Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/3139131.3139141acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesvrstConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Virtual reality studies outside the laboratory

Published: 08 November 2017 Publication History

Abstract

Many user studies are now conducted outside laboratories to increase the number and heterogeneity of participants. These studies are conducted in diverse settings, with the potential to give research greater external validity and statistical power at a lower cost. The feasibility of conducting virtual reality (VR) studies outside laboratories remains unclear because these studies often use expensive equipment, depend critically on the physical context, and sometimes study delicate phenomena concerning body awareness and immersion. To investigate, we explore pointing, 3D tracing, and body-illusions both in-lab and out-of-lab. The in-lab study was carried out as a traditional experiment with state-of-the-art VR equipment; 31 completed the study in our laboratory. The out-of-lab study was conducted by distributing commodity cardboard VR glasses to participants; 57 completed the study anywhere they saw fit. The effects found in-lab were comparable to those found out-of-lab, with much larger variations in the settings in the out-of-lab condition. A follow-up study showed that performance metrics are mostly governed by the technology used, where more complex VR phenomena depend more critically on the internal control of the study. We argue that conducting VR studies outside the laboratory is feasible, and that certain types of VR studies may advantageously be run this way. From the results, we discuss the implications and limitations of running VR studies outside the laboratory.

References

[1]
Kevin W. Arthur, Kellogg S. Booth, and Colin Ware. 1993. Evaluating 3D Task Performance for Fish Tank Virtual Worlds. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 11, 3 (July 1993), 239--265.
[2]
Cedric Bach and Dominique L Scapin. 2010. Comparing inspections and user testing for the evaluation of virtual environments. Internat. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 26, 8 (2010), 786--824.
[3]
Domna Banakou, Raphaela Groten, and Mel Slater. 2013. Illusory Ownership of a Virtual Child Body Causes Overestimation of Object Sizes and Implicit Attitude Changes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110, 31 (2013), 12846--12851.
[4]
John Bolton, Mike Lambert, Denis Lirette, and Ben Unsworth. 2014. PaperDude: A Virtual Reality Cycling Exergame (CHIEA '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 475--478.
[5]
Barry Brown, Stuart Reeves, and Scott Sherwood. 2011. Into the Wild: Challenges and Opportunities for Field Trial Methods (CHI '11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1657--1666.
[6]
Michael Buhrmester, Tracy Kwang, and Samuel D Gosling. 2011. Amazon's Mechanical Turk a new Source of Inexpensive, yet High-quality, Data? Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 6, 1 (2011), 3--5.
[7]
Kelly Caine. 2016. Local Standards for Sample Size at CHI (CHI '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 981--992.
[8]
Scott Carter, Jennifer Mankoff, and Jeffrey Heer. 2007. Momento: Support for Situated Ubicomp Experimentation (CHI '07). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 125--134.
[9]
Matthew J. C. Crump, John V. McDonnell, and Todd M. Gureckis. 2013. Evaluating Amazon's Mechanical Turk as a Tool for Experimental Behavioral Research. PLoS ONE 8, 3 (03 2013), 1--18.
[10]
Yvonne A. W. de Kort, Wijnand A. Ijsselsteijn, Jolien Kooijman, and Yvon Schuurmans. 2003. Virtual Laboratories: Comparability of Real and Virtual Environments for Environmental Psychology. Presence: Teleoper. Virtual Environ. 12, 4 (Aug. 2003), 360--373.
[11]
Azucena Garcia-Palacios, Hunter G. Hoffman, Albert Carlin, Thomas A. Furness, and Christina Botella. 2002. Virtual Reality in the Treatment of Spider Phobia: a Controlled Study. Behav. Res. Ther. 40, 9 (2002), 983 -- 993.
[12]
Laura Germine, Ken Nakayama, Bradley C. Duchaine, Christopher F. Chabris, Garga Chatterjee, and Jeremy B. Wilmer. 2012. Is the Web as Good as the Lab? Comparable Performance from Web and Lab in Cognitive/Perceptual Experiments. Psych. Bul. & Rev. 19, 5 (2012), 847--857.
[13]
Joseph K. Goodman, Cynthia E. Cryder, and Amar Cheema. 2013. Data Collection in a Flat World: the Strengths and Weaknesses of Mechanical Turk Samples. J. Behav. Dec. Making 26, 3 (2013), 213--224.
[14]
