| Literature DB >> 31736832 |
Sigbjørn Litleskare1, Giovanna Calogiuri1.
Abstract
Immersive virtual environments (IVEs) technology has emerged as a valuable tool to environmental psychology research in general, and specifically to studies of human-nature interactions. However, virtual reality is known to induce cyber sickness, which limits its application and highlights the need for scientific strategies to optimize virtual experiences. In this study, we assessed the impact of improved camera stability on cyber sickness, presence, and psychophysiological responses to a simulated nature walk. In a single-blinded trial, 50 participants were assigned to watch, using a head-mounted display, one of two 10-min 360° videos showing a first-person nature walk: one video contained small-magnitude scene oscillations associated with cameraman locomotion, while in the other video, the oscillations were drastically reduced thanks to an electric stabilizer and a dolly. Measurements of cyber sickness (in terms of both occurrence and severity of symptoms), perceptions of the IVE (presence and perceived environmental restorativeness), and indicators of psychophysiological responses [affect, enjoyment, and heart rate (HR)] were collected before and/or after the exposure. Compared to the low-stability (LS) condition, in the high-stability (HS) condition, participants reported lower severity of cyber sickness symptoms. The delta values for pre-post changes in affect for the LS video revealed a deterioration of participants' affect profile with a significant increase in ratings of negative affect and fatigue, and decrease in ratings of positive affect. In contrast, there were no pre-post changes in affect for the HS video. No differences were found between the HS and LS conditions with respect to presence, perceived environmental restorativeness, enjoyment, and HR. Cyber sickness was significantly correlated with all components of affect and enjoyment, but not with presence, perceived environmental restorativeness, or HR. These findings demonstrate that improved camera stability in 360° videos is crucial to reduce cyber sickness symptoms and negative affective responses in IVE users. The lack of associations between improved stability and presence, perceived environmental restorativeness, and HR suggests that other aspects of IVE technology must be taken into account in order to improve virtual experiences of nature.Entities:
Keywords: environmental perception; green exercise; immersive virtual environments; restorative environments; virtual reality
Year: 2019 PMID: 31736832 PMCID: PMC6839361 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02436
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
Baseline characteristics of the participants (n = 50).
| Male ( | 11 | 11 |
| Female ( | 14 | 14 |
| Age (years) | 30.6 (11.6) | 30.0 (11.3) |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 25.8 (3.5) | 24.6 (3.1) |
| Weekly physical activity (METs) | 54.8 (22.3) | 59.6 (26.4) |
Items used to assess presence.
| Being there | In the computer-generated world, I had the sense of “being there” |
| Realism | I thought of the virtual environment as equal to the real environment |
| Sense of reality | The virtual world became more real or present to me compared to the real world. NB: by “real world,” we mean the room where you were undergoing the test |
| Awareness | During the “virtual walk,” I often thought of the other person(s) in the room with me |
| Other persons | It would have been more enjoyable to engage with the “virtual world” with no one else in the room |
| External noises | While I was doing the “virtual walk,” I paid much attention to other noises around me in the room |
| Flatness | The virtual world appeared flat and missing in depth |
| Movements lag | The lag, delay or difference between my movements and the movements in the “virtual walk” were disturbing |
FIGURE 1Flow diagram showing participants enrolled, allocated to condition, and included in the analyses (Schulz et al., 2010).
FIGURE 2Comparison of the severity of cyber sickness symptoms measured with the Simulator sickness questionnaire after exposure to a low- or high-stability 360° video. SSQ Total = Total score (n = 50; medians and IQRs). ∗ = significant difference from low-stability video at the p < 0.05 level.
