1. Quantifying Immersion in Virtual Reality Randy Pausch Dennis Proffitt George Williams University of Virginia SIGGRAPH 1997

2. Previous Work Taxonomies Robinett, Zeltzer Subjective ratings Heeter Fish-tank performance Arthur, McKenna v. Hand-based analysis Chung

3. Quantifying Immersion A sense of “being there” Justify VR research Motivating factors –Search for possibly existent item –Control with head v. hand –Tactile input v. implied The subject “room”.

4. The Experiment VR mode –Input: 6DOF tracker –View: stereo vision headset, moveable Desktop mode –Input: 6DOF tracker –View: stereo vision headset, stationary Target character (possibly) embedded in camouflage Look familiar?

5. The Results Target searching: no VR advantage No target present: 41% decrease VR data was predictable

6. Transfer Effects VR training improves spatial cognition Desktop use degrades “real-world” performance

7. Contributions 1.Indication of improved short-term memory (FoR) 2.Improved traditional display use 3.Suggestion 2D world limits spatial cognition 4.Complement to definition of immersion

8. Possible Expansions Real-world manipulation (Voodoo dolls) PUSH device Further research on education through VR manipulation for 2D tasks

9. Secret Slide Is it fair to equate the “desktop” experience with actual use? What is the relation in importance between target being present and not? Would more detailed tasks preserve the same trends?