Sandy J. J. Gould, Anna L. Cox, and Duncan P. Brumby. 2016. Diminished Control in Crowdsourcing: An Investigation of Crowdworker Multitasking Behavior. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 23, 3, Article 19 (June 2016), 29 pages.
[15]
Jeffrey Heer and Michael Bostock. 2010. Crowdsourcing Graphical Perception: Using Mechanical Turk to Assess Visualization Design (CHI '10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 203--212.
[16]
Niels Henze, Martin Pielot, Benjamin Poppinga, Torben Schinke, and Susanne Boll. 2011. My App is an Experiment: Experience from User Studies in Mobile App Stores. Int. J. Mob. Hum. Comput. Interact. 3, 4 (Oct. 2011), 71--91.
[17]
Kasper Hornbæk. 2013. Some Whys and Hows of Experiments in Human-Computer Interaction. Found. Trends Hum.-Comput. Interact. 5, 4 (June 2013), 299--373.
[18]
Kasper Hornbæk, Søren S. Sander, Javier Andrés Bargas-Avila, and Jakob Grue Simonsen. 2014. Is Once Enough?: On the Extent and Content of Replications in Human-computer Interaction (CHI '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 3523--3532.
[19]
Konstantina Kilteni, Antonella Maselli, Konrad P. Kording, and Mel Slater. 2015. Over my Fake Body: Body Ownership Illusions for Studying the Multisensory Basis of Own-body Perception. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 9 (2015), 141.
[20]
Konstantina Kilteni, Jean-Marie Normand, Maria V. Sanchez-Vives, and Mel Slater. 2012. Extending Body Space in Immersive Virtual Reality: A Very Long Arm Illusion. PLoS ONE 7, 7 (07 2012), 1--15.
[21]
Aniket Kittur, Ed H. Chi, and Bongwon Suh. 2008. Crowdsourcing User Studies with Mechanical Turk (CHI '08). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 453--456.
[22]
Jesper Kjeldskov and Mikael B. Skov. 2014. Was It Worth the Hassle?: Ten Years of Mobile HCI Research Discussions on Lab and Field Evaluations (MobileHCI '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 43--52.
[23]
Sally A. Linkenauger, Markus Leyrer, Heinrich H. Bülthoff, and Betty J. Mohler. 2013. Welcome to Wonderland: The Influence of the Size and Shape of a Virtual Hand On the Perceived Size and Shape of Virtual Objects. PLoS ONE 8, 7 (07 2013).
[24]
Lara Maister, Natalie Sebanz, Günther Knoblich, and Manos Tsakiris. 2013. Experiencing Ownership Over a Dark-skinned Body Reduces Implicit Racial Bias. Cognition 128, 2 (2013), 170 -- 178.
[25]
Tim Marsh. 1999. Evaluation of Virtual Reality Systems for Usability (CHI EA '99). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 61--62.
[26]
Winter Mason and Siddharth Suri. 2012. Conducting Behavioral Research on Amazon's Mechanical Turk. Behav. Res. Methods 44, 1 (2012), 1--23.
[27]
Mark McGill, Daniel Boland, Roderick Murray-Smith, and Stephen Brewster. 2015. A Dose of Reality: Overcoming Usability Challenges in VR Head-Mounted Displays (CHI '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2143--2152.
[28]
Joseph E. McGrath. 1995. Human-computer Interaction. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco, CA, USA, Chapter Methodology Matters: Doing Research in the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 152--169.
[29]
Aske Mottelson and Kasper Hornbæk. 2016. An Affect Detection Technique Using Mobile Commodity Sensors in the Wild (UbiComp '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA 781--792.
[30]
Xueni Pan, Mel Slater, Alejandro Beacco, Xavi Navarro, Anna I. Bellido Rivas, David Swapp, Joanna Hale, Paul Alexander George Forbes, Catrina Denvir, Antonia F. de C. Hamilton, and Sylvie Delacroix. 2016. The Responses of Medical General Practitioners to Unreasonable Patient Demand for Antibiotics - A Study of Medical Ethics Using Immersive Virtual Reality. PLoS ONE 11, 2 (02 2016).
[31]
Gabriele Paolacci and Jesse Chandler. 2014. Inside the Turk: Understanding Mechanical Turk as a Participant Pool. Curr. Dir. Psychol. 23, 3 (2014), 184--188.
[32]
Katharina Reinecke and Krzysztof Z. Gajos. 2015. LabintheWild: Conducting Large-Scale Online Experiments With Uncompensated Samples (CSCW '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1364--1378.
[33]
Joel Ross, Lilly Irani, M. Six Silberman, Andrew Zaldivar, and Bill Tomlinson. 2010. Who Are the Crowdworkers?: Shifting Demographics in Mechanical Turk (CHI EA '10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2863--2872.
[34]
Steven V. Rouse. 2015. A Reliability Analysis of Mechanical Turk Data. Comput. Human Behav. 43 (2015), 304 -- 307.
[35]
Maria V. Sanchez-Vives, Bernhard Spanlang, Antonio Frisoli, Massimo Bergamasco and Mel Slater. 2010. Virtual Hand Illusion Induced by Visuomotor Correlations. PLoS ONE 5, 4 (04 2010), 1--6.
[36]
William R. Shadish, Thomas D. Cook, and Donald T. Campbell. 2002. Experimental and Quasi Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA, USA, Chapter Statistical Conclusion Validity and Internal Validity, 33--102.
[37]
Mel Slater, Angus Antley, Adam Davison, David Swapp, Christoph Guger, Chris Barker, Nancy Pistrang, and Maria V. Sanchez-Vives. 2006. A Virtual Reprise of the Stanley Milgram Obedience Experiments. PLoS ONE 1, 1 (12 2006), 1--10.
[38]
Mel Slater, Daniel Pérez Marcos, Henrik Ehrsson, and Maria V. Sanchez-Vives. 2008. Towards a Digital Body: The Virtual Arm Illusion. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2, 6 (2008).
[39]
Mel Slater, Daniel Perez-Marcos, H. Henrik Ehrsson, and Maria V. Sanchez-Vives. 2009. Inducing Illusory Ownership of a Virtual Body. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 3, 2 (15 Sep 2009), 214--220.
[40]
Mel Slater, Aitor Rovira, Richard Southern, David Swapp, Jian J. Zhang, Claire Campbell, and Mark Levine. 2013. Bystander Responses to a Violent Incident in an Immersive Virtual Environment. PLoS ONE 8, 1 (01 2013), 1--13.
[41]
Mel Slater, Bernhard Spanlang, Maria V. Sanchez-Vives, and Olaf Blanke. 2010. First Person Experience of Body Transfer in Virtual Reality. PLoS ONE 5, 5 (05 2010), 1--9.
[42]
Mel Slater, Martin Usoh, and Anthony Steed. 1994. Depth of Presence in Virtual Environments. Presence-Teleop. Virt. 3, 2 (Jan. 1994), 130--144.
[43]
Mel Slater, Martin Usoh, and Anthony Steed. 1995. Taking Steps: The Influence of a Walking Technique on Presence in Virtual Reality. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 2, 3 (Sept. 1995), 201--219.
[44]
Mel Slater and Sylvia Wilbur. 1997. A Framework for Immersive Virtual Environments Five: Speculations on the Role of Presence in Virtual Environments. Presence-Teleop. Virt. 6, 6 (Dec. 1997), 603--616.
[45]
R. William Soukoreff and I. Scott MacKenzie. 2004. Towards a Standard for Pointing Device Evaluation, Perspectives on 27 Years of Fitts' Law Research in HCI. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 61, 6 (Dec. 2004), 751--789.
[46]
STEAM. 2017. Steam Hardware & Software Survey: September 2017. http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey. (2017). [Accessed 01-September-2017].
[47]
Anthony Steed, Sebastian Frlston, Maria M. López, Jason Drummond, Ye Pan, and David Swapp. 2016. An 'In the Wild' Experiment on Presence and Embodiment using Consumer Virtual Reality Equipment. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 22, 4 (April 2016), 1406--1414.
[48]
Neil Stewart, Christoph Ungemach, Adam J. L. Harris, Daniel M. Bartels, Ben R. Newell Gabriele Paolacci, and Jesse Chandler. 2015. The Average Laboratory Samples a Population of 7,300 Amazon Mechanical Turk Workers. Jud. Dec. Mak. 10, 5 (2015), 479--491.
[49]
Alistair Sutcliffe and Brian Gault. 2004. Heuristic Evaluation of Virtual Reality Applications. Interact. Comput. 16, 4 (2004), 831--849.
[50]
Martin Usoh, Kevin Arthur, Mary C. Whitton, Rui Bastos, Anthony Steed, Mel Slater and Frederick P. Brooks, Jr. 1999. Walking > Walking-in-place > Flying, in Virtual Environments (SIGGRAPH '99). ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., New York, NY, USA, 359--364.
[51]
Ulrich von Zadow, Sandra Buron, Tina Harms, Florian Behringer, Kai Sostmann, and Raimund Dachselt. 2013. SimMed: Combining Simulation and Interactive Tabletops for Medical Education (CHI '13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1469--1478.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Understanding Online Education in Metaverse: Systems and User Experience Perspectives2024 IEEE Conference Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR)10.1109/VR58804.2024.00080(598-608)Online publication date: 16-Mar-2024
  • (2024)Comparing Continuous and Retrospective Emotion Ratings in Remote VR Study2024 16th International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX)10.1109/QoMEX61742.2024.10598301(139-145)Online publication date: 18-Jun-2024
  • (2024)Remote Extended Reality With Markerless Motion Tracking for Sitting Posture TrainingIEEE Robotics and Automation Letters10.1109/LRA.2024.34604129:11(9860-9867)Online publication date: Nov-2024
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
VRST '17: Proceedings of the 23rd ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology
November 2017
437 pages
ISBN:9781450355483
DOI:10.1145/3139131
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 08 November 2017

