Monthly Archives: February 2014

Reading 2

Posted on by

For class 2/10/14
Post Comments by 11:59 pm on 2/9/14

Place illusion and plausibility can lead to realistic behaviour in immersive virtual environments
Mel Slater
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/364/1535/3549.full.pdf+html

Which World Is Real? The Future of Virtual Reality
http://www.scienceclarified.com/scitech/Virtual-Reality/Which-World-Is-Real-The-Future-of-Virtual-Reality.html

Please print out these articles and bring them with you to class on Monday for discussion.  Alternatively, you can bring digital versions of the reading with you.

For discussion, please “Leave a Reply” below in the comments section as opposed to creating a new post. Note: The comments were previously shown as closed.  This issue should be resolved now.

 Discussion:

Post 1 (Pick 3, write one paragraph for each):

  1. Do you agree with Slater’s breakdown between PI and Psi?  Do you agree with Slater that these concepts are orthogonal? Explain why.
  2. Slater writes “The illusion [PI], given the right physical set-up and the appropriate SCs in a particular modality, is automatic—it can coexist with different (but not contradictory) sensations in another modality.”  Do you agree? Explain why.
  3. Do you agree that breaks in Psi are harder to overcome than breaks in PI? Explain.
  4. The paper references the Milgram Experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment).  How do you feel about this experiment being run in Virtual Reality?
  5. Select a topic that you find interesting, dubious, confusing or curious and explain why.  Write at least a paragraph of explanation and add citations if warranted.

 Post 2  (Pick 3, write one paragraph for each):

  1. The article brings up many concerns about VR.  Pick one to either argue for or against
  2. Pick one of the quotes listed in the article that you find apt, interesting, misleading, problematic, etc.  Make an argument for our against the citation.
  3. How do you feel about the predictions this article makes?  Do you agree with them?  Do you find them misguided?
  4. This article was written some time ago.  Do you think the issues raised are the same issues today?  What types of new issues do you believe have risen up over the last decade.

Ultimate Presence

Posted on by

I believe the basic functions that made the computer user friendly were the most significant – typing, mouse, etc. Before these, computers could only be seen as mathematical machines that professionals could use. By adding on more user friendly aspects, it allows the general public to have access and understand how the machine works.

Slater poses a good point that there should be a better general understanding of virtual reality and how to describe the phenomenon of it. I don’t think this is something that will happen for the general population for at least 10 or so years. Relating back to the previous question, virtual reality is not something that everyone is experiencing – at least to the point of conceptually understanding it. Once the use of VR becomes more common, the general public will not reflect on what exactly is going on.

Sutherland’s ending didn’t even strike me as ‘menacing’ until I read it the second time. He isn’t too far off; with the development of video games and virtual reality, you can almost completely submerge yourself into a game. Although fatality and actual presence are not developed yet, I wouldn’t be surprised if that were something to come in 20+ years.

I think the fascinating part about Sutherland’s article is that all of these things are still used today, and you can pretty much get all of the aspects in the palm of your hand. Phones now serve as computers, where you can take and edit photos, type to others and make notes for yourself, plan games san joysticks and controllers, combining all aspects of a computer into one. If this is what exists for us today, what is to come in the next 50 years – or better yet what are the predictions similar to these?

Ultimate Presence

Posted on by

The eye tracking technology seems fascinating. It is very interesting that a computer by means of the language of glances could sense and interpret the eye motion data. This technology can have a huge influence on the field of the medical technology and can be helpful in the better interpretation of the mechanism of the vision as the article mentions.

Maybe by menacing imagery, Sutherland wanted to point out to the unimaginable powers or abilities this technology can give us or he wants to point out that the science and technology always can be used in different ways (bad or good).

Haptic technology is not listed in the article. Haptic technology is used to create the sense of the touch for controlling the objects in the virtual world. It is very useful in the medical technology for helping patients with chronic pains. It can be helpful in the better interpretation of how human sense of touch works.

The separation of the presence and the form make sense to me especially in the context of the form and content. Distinguishing presence from the immersion or form from the content helps to improve the vicarious feeling created in the virtual worlds.

I agree that present is possible in the impossible world. Considering presence as a response to a given level of immersion, then by improving the level of the immersion, the response will become stronger.

This video clip about Hpatic technology for Dental Trainers is interesting.
http://www.moog.com/markets/medical-dental-simulation/haptic-technology-in-the-moog-simodont-dental-trainer/

Also Slater’s blog seems interesting to me: http://presence-thoughts.blogspot.com/

Ultimate Presence

Posted on by

Of all the technologies Sterling mentions in the article, I think GPS is the most influential now and will be the most influential going forward, as it allows a close tethering between virtual, augmented and reality.

The way the article ended merged the sense of wonder these technologies bring, with a dramatic reminder that these technologies could be used in ways we might not like.

The article mentions that it would be wonderful if computers could help us understand things like non-uniform fields – at DoIT Academic Technology Media Learning Lab has created such a thing – a particle golf game which  helps students learn about thermodynamic states.

As for the separation of presence and immersion, I agree that it’s important to distinguish between the technical specifications with how humans actually perceive it – since, as the article mentions, there is many opportunities to take advantage of sensory metamers to improve the experience of virtual reality with the same computational power.

The accuracy of presence in non-real environment might not be good, but if we can’t tell, do we care?

I was curious about the nature of the debate regarding defining these terms before this article appeared, and if this 2003 article resolved it. In 1992 he wrote An experimental exploration of presence, followed by more than a 40 articles with about presence or immersion in their titles before he wrote ‘A note on presence technology’ – and while I can’t find citation numbers for that article, he has almost 12,00 citations in his career so I think it’s safe to say he was a well-regarded expert on Virtual Reality. I wasn’t otherwise able to answer my questions within the scope of this assignment. Mel Slater has written a blog about Presence at http://presence-thoughts.blogspot.com/ so he has clearly remained interested in the topic.