction generated visual realism, enabling feelings of a realistic environment.
Event realism was briefly discussed, appearing not to have the same cognitive value. A visually realistic environment conveyed believability to the user as a genuine space to act within. Further to this, within an environment that was not a true-to-life experience, an impossibility, an interviewee still reported high feelings of realism and of 'being there'. Although visual satisfaction appears to be a multi-faceted influence, individuals repeatedly refer to its consequences as feeling 'real'. This empowered the virtual space as a 'real' space for the individuals, and in turn, a space to act within.
Graphic fidelity was rarely mentioned and was not stated to induce the same feelings of presence, with variations between accounts of its relevance. Surrounding the accounts of the VE appearing real, believable, or visually realistic, individuals attributed themselves as being 'within' the virtual environment as if with synchronicity. Being visually satisfied with the presented VR permitted the cognitive sensation of being within it. These accounts support literature such as Bowman and McMahan (2007) in line with immersive fidelity not being the sole inducer of presence. Visual satisfaction, the fulfilment of users preconceived expectations, provided realistic and present experiences, rather than high graphic fidelity alone. This provides the literature with newly gained insight into the role of the visual aspects of VR, not being solely based upon the immersive fidelity of vision, but also its relevance directly to the individual. This may assist in providing insight into mixed results when investigating immersive qualities, such as research by Baños et al. (2004) and Uno and Slater (1997). A VE should also seek to satisfy individuals' preconceptions, and abide by expectations of the real world, in order to provide greater depth of presence.
Individuals' accounts also brought to light the importance of the user's freedom of interaction, the second superordinate theme. Whilst on the surface this may appear to be a matter of game development, individuals instead approach the phenomenon as a reciprocated engagement, hereby demonstrating relevance to more than just the VE. The desire to interact with the virtual world could be considered as quasi-natural, as one interviewee analogised it as being like a "kid with a cake in front of them and told not to eat it". Game mechanics were mentioned on occasion but did not form the basis for individuals' discussions. Instead, individuals reported being actively accepting of a non 'one-toone' translation between handheld control and their actions within VR. This hereby side-lines the role of game mechanics currently.
Commonalities between accounts focused on the ability to interact and act with freedom. Absence of restriction, whilst immersed, was key. Users recounted their experiences as deeply explorative, rapidly rejecting the phenomenon of presence if unable to virtually participate in the digital world. It was necessary to act and engage within the environment. With being able to do so, VR became a greater attentive experience, often resulting in users forgetting the real world. Desired interactions varied between accounts, from the desire to play, to the ability to assume control. Yet the freedom to do so at will, to act as they wanted within their own world, was common throughout all discussions.
Perhaps this highlights a role of individuality, for it may be assumed each person would not take the same virtual path as another. However, withholding over-ambition, individuals stated a more direct similarity. The ability to act with freedom and engage with the environment constantly yielded feelings of presence. It was reported how being able to act within VR felt natural and so can be assumed a restrictive VE would feel less so. The natural aspect of being able to act at will, may seek to replicate real life, for as in the real world, our interactive capabilities are unbound. The feelings of natural interaction were not opposed by peripherals, but instead were rapidly accepted and indifferences faded.
Alongside interactive experiences came greater enjoyment, freedom and play. When able to interact, the similitude between VR and real life was greater, universally attributing their interactivity as closer to reality and with a greater naturalistic feel. The feelings of experiencing a synthetic environment as natural and realistic abides by Slater's (2003) definition of presence, whilst also clear from individuals' accounts, as the inability to differentiate between the two worlds. Interaction therefore encompasses a range of desired actions, unique to the preferences of the individual, however the desire of freedom to act in a variety of ways remains unifying, and inductive of presence. Examining literature on virtual reality interactions found it almost solely dedicated to communicative interactions with users, for example within educational applications, and so it was not possible to compare these findings to previous research. No relevant literature was found to address the cognitive roles of freedom, interaction, and presence. It is hoped such interactions will be considered for future research.
