Personal space in virtual reality

ABSTRACT

Improving the sense of “presence” is a common goal of three-dimensional (3D) display technology for film, television, and virtual reality. However, there are instances in which 3D presentations may elicit unanticipated negative responses. For example, it is well established that violations of interpersonal space cause discomfort in real-world situations. Here we ask if people respond similarly when viewing life-sized stereoscopic images. Observers rated their level of comfort in response to animate and inanimate objects in live and virtual (stereoscopic projection) viewing conditions. Electrodermal activity was also recorded to monitor their physiological response to these stimuli. Observers exhibited significant negative reactions to violations of interpersonal space in stereoscopic 3D displays, which were equivalent to those experienced in the natural environment. These data have important implications for the creation of 3D media and the use of virtual reality systems.

REFERENCES

• 1: Adams, L. and Zuckerman, D. 1991. The effect of lighting conditions on personal-space requirements. Journal of General Psychology 118, 4, 335--340.
• 2: Argyle, M. and Dean, J. 1965. Eye-contact, distance and affiliation. Sociometry 28, 3, 289--304.
• 3: Bailenson, J. N., Blascovich, J., Beall, A. C., and Loomis, J. M. 2001. Equilibrium theory revisited: Mutual gaze and personal space in virtual environments. Presence-Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 10, 6, 583--598.
• 4: Bailenson, J. N., Blascovich, J., Beall, A. C., and Loomis, J. M. 2003. Interpersonal distance in immersive virtual environments. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 29, 7, 819--833.
• 5: Barash, D. P. 1973. Human ethology---Personal space reiterated. Environment and Behavior 5, 1, 67--72.
• 6: Bergman, B. A. 1971. The effects of group size, personal space, and success-failure upon physiological arousal, test performance, and questionnaire response. Dissertation Abstracts International 32, 6-A, 3419--3420.
• 7: Blade, R. A. and Padgett, M. L. 2002. Virtual environments standards and terminology. In Handbook of Virtual Environments, Kay M. Stanney, Eds., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. 15--28.
• 8: Critchley, H. D. 2002. Electrodermal responses: What happens in the brain. Neuroscientist 8, 2, 132--142.
• 9: Diamond, R. and Carey, S. 1986. Why faces are and are not special---an efect of expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology-General 115, 2, 107--117.
• 10: Durlach, N. and Slater, M. 2000. Presence in shared virtual environments and virtual togetherness. Presence-Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 9, 2, 214--217.
• 11: Felipe, N. J. and Sommer, R. 1966. Invasions of personal space. Social Problems 14, 2, 206--214.
• 12: Garcia-Palacios, A., Hoffman, H., Carlin, A., Furness, T. A., and Botella, C. 2002. Virtual reality in the treatment of spider phobia: A controlled study. Behavior Research and Therapy 40, 9, 983--993.
• 13: Hall, E. T. 1963. A system for the notation of proxemic behavior. American Anthropologist 65, 5, 1003--1026.
• 14: Hill, K. J. and Howarth, P. A. 2000. Habituation to the side effects of immersion in a virtual environment. Displays 21, 1, 25--30.
• 15: Holbrook, M. 1998. Breaking the camouflage: Stereography as the cure for confusion, clutter, crowding and complexity. PSA Journal 64, 30--36.
• 16: Horton, D. and Wohl, R. R. 1956. Mass-communication and para-social interaction---observations on intimacy at a distance. Psychiatry 19, 3, 215--229.
• 17: Kaufman, L. 1974. Sight and Mind: An Introduction to Visual Perception. Oxford University Press, New York.
• 18: Lombard, M. 1995. Direct responses to people on the screen---television and personal-space. Communication Research 22, 3, 288--324.
• 19: McBride, G., King, M. G., and James, J. W. 1965. Social proximity effects on galvanic skin responses in adult humans. Journal of Psychology 61, 1, 153.
• 20: Margaret McLaughlin , Gaurav Sukhatme , Wei Peng , Weirong Zhu , Jacob Parks, Performance and Co-Presence in Heterogeneous Haptic Collaboration, Proceedings of the 11th Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems (HAPTICS'03), p.285, March 22-23, 2003
• 21: David-Paul Pertaub , Mel Slater , Chris Barker, An experiment on public speaking anxiety in response to three different types of virtual audience, Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, v.11 n.1, p.68-78, February 2002 [doi>10.1162/105474602317343668 ]
• 22: Byron Reeves , Clifford Nass, Perceptual user interfaces: perceptual bandwidth, Communications of the ACM, v.43 n.3, p.65-70, March 2000 [doi>10.1145/330534.330542]
• 23: Reeves, B., Thorson, E., Rothschild, M. L., McDonald, D., Hirsch, J., and Goldstein, R. 1985. Attention to television---intrastimulus effects of movement and scene changes on alpha-variation over time. International Journal of Neuroscience 27, 3--4, 241--255.
• 24: Short, J., Williams, E., and Christie, B. 1976. The Social Psychology of Telecommunications. Wiley, London.
• 25: Mel Slater, Presence and the sixth sense, Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, v.11 n.4, p.435-439, August 2002 [doi>10.1162/105474602760204327 ]
• 26: Slater, M. and Wilbur, S. 1997. A framework for immersive virtual environments (FIVE): Speculations on the role of presence in virtual environments. Presence-Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 6, 6, 603--616.
• 27: Slater, M., Sadagic, A., Usoh, M., and Schroeder, R. 2000. Small-group behavior in a virtual and real environment: A comparative study. Presence-Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 9, 1, 37--51.
• 28: Jolanda Tromp , Adrian Bullock , Anthony Steed , Amela Sadagic , Mel Slater , Emmanuel Frécon, Small Group Behavior Experiments in the Coven Project, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, v.18 n.6, p.53-63, November 1998 [doi>10.1109/38.734980 ]
• 29: Yao, K. S., Matsui, T., Furukawa, H., Yao, T., Sakurai, T., and Mitsuyasu, T. 2002. A new stereoscopic endoscopy system: Accurate 3-dimensional measurement in vitro and in vivo with distortion-correction function. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 55, 3, 412--420.
• 30: Nick Yee, The demographics, motivations, and derived experiences of users of massively multi-user online graphical environments, Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, v.15 n.3, p.309-329, June 2006 [doi>10.1162/pres.15.3.309]
• 31: Yin, R. K. 1969. Looking at upside-down faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology 81, 1, 141--151.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.1 MODELS AND PRINCIPLES
      H.1.2 User/Machine Systems
          Subjects: Human factors

Additional Classification:
  J. Computer Applications
  J.4 SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
      Subjects: Psychology

General Terms:
Experimentation, Human Factors

Keywords:
Stereoscopic projection, and virtual reality, personal space