Laurie M. Wilcox
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.
- Adams, L. and Zuckerman, D. 1991. The effect of lighting conditions on personal-space requirements. Journal of General Psychology 118, 4, 335--340.Google Scholar
- Argyle, M. and Dean, J. 1965. Eye-contact, distance and affiliation. Sociometry 28, 3, 289--304.Google Scholar
- 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. Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- Barash, D. P. 1973. Human ethology---Personal space reiterated. Environment and Behavior 5, 1, 67--72.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- Critchley, H. D. 2002. Electrodermal responses: What happens in the brain. Neuroscientist 8, 2, 132--142.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- Durlach, N. and Slater, M. 2000. Presence in shared virtual environments and virtual togetherness. Presence-Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 9, 2, 214--217. Google Scholar
- Felipe, N. J. and Sommer, R. 1966. Invasions of personal space. Social Problems 14, 2, 206--214.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- Hall, E. T. 1963. A system for the notation of proxemic behavior. American Anthropologist 65, 5, 1003--1026.Google Scholar
- Hill, K. J. and Howarth, P. A. 2000. Habituation to the side effects of immersion in a virtual environment. Displays 21, 1, 25--30.Google Scholar
- Holbrook, M. 1998. Breaking the camouflage: Stereography as the cure for confusion, clutter, crowding and complexity. PSA Journal 64, 30--36.Google Scholar
- Horton, D. and Wohl, R. R. 1956. Mass-communication and para-social interaction---observations on intimacy at a distance. Psychiatry 19, 3, 215--229.Google Scholar
- Kaufman, L. 1974. Sight and Mind: An Introduction to Visual Perception. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
- Lombard, M. 1995. Direct responses to people on the screen---television and personal-space. Communication Research 22, 3, 288--324.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- McLaughlin, M. L., Sukhatme, G., Peng, W., Zhu, W., and Parks, J. 2003. Performance and copresence in heterogeneous haptic collaboration. Proceedings of 11th Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems. Google Scholar
- Pertaub, D. P., Slater, M., and Barker, C. 2002. An experiment on public speaking anxiety in response to three different types of virtual audience. Presence-Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 11, 1, 68--78. Google Scholar
- Reeves, B. and Nass, C. 2000. Perceptual bandwith. Communications of the Acm 43, 3, 65--70. Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- Short, J., Williams, E., and Christie, B. 1976. The Social Psychology of Telecommunications. Wiley, London.Google Scholar
- Slater, M. 2002. Presence and the sixth sense. Presence-Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 11, 4, 435--439. Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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. Google Scholar
- Tromp, J., Bullock, A., Steed, A., Sadagic, A., Slater, M., and Frecon, E. 1998. Small group behavior experiments in the Coven project. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 18, 6, 53--63. Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- Yee, N. 2005. The demographics, motivations, and derived experiences of users of massively multi-user online graphical environments. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments 15, 3, 309--329. Google Scholar
- Yin, R. K. 1969. Looking at upside-down faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology 81, 1, 141--151.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Personal space in virtual reality
Recommendations
Cyber sickness in low-immersive, semi-immersive, and fully immersive virtual reality
AbstractIt is known that virtual reality (VR) experience may cause cyber sickness. One aspect of VR is an immersion or otherwise sense of presence, the sense of feeling oneself in a virtual world. In this paper an experiment which was conducted in order ...
Human interactions and personal space in collaborative virtual environments
As humans start to spend more time in collaborative virtual environments (CVEs) it becomes important to study their interactions in such environments. One aspect of such interactions is personal space. To begin to address this, we have conducted ...
Avatar gender and personal space invasion anxiety level in desktop collaborative virtual environments
We report an investigation exploring the effect of avatar gender on the anxiety level caused by personal space (PS) invasion in desktop collaborative virtual environments (DCVE). We outline an experiment in which participants, of both genders, whose ...
Comments