The final theme surrounded the interviewees' experiences of being able to suspend real life, in terms of being passively able to ignore or suspend attention to real-world presence. It was found that several passive occurrences amongst the interviewees supported a presence-inducing environment. The covert suppression of real-world information repeatedly led to an enhanced experience within VR. One individual reversibly described difficulties in developing presence, occasionally being unable to ignore the overt real-world, yet still able to on occasions.
For each case, ignorance of real-world awareness directly influenced their feelings of self-location. Upon the suspension of real life, attentiveness to VR consumed the user, providing an enhanced degree of presence. This was consistently portrayed as passive, with one interviewee confirming that 'suspending belief' was not necessary. It is key to state that no individual acquired presence as a result of this passive influence, rather it acted to support their experience, providing deeper cognitive involvement. The origin of this phenomenon acts as if to be a dichotomous switch, which when triggered, permits what some reported as "full presence" or "fully there". This choice of language infers that they couldn't become any more present, and that they had reached the maximum potential of reality within VR. Conversely, this may also be interpreted as users having reached their minimum potential of awareness of their real selves. This state of real-world suspension was retold as a variety of positive assessments, often with individuals in surprise or disbelief. This reinforces recent findings by Kim et al (2021) in which virtual self-location, potential to act and enjoyment were all strongly correlated in a longitudinal study surrounding VR presence.
The individual who struggled to maintain presence consistently recounted the potential reality of VR as 'frightening'. Although this was evident in the extract provided in the analysis, this did not represent his general feelings towards experiencing presence. The source of real-world suspension (or the inability to suspend) was not universal, rather it was unique to each personal account. No two accounts reported the accession to deeper presence as occurring from the same origins. This should therefore be considered as a matter of individuality. Schuemie et al. (2001) had previously suggested that suppression of information that is incompatible with VR is of vital importance for presence. Whilst one individual's account appears to support this theory, it is noted that the remaining accounts do not clearly specify incompatible information, rather building upon their experience or self-investment.
Of the themes identified during analysis, none appeared any more relevant or effective to experiences of presence than the other. Greater presence was universally considered to improve the virtual experience, enabling the user to feel located within the environment and heighten their sense of 'real'. There was a high level of individuality when examining the emerging themes; however, commonalities provided guidance to the origins of presence, rather than recommendations on how to elicit the phenomenon. Care should be taken not to assume a one-fits-all approach when looking to enable a highly present VE, as this risks suitability for some individuals whilst exclusively restricting others. The degree of individuality in VR has been previously recognised, where Usoh et al. (2000) drew attention to the potential ineffectiveness of quantitative methodologies, in favour of a more idiographic approach. After all, it appears individuals demonstrate flexibility and willingness to accept VR to fit themselves, rather than requiring perfection. According to our findings, it appears the mind is willing to 'fill in the gaps'.
Analytical findings examined accounts of several individuals and how they personally experienced presence in a virtual environment in a way that is currently lacking within this specific research area. In applying the novelty of qualitative methods, a variety of themes have been identified as being common throughout all participants as contributing to feeling present. It is requested that both qualitative and quantitative research take note of both; the relevance of these identified themes for the virtual participant, as well as the utility of this method whilst investigating presence beyond the scope of technological manipulation and questionnaires. That is, the role of the individual user is key to their experiences, and so quantitative experiments may not always be the most appropriate for VR research, depending on the research aims.
