MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068411478 · doi:10.1016/j.intcom.2012.04.011

Manipulating subjective realism and its impact on presence: Preliminary results on feasibility and neuroanatomical correlates

2012· article· en· W2068411478 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueInteracting with Computers · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresRoyal Ottawa Mental Health CentreUniversity of OttawaUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsLibrary scienceMental healthRealismArt historySociologyPsychologyHistoryArtVisual artsComputer sciencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The feeling of presence has been shown to be an important concept in several clinical applications of virtual reality. Among the factors influencing presence, realism factors have been examined extensively from the angle of objective realism. Objective realism has been manipulated by altering numerous technological characteristics such as pictorial quality, texture and shading, or by adding more sensory information (i.e., smell, touch). Much less studied is the subjective (or perceived) realism, the focus of the two pilot studies reported in this article. In Study 1, subjective realism was manipulated in order to assess the impact on the feeling of presence. Method: Presence was measured in 31 adults after two immersions in virtual reality. Participants were immersed in a neutral/irrelevant virtual environment and subsequently subjected to the experimental manipulation. Participants in the experimental condition were falsely led to believe that they were immersed live in real time in a “real” room with a “real” mouse in a cage. In the control condition, participants believed they were immersed in a replica of the nearby room. All participants were actually immersed in the exact same virtual environment. Results: A manipulation check revealed that 80% of the participants believed in the deception. A 2 Times by 2 Conditions repeated measure ANOVA revealed that leading people to believe they were seeing a real environment digitized live in virtual reality increased their feeling of presence compared to the control condition. In Study 2, the same experimental design was used but with simultaneous functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) in order to assess brain areas potentially related to the feeling of presence. fMRI data from five participants were subjected to a within subject fixed effect analysis to verify differences between the experimental immersion (higher presence) and the control immersion (lower presence). Results revealed a statistically significant difference in left and right parahippocampus areas. Conclusion: Results are discussed according to layers of presence and consciousness and the meaning given to experiences occurring in virtual reality. Some suggestions are formulated to target core presence and extended presence.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.573

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.302 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it