Advertisement

How Perceived Real-World Danger Affects Virtual Reality Experiences

  • Shengjie Yao
  • Gyoung KimEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 903)

Abstract

Since current VR system blocks user’s view (vision) of the real world as well as all the wires and physical objects around him/her, major VR manufactures such as HTC suggest securing a large space before experiencing the immersive virtual environment. There are possibilities that these “potential danger” elements could induce a negative effect on their virtual reality experiences. Exploring a relationship between user’s percieved danger of the real world and immersion in the virtual reality is the main topic of this paper. In particular, we wanted to see the level of perceived danger when a user in the immersive virtual environment encountered a dangerous situation from the objects in the “real world”.

Keywords

Virtual reality Risk perception Presence Risk management 

References

  1. 1.
    Wilde, T.: Man dies in VR accident, reports Russian news agency. Pcgamer (2017). https://www.pcgamer.com/man-dies-in-vr-accident-according-to-russian-news-agency/
  2. 2.
    Kuchera, B.: This is the VR game that’s hurting players, and they love it, polygon (2016). https://www.polygon.com/2016/4/11/11364904/htc-vive-selfie-tennis-injury-hands-ceilings
  3. 3.
    Biocca, F., Delaney, B.: Immersive virtual reality technology. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Hillsdale (1995)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Marketsandmarkets.com. Virtual reality market by component (hardware and software), technology (non-immersive, semi- & fully immersive), device type (head-mounted display, gesture control device), application and geography - global forecast to 2022 (Report Code: SE 3528) (2016)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Amasya, A., Solak, E., Erdem, G.: A content analysis of virtual reality studies in foreign language education. participatory educational research. spi15(2), 21–26.  https://doi.org/10.17275/per.15.spi.2.3 (2015a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Slater, M.: Place illusion and plausibility can lead to realistic behavior in immersive virtual environments. Philos. Trans. Royal Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 364(1535), 3549–3557 (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0138(2009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ghosh, S., et al.: NotifiVR: exploring interruptions and notifications in virtual reality. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 24(4), 1447–1456 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2018.2793698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gonçalves, R., Pedrozo, A.L., Coutinho, E.S.F., Figueira, I., Ventura, P.: Efficacy of virtual reality exposure therapy in the treatment of PTSD: a systematic review. PLoS ONE 7(12), e48469 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0048469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    LaMotte, S.: The very real health dangers of virtual reality CNN (2017). https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/13/health/virtual-reality-vr-dangers-safety/index.html
  10. 10.
    Suma, E.A., Krum, D.M.: Impossible spaces: maximizing natural walking in virtual environments with self-overlapping architecture. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 18(4), 10 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Adalberto, L., Simeone, E.V., Hans G.: Substitutional reality: using the physical environment to design virtual reality experiences. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2015), pp. 3307–3316. ACM, New York (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702389
  12. 12.
    Shapira, L., Freedman, D.: Reality skins: creating immersive and tactile virtual environments. In: 2016 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR), pp. 115–124, Merida (2016)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Steuer, J.: Defining virtual reality: dimensions determining telepresence. J. Commun. 42(4), 73–93 (1992).  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1992.tb00812.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pan, X., Hamilton, A.F.C.: Understanding dual realities and more in VR. Br. J. Psychol. (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Slater, M.: Immersion and the illusion of presence in virtual reality. Br. J. Psychol. 109, 431–433 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Oh, C.S., Bailenson, J.N., Welch, G.F.: A systematic review of social presence: definition, antecedents, and implications. Front. Robot. AI 5, 114 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2018.00114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Slater, M., Wilbur, S.: A framework for immersive virtual environments (FIVE): speculations on the role of presence in virtual environments. Presence – Teleoper. Virtual Environ. 6(6), 603–616 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hou, J., Nam, Y., Peng, W., et al.: Effects of screen size, viewing angle, and players’ immersion tendencies on game experience. Comput. Hum. Behav. 28, 617–623 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shin, D.: Do users experience real sociability through Social TV? J. Broadcast. Electron. Media 60(1), 140–159 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shin, D., Biocca, F.: Exploring immersive experience in journalism. New Media Soc. 20(8), 2800–2823 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817733133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sanchez-Vives, M.V., Slater, M.: From presence to consciousness through virtual reality. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 6, 332 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    McMahan, A.: Immersion, Engagement, and Presence, 20 (2003)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lang, A.: The limited capacity model of mediated message processing. J. Commun. 50, 46–70 (2000).  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02833.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Singh, A., Uijtdewilligen, L., Twisk, J.W.R., van Mechelen, W., Chinapaw, M.J.M.: Physical activity and performance at schoola systematic review of the literature including a methodological quality assessment. Arch. Pediatr. Adolesc. Med. 166(1), 49–55 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1001/archpediatrics.2011.716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hoffman, H.G., Patterson, D.R., Seibel, E., Soltani, M., Jewett-Leahy, L., Sharar, S.R.: Virtual reality pain control during burn wound debridement in the hydro tank. Clin. J. Pain 24(4), 299–304 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chan, E.A., Chung, J.W., Wong, T.K., Lien, A.S., Yang, J.Y.: Application of a virtual reality prototype for pain relief of pediatric burn in Taiwan. J. Clin. Nurs. 16(4), 786–793 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Maani, C.V., Hoffman, H.G., Morrow, M., Maiers, A., Gaylord, K., McGhee, L.L., et al.: Virtual reality pain control during burn wound debridement of combat-related burn injuries using robot-like arm mounted VR goggles. J. Trauma 71(1 Suppl), S125–130 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Van Twillert, B., Bremer, M., Faber, A.W.: Computer-generated virtual reality to control pain and anxiety in pediatric and adult burn patients during wound dressing changes. J. Burn Care Res. 28(5), 694–702 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gold, J.I., Belmont, K.A., Thomas, D.A.: The neurobiology of virtual reality pain attenuation. CyberPsychol. Behav. 10(4), 536–544 (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2007.993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Paek, H., Hove, T.: Risk perceptions and risk characteristics. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication (2017). http://communication.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228613-e-283. Accessed 18 Nov 2018
  31. 31.
    Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., Lichtenstein, S.: Perceived risk: psychological factors and social implications. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 376, 17–34 (1981).  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1981.0073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S., Combs, B.: How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes toward technological risks and benefits. Policy Sci. 9, 127–152 (1978).  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00143739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Witmer, B.G., Singer, M.J.: Measuring presence in virtual environments: a presence questionnaire. Presence: Teleoper. Virtual Environ. 7(3), 225–240 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Govern, J.M., Marsch, L.A.: Development and validation of the situational self-awareness scale. Conscious. Cogn. 10(3), 366–378 (2001).  https://doi.org/10.1006/ccog.2001.0506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kendzierski, D., DeCarlo, K.: Physical activity enjoyment scale two validation studies. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 13, 50–64 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.S.I. Newhouse School of Public CommunicationsSyracuse UniversitySyracuseUSA

Personalised recommendations