MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403423541 · doi:10.1145/3677098

Press A or Wave: User Expectations for NPC Interactions and Nonverbal Behaviour in Virtual Reality

2024· article· en· W4403423541 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Yin, Robert Xiao

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVirtual Reality Applications and Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversitas Brawijaya
KeywordsNonverbal communicationVirtual realityHuman–computer interactionPsychologyComputer scienceCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Non-playable characters (NPCs) are important in games, as they can provide guidance to the player, create social engagement, and advance the game's narrative. Although much research exists regarding NPC interactions for traditional gaming environments, e.g. desktop or console, fewer works have considered this from a virtual reality (VR) perspective. Our work first uncovers the salient and unique dimensions of VR NPC interactions through observations of 47 existing games. We find that VR NPC interactions have an extended set of interaction mechanisms due to two key factors - interaction triggers and player constraints within the game, driven by the unique qualities of physical motion and immersion afforded by the medium. We augment these findings through a user study performed on 18 participants in a VR environment. Participant interactions with a responsive NPC allow us to delve deeper into understanding player perception and expectations of NPC behaviour and interactions. Our findings outline player expectations for NPC realism, player agency during NPC interaction, and NPC expected behaviour and feedback. We tie our findings into discussions on player agency within VR, highlighting design suggestions to develop NPCs to better fit within social behaviour expectations.

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 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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.760
Threshold uncertainty score0.519

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 communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer InteractionSame topicVirtual Reality Applications and ImpactsFrench-language works237,207