Spearman’s rho correlation between total cyber sickness score (top row) and the items of presence1, perceived environmental restorativeness2 (fascination, being away, coherence, compatibility), affect3 (positive affect, tranquility, negative affect, fatigue), enjoyment, HR, and background characteristics (n = 50).
| Being there1 | –0.14 |
| Realism1 | 0.09 |
| Sense of reality1 | 0.00 |
| Awareness1 | –0.04 |
| Other people1 | 0.22 |
| Noises1 | 0.19 |
| Flatness1 | 0.02 |
| Movement lag1 | –0.15 |
| Fascination2 | –0.22 |
| Being away2 | –0.19 |
| Coherence2 | 0.16 |
| Compatibility2 | –0.21 |
| Positive affect3 (Δ) | –0.39∗∗ |
| Tranquillity3 (Δ) | −0.35∗ |
| Negative affect3 (Δ) | 0.50∗∗ |
| Fatigue3 (Δ) | 0.63∗∗ |
| Enjoyment | –0.48∗∗ |
| HRmean | 0.11 |
| HRmax | 0.14 |
| Sex | 0.17 |
| Age | 0.04 |
| BMI | –0.15 |
| Weekly PA | –0.11 |
FIGURE 3Comparison of ratings of presence associated with exposure to a low- or high-stability 360° video (n = 50; medians and IQRs).
FIGURE 4Comparison of ratings of the four components of the perceived restorativeness scale (PER) associated with a low- or high-stability 360° video (n = 50; medians and IQRs).
Spearman’s rho correlation between different components of presence (top row) and the components of perceived environmental restorativeness1, affect2, enjoyment, HR, and background characteristics (n = 50).
| Fascination1 | 0.40∗∗ | 0.34∗ | 0.26 | 0.13 | 0.04 | –0.06 | −0.31∗ | –0.14 |
| Being away1 | 0.38∗∗ | 0.26 | 0.46∗∗ | –0.17 | –0.09 | –0.10 | –0.17 | 0.10 |
| Coherence1 | –0.04 | 0.03 | –0.04 | 0.19 | –0.09 | 0.05 | –0.05 | 0.23 |
| Compatibility1 | 0.36∗ | 0.21 | 0.29∗ | –0.01 | 0.00 | –0.09 | –0.18 | 0.06 |
| Positive affect2 (Δ) | 0.21 | 0.14 | –0.10 | –0.15 | –0.03 | –0.21 | –0.12 | –0.24 |
| Tranquillity2 (Δ) | 0.06 | 0.21 | –0.12 | –0.11 | –0.19 | –0.13 | 0.25 | –0.13 |
| Negative affect2 (Δ) | –0.07 | –0.09 | –0.06 | 0.12 | 0.07 | 0.04 | –0.14 | 0.31∗ |
| Fatigue2 (Δ) | –0.18 | –0.16 | –0.01 | 0.07 | 0.17 | 0.15 | 0.02 | 0.40∗∗ |
| Enjoyment | 0.28∗ | 0.30∗ | 0.06 | 0.17 | –0.09 | 0.17 | –0.18 | –0.19 |
| HRmean | –0.09 | 0.20 | –0.09 | 0.10 | 0.07 | –0.08 | 0.13 | –0.20 |
| HRmax | –0.09 | 0.24 | –0.09 | 0.09 | 0.09 | –0.10 | 0.08 | –0.21 |
Pre–post changes of the four components of affect.
| Pre | 3.67 | 3.67–4.00 | 3.67 | 3.00–4.00 |
| Post | 3.33∗∗ | 2.67–3.67 | 3.33 | 3.00–4.00 |
| Pre | 4.33 | 4.00–4.67 | 4.33 | 4.00–4.67 |
| Post | 3.67∗ | 2.67–4.33 | 4.00 | 3.33–4.67 |
| Pre | 1.00 | 1.00–1.33 | 1.00 | 1.00–1.67 |
| Post | 1.67∗ | 1.00–3.00 | 1.00 | 1.00–1.67 |
| Pre | 1.67 | 1.33–2.33 | 2.00 | 1.67–3.00 |
| Post | 2.00 | 1.33–3.33 | 1.67 | 1.00–2.67 |