Can Virtual Reality elicit the same responses as physical reality?

Controversies in Cognition Can Virtual Reality elicit the same responses as physical reality? Sam Crompton Sam Colyer Veronika Ciernikova

Virtual Reality • Jaron Lanier (1989) • Ivan Sutherland (1965) ‘illusion generated by a computer’. • “It is a looking glass into a mathematical wonderland.... There is no reason why the objects displayed by a computer have to follow the ordinary rules of physical reality.... " (pp. 506, 508).

Presence • “In normal life we are seldom aware of our sense of presence in the world. It is not an experience we are used to reflecting upon.” (Ijsselsteijn & Riva) • “The perceptual illusion of non-mediation” – (Lombard & Ditton, 1997). • Presence needs bottom up and top down: • VE is bottom up – the environment is immersive and perceptually salient • Top down – attentional selection processes are directed towards the mediated environment therefore allowing the formation of a consistent environmental representation.

Bottom-up • “when we experience our everyday sense of presence in the physical world, we automatically generate a mental model of an external space from stimuli on the sensory organs. So, the default sense of presence is the basic state of consciousness in which the user attributes the source of the sensation to the physical environment” (Riva, 2001). • Lumieres 1895 – Grand café, Paris • Haptics (Smith, 1997, Jones) • Force feedback • Kinesthetics • Tactile feedback • Texture, pressure etc.

Top-down • Presence needs: • Involvement • Psychological state experienced as a consequence of focussing one’s energy on a coherent set of stimuli or meaningfully related activities and events. (Ijjselseitjn & Riva, 2003) • Immersion • Psychological state where one perceives oneself to be enveloped by, included in, and interacting with an environment that provides a continuous stream of stimuli and experiences. (Ijjselseitjn & Riva, 2003)

Technology – part of us • Relationship with technology: • User centred design • Brain adaptation • “Effectively integrate the technology as a phenomenal extension of the self”. (Ijjelsteijn). • Body-image of amputees (Ramachandran and Blackeslee, 1998). • A blind-person’s cane, or an advanced tele-robotic arm.

In Sum… • The focus should be on interacting through a computer instead of interacting with a computer. • Just like writing a letter takes very little explicit ‘human-pen’ interaction – • cognitive disappearance (‘non-mediation)

VR can never elicit full presence • virtual ‘‘reality’’ is an oxymoron that is misleading and unnecessary (Stanney 1998) • the reality of experience is defined relative to functionality, rather than to appearances" (Flach & Holden, 1998).

Ecologically valid functioning • “the criterion of the validity of presence does not consist of simply reproducing the conditions of physical presence (immersion) • but in constructing environments in which actors may function in an ecologically valid way”

Cyber-sickness & adaptation • “From 80 to 95% of individuals exposed to a VE system report some level of post-exposure symptomatology (Stanney, 1998)

Cyber-sickness & adaptation • Simulator sickness is characterised by three classes of symptoms: • Ocular problems such as eyestrain, blurred vision and fatigue • (Mon-Williams et al, 1993; Regan and Price, 1993b; Rushton et al, 1994), • Disorientation & nausea • (Kennedy et al, 1993; Cobb et al, 1995; Kennedy et al, 1995; Kolasinski, 1995). • After-effects; Visual flashbacks & balance disturbances have occasionally occurred up to 12 hours after exposure • (Kennedy et al, 1993; Kennedy et al, 1995). • (In Stanney 1998)

Cyber-sickness & adaptation • “Many of these flaws and their perceptual and behavioral consequences will be with us for a long time and some may never be resolved” (Welch)

Is presence important? • “There is a widespread belief that presence should somehow improve task performance, • although this has yet to be verified or indeed reasons offered as to why this should be the case” (Stanney et al., 1998)

Possible, impossible, VR is…? • “Virtual reality is an effect, not an illusion.” (Bryson, 1996)

VR enhances learning, understanding,… • Scientific visualization • complex numerical representations • molecular modeling • data management (Bryson, 1996) • “I hear, I forget; I see, I remember; I do, I understand.” –Halmos - Learn by doing - Learn by playing (Roussou, 2004)

…fulfills our dreams… • In VR one can do anything they want, anything they ever dreamt of, things they could never do in the real world… • …creates virtual sexual experiences, induces drug-like effects (Cranford, 1996)

…provides freedom ● “All of us suffered a terrible trauma as children…where we had to accept the fact that we are physical beings and yet in the physical world where we have to do things, we are very limited. ● The thing that I think is so exciting about VR is that it gives us this freedom again.” –Lanier (Cranford, 1996)

Why do we desire VR? • Reason for our allure with VR: - through VR we can “achieve fulfillment and personal satisfaction” (Cranford, 1996)

What is at stakes? • Addiction • Decrease in social and intellectual skills • “A reasonable sense of world reality can be lost through immersion in virtual reality.” (Neumann, 1998)

VR provides freedom revisited ● “All of us suffered a terrible trauma as children…where we had to accept the fact that we are physical beings and yet in the physical world where we have to do things, we are very limited. ● The thing that I think is so exciting about VR is that it gives us this freedom again.” –Lanier (Cranford, 1996)

How free is the freedom VR offers? • What kind of freedom that is though if “no matter what choices the user makes, whatever the attempts to modify the world or cause a response, the final result is derived from a set of predefined options, predetermined by the creator”? (Roussou, 2004)

Conclusion • Sam 1 = Idealist • It is possible. • Task-orientated • Sam 2 = Realist • VR can never be veridical • Veronika • Practical benefits, BUT • Not ‘freedom’

REFERENCES: • CRANFORD, M.: The Social Trajectory of Virtual Reality: Substantive Ethics in a World Without Constraints, Technology in Society, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 79-92, 1996 • ROUSSOU, M.: Virtual reality and interactive theatres: Learning by doing and learning through play: an exploration of interactivity in virtual environments for children, Computers in Entertainment, Vol. 2, Issue 1, 2004 • BRYSON, S.: Virtual reality in scientific visualization, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 39, Issue 5, 1996 • NEUMANN, P.G.: Are Computers Addictive?, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 40, No. 3, 1998 • http://www.pattosoft.com.au/jason/Articles/HistoryOfComputers/VR-devices.jpg • http://www.americanroyalarts.com/library/ds173.jpg • Ijjeslsteijn, w., & Riva, G.: Being there: The experience of presence in mediated environments. • http://hsb.iitm.ernet.in/~jm/ARCHIVES/Jan-Feb04/articles_files/cinemahist.html • J. M. Loomis, Distal attribution and presence, Presence, Teleoperators, and Virtual Environments 1 • (1992) 113-118. • Riva, G., and Davide, F., 2001, Communications Through Virtual Technology: • Identity Community and Technology in the Internet Age. IOS Press: Amsterdam • Riva, G., Virtual Reality as communication tool: a socio-cognitive analysis • www.vepsy.com/communication/book1/1CHAPT_03.PDF • Smith, C., Human Factors in Haptic Interfaces • http://www.ima.umn.edu/talks/workshops/6-14-15.2001/jones/jones.pdf • http://turing.acm.org/crossroads/xrds3-3/haptic.html

Can Virtual Reality elicit the same responses as physical reality?