Virtual vs. real: exploring perceptual, cognitive and affective dimensions in design product experiences.
Aesthetics
Emotions
Immersion
Presence
User experience
Virtual prototyping
Virtual reality
Journal
BMC psychology
ISSN: 2050-7283
Titre abrégé: BMC Psychol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101627676
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 Jan 2024
02 Jan 2024
Historique:
received:
13
11
2023
accepted:
19
12
2023
medline:
4
1
2024
pubmed:
4
1
2024
entrez:
3
1
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Virtual Reality (VR) has already emerged as an effective instrument for simulating realistic interactions, across various domains. In the field of User Experience (UX), VR has been used to create prototypes of real-world products. Here, the question is to what extent the users' experience of a virtual prototype can be equivalent to that of its real counterpart (the real product). This issue particularly concerns the perceptual, cognitive and affective dimensions of users' experiences. This exploratory study aims to address this issue by comparing the users' experience of a well-known product, i.e., the Graziella bicycle, presented either in Sumerian or Sansar VR platform, or in a physical setting. Participants' Emotional Engagement, Sense of Presence, Immersion, and Perceived Product Quality were evaluated after being exposed to the product in all conditions (i.e., Sumerian, Sansar and Physical). The findings indicated significantly higher levels of Engagement and Positive Affect in the virtual experiences when compared to their real-world counterparts. Additionally, the sole notable distinction among the VR platforms was observed in terms of Realism. This study suggests the feasibility and potential of immersive VR environments as UX evaluation tools and underscores their effectiveness in replicating genuine real-world experiences.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Virtual Reality (VR) has already emerged as an effective instrument for simulating realistic interactions, across various domains. In the field of User Experience (UX), VR has been used to create prototypes of real-world products. Here, the question is to what extent the users' experience of a virtual prototype can be equivalent to that of its real counterpart (the real product). This issue particularly concerns the perceptual, cognitive and affective dimensions of users' experiences.
METHODS
METHODS
This exploratory study aims to address this issue by comparing the users' experience of a well-known product, i.e., the Graziella bicycle, presented either in Sumerian or Sansar VR platform, or in a physical setting. Participants' Emotional Engagement, Sense of Presence, Immersion, and Perceived Product Quality were evaluated after being exposed to the product in all conditions (i.e., Sumerian, Sansar and Physical).
RESULTS
RESULTS
The findings indicated significantly higher levels of Engagement and Positive Affect in the virtual experiences when compared to their real-world counterparts. Additionally, the sole notable distinction among the VR platforms was observed in terms of Realism.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This study suggests the feasibility and potential of immersive VR environments as UX evaluation tools and underscores their effectiveness in replicating genuine real-world experiences.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38167121
doi: 10.1186/s40359-023-01497-5
pii: 10.1186/s40359-023-01497-5
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
10Subventions
Organisme : "Education and research for recovery - REACT-EU", included in the NOP Research and Innovation 2014-2020
ID : CUP: J55F21003220001
Organisme : "Education and research for recovery - REACT-EU", included in the NOP Research and Innovation 2014-2020
ID : CUP: J55F21003220001
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Gaggioli A. Transformative experience design. In: Gaggioli A, Ferscha A, Riva G, Dunne S, Viaud-Delmon I, editors. Human Computer confluence: transforming human experience through Symbiotic technologies. De Gruyter; 2016. pp. 97–118.
Liedgren J, Desmet P, Gaggioli A. Liminal design: a conceptual framework and three-step approach for developing technology that delivers transcendence and deeper experiences. Front Psychol. 2023;14:1043170.
pubmed: 36844338
pmcid: 9945118
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1043170
Glowacki DR, Williams RR, Wonnacott MD, et al. Group VR experiences can produce ego attenuation and connectedness comparable to psychedelics. Sci Rep. 2022;12:8995. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-12637-z .
doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-12637-z
pubmed: 35637199
pmcid: 9149675
Slater M, Spanlang B, Sanchez-Vives MV, Blanke O. First person experience of body transfer in virtual reality. PLoS ONE. 2010;5(5):e10564.
pubmed: 20485681
pmcid: 2868878
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0010564
van Heugten D, Cosgrave J, van Rheede J, Hicks S. Out-of-body experience in virtual reality induces acute dissociation. Psychol Conscious. 2018;5(4):346.
