Research Roundup (#32)
.png/:/rs=w:1440,h:1440)
Welcome...
Welcome to the thirty-second-ever Research Roundup! A fortnightly catch-up on the latest developments in the field of XR research.
As we wait to hear about a new headset/marvel at a new headset/laugh at a new headset...
The Fortnight in 3 (Sentences)
- New research on embodiment and avatars suggested the peak-end rule applies to body ownership in VR, and changing the age of an avatar can influence cognition about self-dialogue interventions.
- More research this fortnight examined how VR affects cognition and behaviour finding collaborative sense-making may involve more problem solving if in VR compared to desktop systems, and immersive experiences may shift adolescent attitudes towards climate-related food choices through psychological proximity.
- And finally, two random and unconnected papers suggested navigating VR environments in swivel chairs may be the next best thing to standing, and a wide range of prominent VR academics collectively explored what the metaverse actually is and the need for ethical and regulatory frameworks to realise its societal potential.
The Fortnight in 300 (words)
For those of us, like me, who had not heard of the peak-end rule it is a fascinating thing. It is the idea that how we judge something, retrospectively, is largely determined by either the most intense moments (the peak) and/or the last moments (the end). Researchers recently explored this principle in respect to judgements of body ownership in VR. To determine if this principle applies, they manipulated visuomotor asynchrony with the hand of the participants avatar. Interestingly, they found a clear (but small) end effect with participants reporting less body ownership if the asynchrony occurs late on rather than early (they were unable to reliably identify a peak effect). An interesting finding for any of us who are routinely concerned with a VR users retrospective judgement, whether it is for research or commercial purposes. If something goes wrong when it happens will affect how they later judge the experience.
The idea that VR experiences can alter future attitudes and behaviours has been around for a while. However, relatively little research has explored the specific reasons why this might happen. Researchers in the Netherlands published research this week looking at a specific example, changing climate-related food choices in adolescents, with measures across several time intervals and high school interventions. Crucially, they hypothesised, and later confirmed, a possible psychological process for this: VR increasing tangibility, which in turn increases the psychological proximity of the issue (i.e. perceived closeness), which in turn affects actual behaviours and decision making. A bit interesting in it’s own right, but why is this noteworthy? Understanding the theoretical basis allows people to create innovative applications, as well as make sense of those that have come before. In this case, this suggests that brainstorming experiences to make something feel more tangible could bear some fruit in terms of behavioural change.
And finally, this study caught our collective eye for no other reason than we do love a swivel chair! But should we be using swivel chairs in VR? Apparently so, at least according to new research in PLOSOne comparing the exploration of panoramic scenes whilst standing, sitting, and sitting in a swivel chair. As you might expect, standing led to a wider range of navigation behaviours and exploration, but both forms of sitting down were not equal. When in the swivel chair participants still explored in a way that approximated standing, which wasn't true when the chair was fixed. The authors argue that being able to rotate may therefore be key. A new important rule of thumb then: if you can’t stand in VR then swivel.