Post on 26-Mar-2015
Immersive Virtual Reality
Jeremy BailensonDepartment of Communication
Stanford University
Virtual Human Interaction Labhttp://vhil.stanford.edu
Virtual Reality as a Communication Medium
• Define VR, discuss central concepts
• Do people treat virtual people like real people:Use personal space as metric
• Virtual reality application: Person Recognition
Structure of Research
HardwareEngineering
ComputerGraphics
User PsychologyExperiments
Collaborators
Stanford Undergraduates
Megan MillerAndrew OrinNicole LundbladJulia HuClaire CarlsonAaron SullivanBoyko KakaradovHassan AdubuJosh AinslieAdriean De La MoraJon ShihJaireh TecarroSam WarburgKathryn RickertsenJerry Yu
Stanford Graduate Students/Post Docs
Nick Yee
Kayur PatelRobby RatanHunter Gehlbach
Stanford Faculty
Shanto IyengarCliff Nass
UCSB Faculty/Post Docs
Andy BeallJim BlascovichJack Loomis Matthew Turk
Rosanna Guadagno
What is VR in Popular Culture?
What is VR in Popular Culture?
VR in the Real World
• Expensive
• Rare
• Clunky
• Poor Fidelity
but…
• Getting Better!
What is VR?
•William Gibson:
‘consensual hallucination’
•Jaron Lanier:
‘new post-symbolic paradigm which circumvents representation with a direct experience’
Digital Immersive Virtual Environment Technology
Technical Specifications
Optical tracking for translation (x,y,z)Accelerometer for rotation (pitch, yaw, roll)Microphone tracks mouth movements (open, closed)
Head Mounted Display (1280X1024 in each eye, 60 degrees diagonal Field of View)
WorldVizWorldViz• Immersive virtual reality turnkey system solutions
• Specialized on universities & researchers Products
Vizard 2.17 software for creating real-time interactivity in 3D worlds
PPT 1.2 optical precision position tracker
www.worldviz.com
Technical Specifications
Defining VR: Virtual Human Avatar
Defining VR: Virtual Human Representation
Defining VR: Virtual Human Representation
Defining VR: Tracking and Rendering
Immersive Virtual Environment Apparatus (HMD)
Proxemics
• Studied extensively in the social sciences since 1950’s
• Do proxemic patterns hold true with virtual humans? (copresence, social presence)
Sample Proxemics Task(Old technology…1999!)
Sample Data
Mutual Gaze Study: Task
Mutual Gaze Study:
Conditions
CONTROL CYLINDER
COND 1 EYES CLOSED
COND 2 EYES OPEN
COND 3 BLINKING
COND 4
BLINKS And
HEAD TURNS
COND 5
BLINKS, HEAD TURNS,
And PUPIL
DILATION
Mutual Gaze Study: Results
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Virtual Human Control Pylon
Met
ers
Minimum Distance (Virtual Human vs. Control Condition)
Mutual Gaze Study: Results
Virtual Human Representation Study
Independent Variables:
– Gaze (eyes closed vs. mutual gaze)
– ‘Soul’ (Agent/Avatar)
Agents
Avatars
Virtual Human Representation: Results
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Agent Avatar
Eyes ClosedMutual Gaze
Met
ers
Minimum Distance
Approaching Virtual Human Study
Virtual Human Approach Results
Min
imu
m D
ista
nce
(C
M)
.7
.6
.5
.4
.3
.2
.1
0.0
Stranger
Tutor
Virtual Human Status/Politeness Effects
Application:Virtual Reality and Police Lineups
Application:Virtual Reality and Police Lineups
Who Stole the Wallet? Who is the suspect?
Currently in US, 90 percent of lineups are fromPhotographs taken at a single angle
(not like the television shows)
Application:Virtual Reality and Police Lineups
Thank you!
Virtual Human Interaction Lab
http://vhil.stanford.edu