sychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts Immersive-360° theatre: user experience in the virtual auditorium and platform efficacy for current and underserved audiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study explores the efficacy and social potential of immersive-360° theatre– live captured theatre performances filmed for virtual reality viewing - as a remoteplatform for audiences to view theatre. We obtained survey and structured interviewresponses from 166 and 30 participants, respectively, self-categorised as regulartheatregoers, novices, and underserved audiences. We measured immersion,presence, and emotional arousal in the virtual auditorium, technology acceptance, andsocial perceptions including its compatibility with traditional theatre and use as a social,wellbeing, and accessibility tool. Findings show that in the immersive-360° theatreauditorium ratings for presence and immersion are mixed, and the latter is likely to beinfluenced by external factors including hardware quality and environmental distractors.For most, immersive-360° theatre is regarded as a positive tool for wellbeing andaccessibility, but many highlighted the absence of social aspects which are central tothe traditional theatre experience and cannot be replicated in such remote conditions.Despite this, the experience was enjoyable for most participants, and crucially, amajority of participants do not perceive immersive-360° theatre as a “threat” to itstraditional counterpart. Rather, with certain improvements it is seen as a compatibleand complementary offering that has potential for use as a digital offering forunderserved audiences and recruiting new patrons. Suggestions for improving thequality of the VR theatre experience and its potential as an accessibility tool includedimproving headset quality and resolution, additional accessibility and user controls, andimportantly the ability to share the experience with another in real-time.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".