Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

The Interaction Fidelity Model: A Taxonomy to Distinguish the Aspects of Fidelity in Virtual Reality

Published 26 Feb 2024 in cs.HC, cs.GR, and cs.MM | (2402.16665v1)

Abstract: Fidelity describes how closely a replication resembles the original. It can be helpful to analyze how faithful interactions in virtual reality (VR) are to a reference interaction. In prior research, fidelity has been restricted to the simulation of reality - also called realism. Our definition includes other reference interactions, such as superpowers or fiction. Interaction fidelity is a multilayered concept. Unfortunately, different aspects of fidelity have either not been distinguished in scientific discourse or referred to with inconsistent terminology. Therefore, we present the Interaction Fidelity Model (IntFi Model). Based on the human-computer interaction loop, it systematically covers all stages of VR interactions. The conceptual model establishes a clear structure and precise definitions of eight distinct components. It was reviewed through interviews with fourteen VR experts. We provide guidelines, diverse examples, and educational material to universally apply the IntFi Model to any VR experience. We identify common patterns and propose foundational research opportunities.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (114)
  1. Gregory D Abowd and Russell Beale. 1991. Users, systems and interfaces: A unifying framework for interaction. In HCI 1991: People and Computers IV. Vol. 4. 73–87.
  2. Beyond Being Real: A Sensorimotor Control Perspective on Interactions in Virtual Reality. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–17.
  3. Ernest Adams. 2014. Fundamentals of Game Design. New Riders.
  4. Juggling in VR: Advantages of Immersive Virtual Reality in Juggling Learning. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology (New York, NY, USA, 2019-11-12) (VRST ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359996.3364246
  5. Hamza A Al-Jundi and Emad Y Tanbour. 2022. A framework for fidelity evaluation of immersive virtual reality systems. Virtual Reality (2022), 1–20.
  6. Latency Requirements for Foveated Rendering in Virtual Reality. ACM Transactions on Applied Perception 14, 4 (Sept. 2017), 25:1–25:13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3127589
  7. From gaming to training: A review of studies on fidelity, immersion, presence, and buy-in and their effects on transfer in pc-based simulations and games. DARWARS Training Impact Group 5 (2005), 1–14.
  8. Examining the validity and fidelity of a virtual reality simulator for basic life support training. BMC Digital Health 1, 1 (2023), 16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s44247-023-00016-1
  9. Around the (Virtual) World: Infinite Walking in Virtual Reality Using Electrical Muscle Stimulation. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300661
  10. The perception of walking speed in a virtual environment. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 14, 4 (Aug. 2005), 394–406. https://doi.org/10.1162/105474605774785262
  11. Determining Detection Thresholds for Fixed Positional Offsets for Virtual Hand Remapping in Virtual Reality. In 2020 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR). IEEE Computer Society, 269–278. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISMAR50242.2020.00050
  12. Evaluating Multiple Levels of an Interaction Fidelity Continuum on Performance and Learning in Near-Field Training Simulations. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 24, 4 (April 2018), 1418–1427. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2018.2794639
  13. Kicking in Virtual Reality: The Influence of Foot Visibility on the Shooting Experience and Accuracy. In Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR) (Virtual, 2022-03-13). IEEE Computer Society, 711–718. https://doi.org/10.1109/VR51125.2022.00092
  14. Seeing the faces is so important—Experiences from online team meetings on commercial virtual reality platforms. Frontiers in Virtual Reality 3 (2023), 19. https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2022.945791
  15. Doug A. Bowman and Ryan P. McMahan. 2007. Virtual Reality: How Much Immersion Is Enough? Computer 40, 7 (July 2007), 36–43. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2007.257
  16. Questioning naturalism in 3D user interfaces. Commun. ACM 55, 9 (Sept. 2012), 78–88. https://doi.org/10.1145/2330667.2330687
  17. Cognitive Resource Demands of Redirected Walking. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 21, 4 (April 2015), 539–544. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2015.2391864
  18. Warm-up in a virtual reality environment improves performance in the operating room. Annals of surgery 251, 6 (2010), 1181–1185.
  19. Evaluating Virtual Patient Interaction Fidelity With Advanced Communication Skills Learners. Frontiers in Virtual Reality 2 (2022). https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2021.801793
  20. Collaborative virtual reality for laparoscopic liver surgery training. In 2019 IEEE International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Virtual Reality (AIVR). IEEE, 1–17.
  21. Skills acquired on virtual reality laparoscopic simulators transfer into the operating room in a blinded, randomised, controlled trial.. In MMVR. 76–81.
  22. Improving Mixed-Reality Prototyping through a Classification and Characterisation of Fidelity. Proceedings of the Design Society 2 (May 2022), 353–362. https://doi.org/10.1017/pds.2022.37
  23. WeATaViX: WEarable Actuated TAngibles for VIrtual Reality eXperiences. In Haptics: Science, Technology, Applications (Cham, 2020) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Ilana Nisky, Jess Hartcher-O’Brien, Michaël Wiertlewski, and Jeroen Smeets (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, 262–270. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58147-3_29
  24. How Different Tangible and Virtual Objects Can Be While Still Feeling the Same?. In 2019 IEEE World Haptics Conference (WHC). IEEE, Tokyo, Japan, 580–585. https://doi.org/10.1109/WHC.2019.8816164
  25. Magic, Superpowers, or Empowerment? A Conceptual Framework for Magic Interaction Techniques. In 2023 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces Abstracts and Workshops (VRW). 807–808. https://doi.org/10.1109/VRW58643.2023.00246
  26. Andrew Feinstein and Hugh Cannon. 2001. Fidelity, Verifiability, and Validity of Simulation: Constructs for Evaluation. Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning 28 (April 2001), 57–67.
  27. Automated psychological therapy using immersive virtual reality for treatment of fear of heights: a single-blind, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial. The Lancet Psychiatry 5, 8 (2018), 625–632.
  28. Danko D. Georgiev. 2020. Quantum information theoretic approach to the mind–brain problem. Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology 158 (Dec. 2020), 16–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2020.08.002
  29. Stephen B. Gilbert. 2016. Perceived Realism of Virtual Environments Depends on Authenticity. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 25, 4 (Dec. 2016), 322–324. https://doi.org/10.1162/PRES_a_00276
  30. Systematic Review on Realism Research Methodologies on Immersive Virtual, Augmented and Mixed Realities. IEEE Access 9 (2021), 89150–89161. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3089946
  31. Tavinor Grant. 2019. Towards an analysis of virtual realism. In DiGRA &#3919 - Proceedings of the 2019 DiGRA International Conference: Game, Play and the Emerging Ludo-Mix. DiGRA. http://www.digra.org/wp-content/uploads/digital-library/DiGRA_2019_paper_24.pdf
  32. A Framework for the Testing and Validation of Simulated Environments in Experimentation and Training. Frontiers in Psychology 11 (2020). https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00605
  33. Casper Harteveld. 2011. Triadic Game Design: Balancing Reality, Meaning and Play. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84996-157-8
  34. R. Hays and M. Singer. 1989. Simulation Fidelity in Training System Design: Bridging the Gap Between Reality and Training. Springer, New York, NY, USA.
  35. Flight Simulator Training Effectiveness: A Meta-Analysis. Military Psychology 4, 2 (June 1992), 63–74. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327876mp0402_1
  36. Shirley Holt. 2023. Virtual reality, augmented reality and mixed reality: For astronaut mental health; and space tourism, education and outreach. Acta Astronautica 203 (Feb. 2023), 436–446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2022.12.016
  37. Kasper Hornbæk and Antti Oulasvirta. 2017. What Is Interaction?. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 5040–5052. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025765
  38. Reality-based interaction: a framework for post-WIMP interfaces. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. 201–210.
  39. 3D User Interfaces: Theory and Practice (2 ed.). Addison Wesley, Boston.
  40. An Overview of Virtual Simulation and Serious Gaming for Surgical Education and Training. In Technologies of Inclusive Well-Being: Serious Games, Alternative Realities, and Play Therapy, Anthony Lewis Brooks, Sheryl Brahnam, and Lakhmi C. Jain (Eds.). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 289–306. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-45432-5_14
  41. Matching actual treadmill walking speed and visually perceived walking speed in a projection virtual environment. In Proceedings of the 7th Symposium on Applied Perception in Graphics and Visualization (APGV ’10). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 161. https://doi.org/10.1145/1836248.1836283
  42. Erin Kim and Oliver Schneider. 2020. Defining haptic experience: Foundations for understanding, communicating, and evaluating HX. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–13.
  43. Haptic PIVOT: On-Demand Handhelds in VR. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (Virtual Event USA, 2020-10-20). ACM, 1046–1059. https://doi.org/10.1145/3379337.3415854
  44. In the blink of an eye: leveraging blink-induced suppression for imperceptible position and orientation redirection in virtual reality. ACM Transactions on Graphics 37, 4 (Aug. 2018), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1145/3197517.3201335
  45. Marc Erich Latoschik and Carolin Wienrich. [n. d.]. Congruence and Plausibility, Not Presence: Pivotal Conditions for XR Experiences and Effects, a Novel Approach. 3 ([n. d.]). https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2022.694433
  46. Susan J Lederman and Roberta L Klatzky. 2009. Haptic perception: A tutorial. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 71, 7 (2009), 1439–1459.
  47. A spatial audio quality inventory (SAQI). Acta Acustica united with Acustica 100, 5 (2014), 984–994.
  48. Robert W. Lindeman and Steffi Beckhaus. 2009a. Crafting Memorable VR Experiences Using Experiential Fidelity. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology (Kyoto, Japan) (VRST ’09). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 187–190. https://doi.org/10.1145/1643928.1643970
  49. Robert W. Lindeman and Steffi Beckhaus. 2009b. Crafting memorable VR experiences using experiential fidelity. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology (New York, NY, USA, 2009-11-18) (VRST ’09). Association for Computing Machinery, 187–190. https://doi.org/10.1145/1643928.1643970
  50. Conceptualizing Fidelity for HCI in Applied Gaming. In HCI in Games - 1st International Conference, HCI-Games 2019, Held as Part of the 21st HCI International Conference, HCII 2019, Proceedings (LNCS), Xiaowen Fang (Ed.). Springer Nature Switzerland AG, 165–179. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22602-2_14
  51. Ke Ma and Bernhard Hommel. 2015. The role of agency for perceived ownership in the virtual hand illusion. Consciousness and Cognition 36 (2015), 277–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2015.07.008
  52. Michael Madary and Thomas K. Metzinger. 2016. Real Virtuality: A Code of Ethical Conduct. Recommendations for Good Scientific Practice and the Consumers of VR-Technology. Frontiers in Robotics and AI 3 (2016). https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frobt.2016.00003
  53. The effect of visual and interaction fidelity on spatial cognition in immersive virtual environments. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 12, 3 (2006), 396–404. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2006.55
  54. Mori Masahiro. 1970. The uncanny valley. Energy 7, 4 (1970), 33–35.
  55. Ryan Patrick McMahan. 2011. Exploring the effects of higher-fidelity display and interaction for virtual reality games. Ph. D. Dissertation. Virginia Tech.
  56. Ryan P. McMahan. 2018. Virtual Reality System Fidelity. In Encyclopedia of Computer Graphics and Games, Newton Lee (Ed.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08234-9_251-1
  57. Evaluating natural interaction techniques in video games. In 2010 IEEE Symposium on 3D User Interfaces (3DUI). 11–14. https://doi.org/10.1109/3DUI.2010.5444727
  58. Evaluating Display Fidelity and Interaction Fidelity in a Virtual Reality Game. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 18, 4 (April 2012), 626–633. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2012.43
  59. Interaction Fidelity: The Uncanny Valley of Virtual Reality Interactions. In Virtual, Augmented and Mixed Reality (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Stephanie Lackey and Randall Shumaker (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39907-2_6
  60. Joshua McVeigh-Schultz and Katherine Isbister. 2021. The Case for “Weird Social” in VR/XR: A Vision of Social Superpowers Beyond Meatspace. In Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411763.3450377
  61. Joshua McVeigh-Schultz and Katherine Isbister. 2022. A “beyond being there” for VR meetings: envisioning the future of remote work. Human–Computer Interaction 37, 5 (Sept. 2022), 433–453. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2021.1994860
  62. Magic Carpet: Interaction Fidelity for Flying in VR. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 26, 9 (2020), 2793–2804. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2019.2905200
  63. Merriam-Webster. 2024. Definition of Fidelity. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fidelity
  64. Haptic Fidelity Framework: Defining the Factors of Realistic Haptic Feedback for Virtual Reality. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New Orleans, LA, USA) (CHI ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 431, 17 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3501953
  65. Mahdi Nabiyouni. 2017. How Does Interaction Fidelity Influence User Experience in VR Locomotion? Doctoral Dissertation. https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/handle/10919/74945
  66. Comparing the performance of natural, semi-natural, and non-natural locomotion techniques in virtual reality. In 2015 IEEE Symposium on 3D User Interfaces (3DUI). 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1109/3DUI.2015.7131717
  67. Waiting for the Ultimate Display: Can Decreased Fidelity Positively Influence Perceived Realism? https://doi.org/10.1109/WEVR.2017.7957710