Rebelo F, Noriega P, Duarte E, et al. Using virtual reality to assess user experience. Hum Factors. 2012;54:964–82.
pubmed: 23397807
doi: 10.1177/0018720812465006
Kim YM, Rhiu I, Yun MH. A systematic review of a virtual reality system from the perspective of user experience. Int J Hum Comput Interact. 2020;36(10):893–910.
doi: 10.1080/10447318.2019.1699746
Attfield S, Kazai G, Lalmas M, Piwowarski B. Towards a science of user engagement (Position Paper). In: Proceedings of the SIGIR 2011 Workshop on the Future of IR Evaluation (FIRE); 2011. p. 1–6.
Bailenson JN, Blascovich J, Beall AC, Loomis JM. Interpersonal distance in immersive virtual environments. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2003;29(7):819–33.
pubmed: 15018671
doi: 10.1177/0146167203029007002
Banerjee P, Lang T. Virtual reality simulation for the manufacturing industry. Procedia CIRP. 2013;7:138–43.
Banerjee S, Chowdhury A, Yein N. User experience evaluation of a virtual reality Tool used for 3D modelling in Industrial Design Education: a study in the Indian context. Designs. 2023;7:105.
doi: 10.3390/designs7050105
Wang GG. Definition and review of virtual prototyping. J Comput Inf Sci Eng. 2002;2(3):232–6.
doi: 10.1115/1.1526508
Choi SH, Chan AMM. A virtual prototyping system for rapid product development. Comput Aided Des. 2004;36(5):401–12.
doi: 10.1016/S0010-4485(03)00110-6
Bordegoni M, Rizzi C. Innovation in Product Design: from CAD to virtual prototyping. Springer-Verlag; 2011.
Bordegoni M, Cugini U, Ferrise F, Graziosi S. A method for bringing user experience upstream to design. Virtual Phys Prototyping. 2014;9(3):161–70.
doi: 10.1080/17452759.2014.934574
Aromaa S, Väänänen K. Suitability of virtual prototypes to support human factors/ergonomics evaluation during the design. Appl Ergon. 2016;56:11–8.
pubmed: 27184306
doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2016.02.015
Slater M. A note on presence terminology. Presence Connect. 2003;3(3):1–5.
Skarbez R, Smith M, Whitton MC. Revisiting Milgram and Kishino’s reality-virtuality continuum. Front Virtual Real. 2021;2:647997.
doi: 10.3389/frvir.2021.647997
Slater M, Wilbur S, A Framework for Immersive Virtual Environments (FIVE). Speculations on the role of Presence in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments. 1997;6(6):603–16.
doi: 10.1162/pres.1997.6.6.603
Waterworth JA, Waterworth EL. The meaning of presence. 2003.
Riva G, Mantovani F, Waterworth EL, Waterworth JA. Intention, action, self and other: an evolutionary model of presence. Immersed in media. Springer Cham; 2015. pp. 73–99.
Triberti S, Riva G. Being present in action: a theoretical model about the interlocking between intentions and environmental affordances. Front Psychol. 2016; 6:2052.
van der Schuemie MJ, van der Krijn M, Gersch W. Research on presence in virtual reality: a survey. CyberPsychol Behav. 2001;4(2):183–201.
pubmed: 11710246
doi: 10.1089/109493101300117884
Slater M, Sadagic A, Usoh M, Schroeder R. Small-group behavior in a virtual and real environment: a comparative study. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 2009;8(2):282–98.
Bailenson JN, Yee N, Blascovich J. Virtual reality in social psychology. Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology. Cambridge University Press; 2006. pp. 273–92.
Takatalo J, Häkkinen J, Kaistinen J, Nyman G. Usability testing of a mobile virtual reality service. Personal Ubiquitous Comput. 2008;12(4):279–88.
