skip to main content
10.1145/3225153.3225170acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessapConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Effects of anthropomorphic fidelity of self-avatars on reach boundary estimation in immersive virtual environments

Published:10 August 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Research has shown that self-avatars (life-size representations of the user in Virtual Reality (VR)) can affect how people perceive virtual environments. In this paper, we investigated whether the visual fidelity of a self-avatar affects reach boundary perception, as assessed through two variables: 1) action taken (or verbal response) and 2) correct judgment. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions: i) high-fidelity self-avatar, ii) low-fidelity self-avatar, iii) no avatar (end-effector), and iv) real-world as reference task group. Results indicate that all three VR viewing conditions were significantly different from real world in regards to correctly judging the reachability of the target. However, based on verbal responses, only the "no avatar" condition had a non-trivial difference with real world condition. Taken together with reachability data, participants in "no avatar" condition were less likely to correctly reach to the reachable targets. Overall, participant performance improved after completing a calibration phase with feedback, such that correct judgments increased and participants reached to fewer unreachable targets.

References

  1. Ettore Ambrosini, Claudia Scorolli, Anna M Borghi, and Marcello Costantini. 2012. Which body for embodied cognition? Affordance and language within actual and perceived reaching space. Consciousness and Cognition 21, 3 (2012), 1551--1557.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Domna Banakou, Raphaela Groten, and Mel Slater. 2013. Illusory ownership of a virtual child body causes overestimation of object sizes and implicit attitude changes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110, 31 (2013), 12846--12851.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Paul D Bliese. 1998. Group size, ICC values, and group-level correlations: A simulation. Organizational Research Methods 1, 4 (1998), 355--373.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Jacob Cohen, Patricia Cohen, Stephen G West, and Leona S Aiken. 2003. Applied multiple correlation/regression analysis for the behavioral sciences. UK: Taylor & Francis (2003).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Sarah H Creem-Regehr, Jeanine K Stefanucci, and William B Thompson. 2015. Perceiving absolute scale in virtual environments: How theory and application have mutually informed the role of body-based perception. In Psychology of Learning and Motivation. Vol. 62. Elsevier, 195--224.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Brian Day, Elham Ebrahimi, Leah S Hartman, Christopher C Pagano, and Sabarish V Babu. 2017. Calibration to tool use during visually-guided reaching. Acta psychologica 181 (2017), 27--39.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Elham Ebrahimi, Leah S. Hartman, Andrew Robb, Christopher C. Pagano, and Sabarish V. Babu. 2018. Investigating the Effects of Anthropomorphic Fidelity of Self-Avatars on Near Field Depth Perception in Immersive Virtual Environments. IEEE Virtual Reality 2018 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Austen L Hayes, Amy C Ulinski, and Larry F Hodges. 2010. That avatar is looking at me! social inhibition in virtual worlds. In International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents. Springer, 454--467. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. David A Hofmann. 1997. An overview of the logic and rationale of hierarchical linear models. Journal of management 23, 6 (1997), 723--744.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Pierpaolo Iodice, Nicolò Scuderi, Raoul Saggini, and Giovanni Pezzulo. 2015. Multiple timescales of body schema reorganization due to plastic surgery. Human movement science 42 (2015), 54--70.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Gunnar Johansson. 1973. Visual perception of biological motion and a model for its analysis. Perception & psychophysics 14, 2 (1973), 201--211.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Eunice Jun, Jeanine K Stefanucci, Sarah H Creem-Regehr, Michael N Geuss, and William B Thompson. 2015. Big foot: Using the size of a virtual foot to scale gap width. ACM Transactions on Applied Perception (TAP) 12, 4 (2015), 16. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Konstantina Kilteni, Raphaela Groten, and Mel Slater. 2012a. The sense of embodiment in virtual reality. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 21, 4 (2012), 373--387. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Konstantina Kilteni, Jean-Marie Normand, Maria V Sanchez-Vives, and Mel Slater. 