  68. Establishing the Range of Perceptually Natural Visual Walking Speeds for Virtual Walking-In-Place Locomotion. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 20, 4 (April 2014), 569–578. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2014.21
  69. The effect of visual display properties and gain presentation mode on the perceived naturalness of virtual walking speeds. In 2015 IEEE Virtual Reality (VR). 81–88. https://doi.org/10.1109/VR.2015.7223328
  70. Donald A. Norman. 1989. The Design of Everyday Things. Doubleday.
  71. Donald A. Norman and Stephen W. Draper. 1986. User centered system design: new perspectives on human-computer interaction. L. Erlbaum, Hillsdale (N. J.) London.
  72. A Classification of Faults Covering the Human-Computer Interaction Loop. In Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), António Casimiro, Frank Ortmeier, Friedemann Bitsch, and Pedro Ferreira (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 434–448. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54549-9_29
  73. Disney’s Aladdin: first steps toward storytelling in virtual reality. In Proceedings of the 23rd annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques (SIGGRAPH ’96). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 193–203. https://doi.org/10.1145/237170.237257
  74. A rating scale for the subjective assessment of simulation fidelity. The Aeronautical Journal 118, 1206 (2014), 953–974. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0001924000009635
  75. Sandra Poeschl. 2017. Virtual reality training for public speaking—a QUEST-VR framework validation. Frontiers in ICT 4 (2017), 13.
  76. The go-go interaction technique: non-linear mapping for direct manipulation in VR. In Proceedings of the 9th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology (New York, NY, USA, 1996-11-01) (UIST ’96). Association for Computing Machinery, 79–80. https://doi.org/10.1145/237091.237102
  77. Blurring the boundaries: the perception of visual gain in treadmill-mediated virtual environments: 3rd IEEE VR 2011 Workshop on Perceptual Illusions in Virtual Environments. In 3rd IEEE VR 2011 Workshop on Perceptual Illusions in Virtual Environments. IEEE, Singapore.
  78. Effects of Field of View and Visual Complexity on Virtual Reality Training Effectiveness for a Visual Scanning Task. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 21, 7 (July 2015), 794–807. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2015.2403312
  79. John R. Raser. 1969. Simulation and Society: An Exploration of Scientific Gaming. Allyn and Bacon.
  80. Redirected Walking. In Eurographics 2001 - Short Presentations. Eurographics Association. https://doi.org/10.2312/egs.20011036
  81. Trygve Reenskaug. 1979. The original MVC reports. Technical Report. Xerox Palo Alto Research Laboratory (PARC), Palo Alto, CA. 14 pages. https://folk.universitetetioslo.no/trygver/2007/MVC_Originals.pdf
  82. Conveying the Perception of Kinesthetic Feedback in Virtual Reality using State-of-the-Art Hardware. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’18. ACM Press, Montreal QC, Canada, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174034
  83. Exploring Interaction Fidelity in Virtual Reality: Object Manipulation and Whole-Body Movements. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300644
  84. Much Realistic, Such Wow! A Systematic Literature Review of Realism in Digital Games. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New Orleans, LA, USA) (CHI ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 190, 21 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3501875
  85. The human source memory system struggles to distinguish virtual reality and reality. Computers in Human Behavior Reports 4 (Aug. 2021), 100111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2021.100111
  86. Stuart Russell and Peter Norvig. 2020. Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach (4th Edition). Pearson. http://aima.cs.berkeley.edu/
  87. Shadan Sadeghian and Marc Hassenzahl. 2021. From Limitations to “Superpowers”: A Design Approach to Better Focus on the Possibilities of Virtual Reality to Augment Human Capabilities. In Designing Interactive Systems Conference 2021 (Virtual Event, USA) (DIS ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 180–189. https://doi.org/10.1145/3461778.3462111
  88. Pseudo-Haptic Weight: Changing the Perceived Weight of Virtual Objects By Manipulating Control-Display Ratio. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Glasgow, Scotland Uk) (CHI ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300550
  89. Virtual reality as a travel substitution tool during COVID-19. In Information and communication technologies in tourism 2021. Springer, 452–463.
  90. The Experience of Presence: Factor Analytic Insights. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 10, 3 (June 2001), 266–281. https://doi.org/10.1162/105474601300343603
  91. The role of physical props in vr climbing environments. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–13.
