While there are various methods and techniques that can be used to measure brain activity and behavior in relation to VR experiences, these do not directly provide insights into an individual’s subjective experience of reality per se. It is not possible to accurately quantify the degree to which a virtual reality (VR) experience might be perceived as “real” by an individual as this is a subjective question that depends on the individual’s perceptions. Whether VR actually can be considered “being real” is particularly difficult to answer as there is no technique or experiment to directly measure its reality or to derive its ability to create a feeling of reality from its technical properties. By contrast, 3D cinema is not considered to create a form of reality albeit highly immersive. Surprisingly, there is little objective scientific evidence to support these introspective reports and there is little reason to believe that mounting a sophisticated monitor to the forehead indeed leads to an experience that can be considered a form of reality. However, at first glance, the question itself, whether VR is real, seems redundant, as the technology is labeled being a type of “reality” as most users describe an immersive experience. The answer to this question is crucial for the application of VR for scientific purposes as a tool for learning and for therapeutic purposes. Getting into touch with virtual reality (VR), there is one fundamental question that arises immediately: How real is VR? The answer to that question will decide whether VR will only be considered an advanced form of computer technology, a next-generation PC, or if there is a categorical difference between VR and conventional (immersive) media experiences. In conclusion, the study shows that contemporary photorealistic VR setups are technologically capable of mimicking reality, thus paving the way for the investigation of real-world cognitive and emotional processes under controlled laboratory conditions. Sensory processing, as reflected by beta-band oscillations, exhibits a different pattern for all conditions, indicating further room for improving VR on a haptic level. Specifically, alpha- and theta-band oscillations in line with heart rate variability, indexing vigilance, and anxiety were barely indistinguishable between those two conditions, while they differed significantly from the laboratory setup. Behavioral and psychophysiological results suggest that identical exogenous and endogenous cognitive as well as emotional mechanisms are deployed to process the real-life and virtual experience. Using a fire truck, three groups of participants experienced a real-life ( N = 25), a virtual ( N = 24), or a 2D laboratory ( N = 25) height exposure. Here, we show that real-life and VR height exposures using 3D-360° videos are mostly indistinguishable on a psychophysiological level (EEG and HRV), while both differ from a conventional 2D laboratory setting. However, subjective measurements might be prone to bias and, most importantly, do not allow for a comparison with real-life experiences. Determining the nature of VR has been mostly achieved by self-reported presence measurements, defined as the feeling of being submerged in the experience. Nevertheless, it is unclear whether VR constitutes an actual form of reality or is more like an advanced simulation. Virtual reality (VR) has become a popular tool for investigating human behavior and brain functions. 3Semantic Information Systems Research Group, Institute of Computer Science, Osnabrück University, Osnabrück, Germany.2Differential Psychology and Personality Research, Institute of Psychology, Osnabrück University, Osnabrück, Germany.1Experimental Psychology I, Institute of Psychology, Osnabrück University, Osnabrück, Germany.Benjamin Schöne 1*, Joanna Kisker 1, Leon Lange 2, Thomas Gruber 1, Sophia Sylvester 3 and Roman Osinsky 2
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |