Study of Virtual Reality Performance Based on Sense of Agency

  • Daiji KobayashiEmail author
  • Yusuke Shinya
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10904)


In recent years, virtual reality (VR) technology has been applied to various needs and problems. However, there are as yet few guidelines for providing VR from user’s characteristics. Therefore, we aimed to make design guideline for VR from an ergonomics viewpoint and by observing the characteristics of the user’s performance in a virtual environment during a task. Thus, the task was designed to be performed in both in reality and a virtual environment. Using the task, we observed undesirable performances by the user which could be affected by aspects of the virtual environment. First, 15 participants completed the task in reality and their performance was measured based on the movement of their hand and a surface electromyogram on their fifth finger and lower arm. We therefore obtained the characteristics of the task. Second, seven participants performed the task in a virtual environment and their performance was observed. When analyzing the results, we found undesirable performance by the participants. We therefore consider the unusual phenomena related to aspects of our VR to be based on the concept of a sense of agency (SoA). Consequently, we estimated that knowledge or predefined significance is limited in a virtual environment and it is not useful to perform tasks in VR and keep SoA to some extent. In this context, we confirmed that introducing the concept of SoA is useful when explaining performance in VR. However, our conceptual consideration should be confirmed in further research.


Virtual reality Sense of agency Haptics Electromyogram 


  1. 1.
    Forbes-Pitt, K.: The Assumption of Agency Theory. Routledge, Oxfordshire (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Adams, E.: The designer’s notebook: Postmodernism and the 3 types of immersion. Accessed 20 Feb 2018
  3. 3.
    Frith, C.D., Blakemore, S.J., Wolpert, D.M.: Abnormalities in the awareness and control of action. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B. Biol. Sci. 355(1404), 1771–1788 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Synofzik, M., Vosgerau, G., Newen, A.: Beyond the comparator model: a multi-factorial two-step account of agency. Conscious. Cogn. 17(1), 219–239 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sato, A., Yasuda, A.: Illusion of sense of self-agency: discrepancy between the predicted and actual sensory consequences of actions modulates the sense of self-agency, but not the sense of self-ownership. Cognition 94(3), 241–255 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Limerick, H., Coyle, D., Moore, J.W.: The experience of agency in human-computer interactions a review. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 8(643), 1–10 (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Akahane, K., Sato, M.: Research on high fidelity haptic interface based on biofeedback. In: Yamamoto, S. (ed.) HIMI 2017. LNCS, vol. 10273, pp. 481–491. Springer, Cham (2017). Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chitose Institute of Science and TechnologyChitoseJapan

Personalised recommendations