  92. Considerations on the use of virtual and augmented reality technologies in music education. In 2017 IEEE virtual reality workshop on K-12 embodied learning through virtual & augmented reality (KELVAR). IEEE, 1–4.
  93. Richard Skarbez. 2016. Plausibility Illusion in Virtual Environments. Doctoral Dissertation. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Graduate School, Chapel Hill. https://doi.org/10.17615/2mg3-gh93
  94. A Survey of Presence and Related Concepts. Comput. Surveys 50, 6 (Nov. 2017), 96:1–96:39. https://doi.org/10.1145/3134301
  95. A Psychophysical Experiment Regarding Components of the Plausibility Illusion. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 23, 4 (2017), 1369–1378. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2017.2657158
  96. Revisiting Milgram and Kishino’s Reality-Virtuality Continuum. Frontiers in Virtual Reality 2 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2021.647997
  97. Mel Slater. 2009. Place illusion and plausibility can lead to realistic behaviour in immersive virtual environments. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 364, 1535 (Dec. 2009), 3549–3557. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0138
  98. A Separate Reality: An Update on Place Illusion and Plausibility in Virtual Reality. Frontiers in Virtual Reality 3 (2022). https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frvir.2022.914392
  99. The Ethics of Realism in Virtual and Augmented Reality. Frontiers in Virtual Reality 1 (2020). https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frvir.2020.00001
  100. Mel Slater and Sylvia Wilbur. 1997. A framework for immersive virtual environments (FIVE): Speculations on the role of presence in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments 6, 6 (1997), 603–616.
  101. Terrence R. Stanford and Barry E. Stein. 2007. Superadditivity in multisensory integration: putting the computation in context. NeuroReport 18, 8 (May 2007), 787–792. https://doi.org/10.1097/WNR.0b013e3280c1e315
  102. Estimation of Detection Thresholds for Redirected Walking Techniques. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 16, 1 (Jan. 2010), 17–27. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2009.62
  103. Natural Perspective Projections for Head-Mounted Displays. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 17, 7 (July 2011), 888–899. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2010.248
  104. On the nature and evaluation of fidelity in virtual environments. Virtual and adaptive environments: Applications, implications, and human performance issues (2003), 111–128.
  105. Impossible Spaces: Maximizing Natural Walking in Virtual Environments with Self-Overlapping Architecture. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 18, 4 (April 2012), 555–564. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2012.47
  106. Ivan E. Sutherland. 1965. The Ultimate Display. In Proceedings of the IFIP Congress. 506–508.
  107. Kaisa Tiippana. 2014. What is the McGurk effect? Frontiers in Psychology 5 (2014). https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00725
  108. The Dark Side of Perceptual Manipulations in Virtual Reality. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3517728
  109. What We Don’t Know. The Effect of Realism in Virtual Reality on Experience and Behaviour. In Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality, M. Claudia tom Dieck and Timothy Jung (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 45–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-06246-0_4
  110. Brian D. Wassom. 2015. Augmented reality law, privacy, and ethics: law, society, and emerging AR technologies. Syngress, Waltham, MA.
  111. Designing for uncertain, asymmetric control: Interaction design for brain–computer interfaces. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 67, 10 (Oct. 2009), 827–841. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2009.05.009
  112. Bob G. Witmer and Michael J. Singer. 1998. Measuring Presence in Virtual Environments: A Presence Questionnaire. Presence: Teleoper. Virtual Environ. 7, 3 (June 1998), 225–240. https://doi.org/10.1162/105474698565686
  113. Jacob O. Wobbrock and Julie A. Kientz. 2016. Research contributions in human-computer interaction. Interactions 23, 3 (April 2016), 38–44. https://doi.org/10.1145/2907069
  114. Andre Zenner and Antonio Kruger. 2019. Estimating Detection Thresholds for Desktop-Scale Hand Redirection in Virtual Reality. In 2019 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR). IEEE, Osaka, Japan, 47–55. https://doi.org/10.1109/VR.2019.8798143
Citations (1)
View on Semantic Scholar

Summary

No one has generated a summary of this paper yet.

Sign Up to Summarize

Paper to Video (Beta)

No one has generated a video about this paper yet.

Sign Up to Generate All Videos Subscribe on YouTube

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this paper yet.

Sign Up to Generate

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Generate Now

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Generate Now

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Sign Up

Tweets

Sign up for free to view the 1 tweet with 0 likes about this paper.

Sign Up for Free