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. consumer VR
  2. crowdsourcing
  3. google cardboard
  4. user studies

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Funding Sources

Conference

VRST '17

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 66 of 254 submissions, 26%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)90
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)9
Reflects downloads up to 01 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Understanding Online Education in Metaverse: Systems and User Experience Perspectives2024 IEEE Conference Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR)10.1109/VR58804.2024.00080(598-608)Online publication date: 16-Mar-2024
  • (2024)Comparing Continuous and Retrospective Emotion Ratings in Remote VR Study2024 16th International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX)10.1109/QoMEX61742.2024.10598301(139-145)Online publication date: 18-Jun-2024
  • (2024)Remote Extended Reality With Markerless Motion Tracking for Sitting Posture TrainingIEEE Robotics and Automation Letters10.1109/LRA.2024.34604129:11(9860-9867)Online publication date: Nov-2024
  • (2024)Virtual Reality Relaxation for Stress in Young Adults: A Remotely Delivered Pilot Study in Participants’ HomesJournal of Technology in Behavioral Science10.1007/s41347-024-00394-xOnline publication date: 28-Mar-2024
  • (2023)Online Platforms for Remote Immersive Virtual Reality Testing: An Emerging Tool for Experimental Behavioral ResearchMultimodal Technologies and Interaction10.3390/mti70300327:3(32)Online publication date: 21-Mar-2023
  • (2023)Ecological validity of virtual reality simulations in workstation health and safety assessmentFrontiers in Virtual Reality10.3389/frvir.2023.10587904Online publication date: 16-Feb-2023
  • (2023)Lessons learnt running distributed and remote mixed reality experimentsFrontiers in Computer Science10.3389/fcomp.2022.9663194Online publication date: 5-Jan-2023
  • (2023)Comparing Mixed Reality Agent Representations: Studies in the Lab and in the WildProceedings of the 29th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology10.1145/3611659.3615719(1-11)Online publication date: 9-Oct-2023
  • (2023)A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Effectiveness of Body Ownership Illusions in Virtual RealityACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction10.1145/359076730:5(1-42)Online publication date: 23-Sep-2023
  • (2023)Challenges in Virtual Reality Studies: Ethics and Internal and External ValidityProceedings of the Augmented Humans International Conference 202310.1145/3582700.3582716(105-111)Online publication date: 12-Mar-2023
  • Show More Cited By

View Options

Get Access

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media