Gorini A, Griez E, Petrova A, Riva G. Assessment of the emotional responses produced by exposure to real food, virtual food, and photographs of food in patients affected by eating disorders. Ann Gen Psychiatry. 2010;9:30. https://doi.org/10.1186/1744-859X-9-30 .
doi: 10.1186/1744-859X-9-30
pubmed: 20602749
pmcid: 2914081
Higuera-Trujillo JL, López-TarruellaMaldonado JL, Llinares Millán C. Psychological and physiological human responses to simulated and real environments: a comparison between photographs, 360°panoramas, and virtual reality. Appl Ergon. 2017;65:398–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2017.05.006 .
doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2017.05.006
pubmed: 28601190
Chirico A, Gaggioli A. When virtual feels real: comparing emotional responses and presence in virtual and natural environments. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. 2019;22(3):220–6.
pubmed: 30730222
doi: 10.1089/cyber.2018.0393
Oing T, Prescott J. Implementations of virtual reality for anxiety-related disorders: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2018;6:e10965. https://doi.org/10.2196/10965 .
doi: 10.2196/10965
Schöne B, Kisker J, Lange L, Gruber T, Sylvester S, Osinsky R. The reality of virtual reality. Front Psychol. 2023;14:1093014.
pubmed: 36874824
pmcid: 9975753
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1093014
Felnhofer A, Kothgassner OD, Schmidt M, Heinzle AK, Beutl L, Hlavacs H, Kryspin-Exner I. Is virtual reality emotionally arousing? Investigating five emotion inducing virtual park scenarios. Int J Hum Comput Stud. 2015;82:48–56.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2015.05.004
Chirico A, Ferrise F, Cordella L, Gaggioli A. Designing awe in virtual reality: an experimental study. Front Psychol. 2018;8:2351.
pubmed: 29403409
pmcid: 5786556
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02351
Kitson A, Stepanova ER, Aguilar IA, Wainwright N, Riecke BE. Designing mind (set) and setting for profound emotional experiences in virtual reality. In: Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference; 2020. p. 655–668.
Baños RM, Botella C, Alcañiz M, Liaño V, Guerrero B, Rey B. Immersion and emotion: their impact on the sense of presence. Cyberpsychol Behav. 2004;7(6):734–41.
pubmed: 15687809
doi: 10.1089/cpb.2004.7.734
Diemer J, Alpers GW, Peperkorn HM, Shiban Y, Mühlberger A. The impact of perception and presence on emotional reactions: a review of research in virtual reality. Front Psychol. 2015;6:26.
pubmed: 25688218
pmcid: 4311610
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00026
Westerdahl B, Suneson K, Wernemyr C, et al. Users’ evaluation of a virtual reality architectural model compared with the experience of the completed building. Automat Constr. 2006;15:150–65.
doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2005.02.010
Kuliga SF, Thrash T, Dalton RC, Hölscher C. Virtual reality as an empirical research tool—exploring user experience in a real building and a corresponding virtual model. Comput Environ Urban Syst. 2015;54:363–75.
doi: 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2015.09.006
Franzreb D, Warth A, Futternecht K. User experience of real and virtual products: a comparison of perceived product qualities. In: UNIDCOM/IADE International Conference Senses & Sensibility; 2019. p. 105–125. Springer International Publishing.
Pagano A, Palombini A, Bozzelli G, De Nino M, Cerato I, Ricciardi S. ArkaeVision VR game: user experience research between real and virtual paestum. Appl Sci. 2020;10(9):3182.
doi: 10.3390/app10093182
Brade J, Lorenz M, Busch M, Hammer N, Tscheligi M, Klimant P. Being there again–Presence in real and virtual environments and its relation to usability and user experience using a mobile navigation task. Int J Hum Comput Stud. 2017;101:76–87.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2017.01.004
Lessiter J, Freeman J, Keogh E, et al. A cross-media presence questionnaire: the ITC-Sense of Presence Inventory. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 2001;10:282–97.
doi: 10.1162/105474601300343612
Usoh M, Ernest C, et al. Using Presence questionnaires in reality. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 2000;9(5):497–503. https://doi.org/10.1162/105474600566989 .
doi: 10.1162/105474600566989
Nisenfeld S. Using reality to evaluate the ITC presence questionnaire. Unpublished Master Thesis; 2003.
Stevens B, Jerrams-Smith J, Heathcote D, et al. Putting the virtual into reality: assessing object presence with projection-augmented models. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 2002;11:79–92.
doi: 10.1162/105474602317343677
Watson D, Clark LA, Tellegen A. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1988;54(6):1063–70.
pubmed: 3397865
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063
Terraciano A, McCrae RR, Costa PT Jr. Factorial and construct validity of the Italian positive and negative affect schedule (PANAS). Eur J Psychol Assess. 2003;19(2):131–41.
doi: 10.1027//1015-5759.19.2.131
Sutcliffe A. Designing for user experience and engagement. In: Why Engagement Matters: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives of User Engagement in Digital Media. 2016. p. 105–126.
Allcoat D, von Mühlenen A. Learning in virtual reality: effects on performance, emotion, and engagement. Res Learn Technol. 2018;26.
Chirico A, Yaden DB. Awe: a self-transcendent and sometimes transformative emotion. The function of emotions. 2018; 221–233: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77619-4 .
Kappelman LA. Measuring user involvement: A diffusion of innovation perspective. 1995; ACM SIGMIS Database: the DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems, 26(2–3), 65–86.
O’Brien HL, Toms EG. What is user engagement? A conceptual framework for defining user engagement with technology. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol. 2008;59(6):938–55.
doi: 10.1002/asi.20801
Noteborn G, Carbonell KB, Dailey-Hebert A, Gijselaers W. The role of emotions and task significance in virtual education. The Internet and Higher Education. 2012;15(3):176–83.
doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.03.002
Chirico A, Gaggioli A. When virtual feels real: comparing emotional responses and presence in virtual and natural environments. Cyberpsychology Behav Social Netw. 2019;22(3):220–6.
doi: 10.1089/cyber.2018.0393
Desmet PM, Hekkert P. Framework of product experience. Int J Des. 2007;1(1):57–66.
Marini D, Folgieri R, Gadia D, et al. Virtual reality as a communication process. Virtual Reality. 2012;16:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-011-0200-3 .
doi: 10.1007/s10055-011-0200-3
Mauri M, Rancati G, Riva G, Gaggioli A. Comparing the effects of immersive and non-immersive real estate experience on behavioral intentions. Comput Hum Behav. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.107996 .
doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2023.107996
Riva G, Mantovani F, Capideville CS, Preziosa A, Morganti F, Villani D, et al. Affective interactions using virtual reality: the link between presence and emotions. Cyberpsychol Behav. 2007;10(1):45–56.
pubmed: 17305448
doi: 10.1089/cpb.2006.9993
Murphy D, Skarbez R. What do we Mean when we say Presence? PRESENCE: Virtual and Augmented Reality. 2020;29:171–90.
Muckler VC. Exploring suspension of disbelief during simulation-based learning. Clin Simul Nurs. 2017;13(1):3–9.
doi: 10.1016/j.ecns.2016.09.004
van Gisbergen M, Kovacs M, Campos F, van der Heeft M, Vugts V. What we don’t know. the effect of realism in virtual reality on experience and behaviour. Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality: The Power of AR and VR for Business. 2019:45–57.
Mengoni M, Peruzzini M, Germani M. Virtual vs. Physical: An Experimental Study to Improve Shape Perception. Proceedings of the ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference; 2009.
Bernal FA, Burigat S. Adding the sense of touch to virtual reality: a review. Virtual Reality. 2018;22(3):237–50.
Okamoto S, Watanabe T, Kuroda T. An empirical study on the influence of haptic feedback on user experience in virtual reality. Virtual Reality. 2019;23(3):257–68.
Luong T, Martin N, Argelaguet F, Lécuyer A, Studying the Mental Effort in Virtual Versus Real Environments,. 2019 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR), Osaka, Japan, 2019, pp. 809–816, https://doi.org/10.1109/VR.2019.8798029 .