It is hoped that the contributions of this paper will enable technologies, researchers, and VR applications in clinical and therapeutic uses to recognise and encourage the role of the key factors identified. To suggest some specific potential uses for these findings: using VR as a pain-mediator, such as with burn patients, a VE that has a greater 'ability to engage' and 'freedom of ability to lead' will assist greater 'Freedom of Interaction' and, as findings would suggest, induce greater virtual presence. Greater presence has been shown to reduce perceived pain (Hoffman, et al., 2006). Therefore, understanding precisely which subordinate factors can facilitate greater presence can lead to less painful and more comfortable pain treatments, simply by specifically electing for VEs that the identified factors of presence. Similarly, within the entertainment industry, understanding that 'imperfection ignorance' and 'believability' are both contributors to 'Visual Satisfaction', can assist game development. That is, creating a visually perfect and complete environment is not crucial, and yet, alongside believable game mechanics (such as gravity and actions upon object) users are able to mitigate the imperfections and permit themselves to become highly present. Finally, cognitive treatments using VR may find a great deal of use in applying the findings of the superordinate theme 'Suspending Real Life' to be of importance. Electing for a VE that encourages continuous stimulation ('maintaining virtual belief') as well as in-game focus ('ignoring reality') would enable a deeper virtual presence for the user and encourage more attentiveness to the treatment.
IPA demonstrated itself as a powerful method of analysis, highly appropriate for investigating experiences of virtual reality. Its fundamental principles align fittingly to investigate modern VR phenomena, adopting an idiographic approach. It is important to note, however, that as this paper is the first to adopt a novel qualitative approach, comparisons to previous qualitative literature are either methodologically complex or inappropriate. Beyond that, some findings lack prior research upon which to compare. This being said, findings can still be seen to support, enlighten upon or conflict with some of the literature previously discussed. In addition, the data obtained from the small number of interviews conducted provided a much larger insight and breadth of analysis than anticipated, and it is with reluctance that not all identified themes could be reported upon in depth. With this in mind, it is strongly encouraged that future research should look to explore IPA as an alternative to quantitative methods should it be appropriate to the research aims, with a view to obtaining further comparable research and gain even further insight into individuals' experiences of virtual reality.

Reflexivity
During the literature review process, it became clear that whilst 'immersion' is a well-defined concept, 'presence' is less so. This recognition arose from several researched publications, and frequently during interviews. After all, if academics fail to agree on a unanimous concept, it would be unjust to expect casual users of VR to be well-informed of the terminological difference. Furthermore, this is almost to be expected, when it has been previously noted that presence and immersion co-occur. As such, it arose repeatedly where insights into presence were described as 'feeling so immersed' or 'highly immersed'. Complications arose with the conflict of whether to suggest they were referring to high presence, or perhaps they themselves were absolute in what they meant. This level of interpretation did not suit the methodological approach, and so remained as told to the interviewer. As such, there may have been potential loss of valuable data.
In terms of participants, at least half of the interviewees were involved with VR as their predominant occupation. During interviews, and again during analysis, emotive language was not noticeably favourable, describing both positive and negative aspects of the VR experiences each had gained. It cannot be said if this may, or may not, have affected the research. Upon realisation of this similarity between interviewees, attention was paid towards any potential influence this may have. This was also reflected upon during the analytical and conclusive stages of research development, however no subsequent influence was noted, yet it cannot be ruled out completely.
The data acquisition method performed in this research was not the primary choice. Initially, data collection was to be performed with in-person interviews yet remaining in line with IPA guidance. The causes for the change were beyond control, and a matter of social benefit during the COVID-19 pandemic. This resulted in adaptation to online recruitment which dramatically influenced the research. Online data collection was highly time consuming with a surprisingly low level of respondents. This may have also been a result of subject novelty, which would have been negated with inperson interviews, at the intended recruitment site (a VR arcade). Nevertheless, the secondary method was adopted, and research continued. This is expected to have affected the number of interviewees, as well as their disposition. It would be ideal for future research to utilise in-person data collection methods when appropriate. Although it is believed the analytical findings are not warped as a result of the alternative data collection method, it should be recognised when these findings are being applied to practical uses and future research.
Funding No funding was received in light of this research project.

Conflict of interest No conflicts of interest are declared.
Ethical approval This research was conducted under approval from the University of Derby Ethical Committee for research with human participants.
Informed consent Informed consent was obtained from each participant prior to research engagement.