2012b. Extending body space in immersive virtual reality: a very long arm illusion. PloS one 7, 7 (2012), e40867.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Qiufeng Lin, John Rieser, and Bobby Bodenheimer. 2015. Affordance judgments in HMD-based virtual environments: Stepping over a pole and stepping off a ledge. ACM Transactions on Applied Perception (TAP) 12, 2 (2015), 6. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Sally A Linkenauger, Heinrich H Bülthoff, and Betty J Mohler. 2015. Virtual armŒş s reach influences perceived distances but only after experience reaching. Neuropsychologia 70 (2015), 393--401.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Sally A Linkenauger, Markus Leyrer, Heinrich H Bülthoff, and Betty J Mohler. 2013. Welcome to wonderland: The influence of the size and shape of a virtual hand on the perceived size and shape of virtual objects. PloS one 8, 7 (2013), e68594.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Antonella Maselli and Mel Slater. 2013. The building blocks of the full body ownership illusion. Frontiers in human neuroscience 7 (2013), 83.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Ryan P McMahan, Chengyuan Lai, and Swaroop K Pal. 2016. Interaction fidelity: the uncanny valley of virtual reality interactions. In International Conference on Virtual, Augmented and Mixed Reality. Springer, 59--70.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Betty J Mohler, Sarah H Creem-Regehr, William B Thompson, and Heinrich H Bülthoff. 2010. The effect of viewing a self-avatar on distance judgments in an HMD-based virtual environment. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 19, 3 (2010), 230--242. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Christopher C Pagano and Michael T Turvey. 1998. Eigenvectors of the inertia tensor and perceiving the orientations of limbs and objects. Journal of Applied Biomechanics 14, 4 (1998), 331--359.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Brian Ries, Victoria Interrante, Michael Kaeding, and Lane Phillips. 2009a. Analyzing the effect of a virtual avatar's geometric and motion fidelity on ego-centric spatial perception in immersive virtual environments. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology. ACM, 59--66. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Brian Ries, Victoria Interrante, Michael Kaeding, and Lane Phillips. 2009b. Analyzing the effect of a virtual avatar's geometric and motion fidelity on ego-centric spatial perception in immersive virtual environments. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology. ACM, 59--66. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Sverker Runeson and Gunilla Frykholm. 1983a. Kinematic specification of dynamics as an informational basis for person-and-action perception: expectation, gender recognition, and deceptive intention. Journal of experimental psychology: general 112, 4 (1983), 585.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Sverker Runeson and Gunilla Frykholm. 1983b. Kinematic specification of dynamics as an informational basis for person-and-action perception: Expectation, gender recognition, and deceptive intention. Journal of experimental psychology: general 112, 4 (1983), 585.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Mel Slater, Angus Antley, Adam Davison, David Swapp, Christoph Guger, Chris Barker, Nancy Pistrang, and Maria V Sanchez-Vives. 2006. A virtual reprise of the Stanley Milgram obedience experiments. PloS one 1, 1 (2006), e39.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Tom A.B. Snijders and Roel J. Bosker. 1999. Multilevel analysis: an introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. Sage Publications (1999).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Jeffrey B Wagman and Anthony Chemero. 2014. The end of the debate over extended cognition. In Neuroscience, Neurophilosophy and Pragmatism. Springer, 105--124.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Effects of anthropomorphic fidelity of self-avatars on reach boundary estimation in immersive virtual environments

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in
          • Published in

            cover image ACM Conferences
            SAP '18: Proceedings of the 15th ACM Symposium on Applied Perception
            August 2018
            162 pages
            ISBN:9781450358941
            DOI:10.1145/3225153

            Copyright © 2018 ACM

            Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 10 August 2018

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article

            Acceptance Rates

            Overall Acceptance Rate43of94submissions,46%

            Upcoming Conference

            SAP '24
            ACM Symposium on Applied Perception 2024
            August 30 - 31, 2024
            Dublin , Ireland

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader