“Physiological measures of presence in stressful virtual environments” by Meehan, Insko, Whitton and Brooks Jr.

A common measure of the quality or effectiveness of a virtual environment (VE) is the mount of presence it evokes in users. Presence is often defined as the sense of being there in a VE. There has been much debate about the best way to measure presence, and presence researchers need, and have sought, a measure that is reliable, valid, sensitive, and objective.We hypothesized that to the degree that a VE seems real, it would evoke physiological responses similar to those evoked by the corresponding real environment, and that greater presence would evoke a greater response. To examine this, we conducted three experiments, the results of which support the use of physiological reaction as a reliable, valid, sensitive, and objective presence measure. The experiments compared participants’ physiological reactions to a non-threatening virtual room and their reactions to a stressful virtual height situation. We found that change in heart rate satisfied our requirements for a measure of presence, change in skin conductance did to a lesser extent, and that change in skin temperature did not. Moreover, the results showed that inclusion of a passive haptic element in the VE significantly increased presence and that for presence evoked: 30FPS > 20FPS > 15FPS.

1. Abelson, J. L. and G. C. Curtis (1989). Cardiac and neuroendocrine responses to exposure therapy in height phobics. Behavior Research and Therapy, 27(5): 561-567.Google Scholar
2. Andreassi, J. L. (1995). Psychophysiology: Human behavior and physiological response. Hillsdale, N. J., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
3. Barfield, W., T. Sheridan, D. Zeltzer and M. Slater (1995). Presence and performance within virtual environments. In W. Barfield and T. Furness, Eds., Virtual environments and advanced interface design. London, Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
4. Cowings, P., S. Jensen, D. Bergner and W. Toscano (2001). A lightweight ambulatory physiological monitoring system. NASA Ames, California.Google Scholar
5. Dillon, C., E. Keogh, J. Freeman and J. Davidoff (2001). Presence: Is your heart in it? 4th Int. Wkshp. on Presence, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
6. Ellis, S. R. (1996). Presence of mind: A reaction to Thomas Sheridan’s “Further musings on the psychophysics of presence”. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 5(2): 247-259.Google Scholar
7. Emmelkamp, P. and M. Felten (1985). The process of exposure in vivo: cognitive and physiological changes during treatment of acrophobia. Behavior Research and Therapy, 23(2): 219.Google Scholar
8. Freeman, J., S. E. Avons, D. Pearson, D. Harrison and N. Lodge (1998). Behavioral realism as a metric of presence. 1st Int. Wkshp. on Presence.Google Scholar
9. Guyton, A. C. (1986). Basic characteristics of the sympathetic and parasympathetic function. In Textbook of Medical Physiology, 688-697. Philadelphia, W. B. Saunders Company.Google Scholar
10. Heeter, C. (1992). Being there: The subjective experience of presence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 1: 262-271. Google Scholar
11. IJsselsteijn, W. A. and H. d. Ridder (1998). Measuring temporal variations in presence. 1st Int. Wkshp. on Presence.Google Scholar
12. B. Insko (2001). Passive haptics significantly enhance virtual environments, Doctoral Dissertation. Computer Science. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. Google Scholar
13. Kleinbaum, D., L. Kupper, K. Muller and A. Nizam (1998). Applied regression analysis and other multivariate methods. Google Scholar
14. Lipsey, M. W. (1998). Design sensitivity: Statistical power for applied experimental research. In L. Brickman and D. J. Rog, Eds., Handbook of applied social research methods, 39-68. Thousand Oaks, California, Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
15. Lombard, M. and T. Ditton (1997). At the heart of it all: The concept of presence. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 3(2).Google Scholar
16. McMurray, D. R. (1999). Director of Applied Physiology lab, University of North Carolina. Personal Communication.Google Scholar
17. M. Meehan (2001). Physiological reaction as an objective measure of presence in virtual environments. Doctoral Dissertation. Computer Science. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. Google Scholar
18. Regenbrecht, H. T. and T. W. Schubert (1997). Measuring presence in virtual environments. In Proc. of Human Computer Interface International, San Francisco.Google Scholar
19. SAS (1990). SAS/STAT User’s Guide, Version 6, Fourth Edition. Cary, NC, USA, SAS Institute Inc. Google Scholar
20. Schubert, T., F. Friedmann and H. Regenbrecht (1999). Embodied presence in virtual environments. In R. Paton and I. Neilson, Eds., Visual Representations and Interpretations. London, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
21. Sheridan, T. B. (1996). Further musings on the psychophysics of presence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 5(2): 241-246.Google Scholar
22. Singleton, R. A., B. C. Straits and M. M. Straits (1993). Approaches to Social Research. New York, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
23. Slater, M., M. Usoh and A. Steed (1994). Depth of presence in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 3(2): 130-144.Google Scholar
24. Slater, M., M. Usoh and A. Steed (1995). Taking steps: The influence of a walking technique on presence in virtual reality. ACM Transactions on Computer Human Interaction (TOCHI), 2(3): 201-219. Google Scholar
25. Slater, M. (1999). Measuring Presence: A Response to the Witmer and Singer Presence Questionnaire. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 8(5): 560-565. Google Scholar
26. Slonim, N. B., Ed. (1974). Environmental Physiology. Saint Louis. The C. V. Mosby Company.Google Scholar
27. Sutherland, S. (1996). The international dictionary of psychology. New York, The Crossroads Publishing Company.Google Scholar
28. Usoh, M., K. Arthur, M. Whitton, R. Bastos, A. Steed, M. Slater and F. Brooks (1999). Walking > walking-in-place > flying in virtual environments. In Proc. of ACM SIGGRAPH 99. ACM Press/ ACM SIGGRAPH. Google Scholar
29. Weiderhold, B. K., R. Gervirtz and M. D. Wiederhold (1998). Fear of flying: A case report using virtual reality therapy with physiological monitoring. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 1(2): 97-104.Google Scholar
30. Witmer, B. G. and M. J. Singer (1998). Measuring presence in virtual environments: A presence questionnaire. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 7(3): 225-240. Google Scholar