Texte intégral / Full text (pdf, 20 MiB) - Infoscience - EPFL

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Chapter 7. Experimental Validation - Agoraphobia 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Are the characters aware of you? User−centered Interest−centered User or Interest Random Figure 7.10: Graphical results to the assessment of character awareness towards the user. compared modes except for the user-centered versus the user or interest-centered modes. The perceived difference in friendliness also falls into this category for the user-centered versus random modes and the user or interest-centered versus random modes. Finally, it is also the case in the assessment of character awareness towards the user for all modes except user-centered versus user or interest-centered modes and interest-centered versus user or interest-centered modes. Even though we did not obtain statistically significant differences in observation for the other questions, we have to take into consideration that these measures remain subjective and that variability may thus be highly increased as compared to objective measurements. Moreover, these results are in line with those we have been able to observe in graphs 7.3 to 7.10. We have also tested the correlation between various questions. To this end, we have used Pearson’s product-moment correlation coefficient r: r = 1 n − 1 n Xi − ¯ X Yi − ¯ Y i=1 sX sY (7.1) The convention is to use r 2 as measure of association between two variables. For instance, the value of r 2 between the results to the second and eighth questions is of 0.73. 73% of the variance in the perceived gaze of characters can be accounted for by changes in the perceived awareness of the characters towards the user. Thus, these two values are correlated at 73% in average. The correlation between the second and third questions is of 0.53. 53% of the variance in immersion can thus be accounted for by changes in quantity of perceived gaze. We have also tested the correlation between immersion and perceived awareness of the characters towards the users. This value is of 59%. Similarly, the correlation between perceived friendliness and perceived awareness of characters towards the user is of 53%. 114
7.4. Results 1-2 1-3 1-4 2-3 2-4 3-4 Normality 0.6888 0.579 0.3217 0.8711 0.5527 0.6746 Gaze 0.0001 0.1277 0.0000 0.0126 0.0005 0.0000 Immersion 0.1504 0.5041 0.8614 0.4804 0.7641 0.3252 Anxiety 0.2783 0.6418 0.9561 0.5475 0.3360 0.7010 Friendliness 0.7421 0.8741 0.0122 0.8867 0.0551 0.0456 Environment 0.8470 0.6540 0.6651 0.7965 0.5343 0.3868 Characters 0.1073 0.1222 0.4345 0.9548 0.4963 0.4890 User 0.0179 0.2510 0.0000 0.2185 0.0012 0.0000 Table 7.2: Results to Student’s T-test. 1 is the user-centered mode, 2 is the interest-centered mode, 3 is the user or interest centered mode and 4 is the random mode. However, it has to be noted that all participants did not react in the same way towards the experiment. Some participants focused on other things than expected, such as character size and the fact that there was no collision detection between them and the user. On the other hand, other participants set these factors aside and focused on character gaze attention behaviors. For example, the correlation between perceived immersion and perceived awareness of characters towards the user increases to 66% if we take out those who complained of lack of collision avoidance. We thus believe that this factor can greatly account for low scores in normality, awareness and immersion. This value was above 75% for 10 of the participants and above 90% for 6 of them. Regarding the most normal, preferred mode, 14 participants out of the 30 opted for the user or interest one. This is almost half of the population we have tested. Out of the 16 remaining, 11 chose the user-centered one. A little more than a third of our tested cohort were therefore possibly biased towards an always attentive population of virtual characters. Finally, 4 participants chose the interest-centered mode and 1 chose the random one. When asked why, almost all the participants having chosen the user or interest mode, answered that it seemed more natural to them because the characters were looking at them but not staring at them. The characters seemed to be interested in them and aware of them but also of other characters in the scene. There are thus really two major trends. On one hand, we found a group of people for whom it seemed more natural of being constantly looked at by the virtual characters. On the other hand, almost half the tested cohort had a preference for the random mode in which they were being looked at but not all the time and not by all characters. It is interesting to note that the correlations are different if we isolate the preferred mode. For example, the correlation between anxiety and the perceived gaze of characters was 58% for those who preferred the user-centered mode. On the other hand, it was 29% when considering those who opted for the user or interest mode. It is quite interesting to note that for those users who found always attentive characters as most natural, the correlation with anxiety was almost twice as high as for those who preferred characters who looked at them but not always. The same tendency was found between perceived normality and awareness of characters towards the participants, and also between perceived friendliness and perceived awareness towards the user. The correlations in all these cases are practically twice as high in the participants who preferred the user-centered mode. 115
Page 1:
Simulating Interactions with Virtua
Page 4 and 5:
3.2.4 Scripts . . . . . . . . . . .
Page 6 and 7:
7.3 Experimental Protocol . . . . .
Page 8 and 9:
Résumé La Réalité Virtuelle (RV
Page 11 and 12:
CHAPTER 1 Introduction 1.1 Context
Page 13 and 14:
1.3. Contributions in areas of dail
Page 15 and 16:
1.5. Organization of this Document
Page 17 and 18:
CHAPTER 2 State of the Art 2.1 Virt
Page 19 and 20:
2.1. Virtual Reality Exposure Thera
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
2.2. Models of Visual Attention Fig
Page 31 and 32:
2.3. Motion Editing Peters and O’
Page 33 and 34:
2.3. Motion Editing Figure 2.10: Bi
Page 35 and 36:
CHAPTER 3 VRET For Social Phobia Mu
Page 37 and 38:
3.2. Creating Scenarios For VRET Fi
Page 39 and 40:
3.3. Eye-Tracking For Interaction F
Page 41 and 42:
3.4. Results can thus determine whe
Page 43 and 44:
3.5. Gaze Behaviors to Enhance Char
Page 45 and 46:
3.6. Discussion 3.6 Discussion Filt
Page 47 and 48:
CHAPTER 4 Simulating Visual Attenti
Page 49 and 50:
4.2. Walking Motion Reconstruction
Page 51 and 52:
4.3. Automatic Interest Point Detec
Page 53 and 54:
4.3. Automatic Interest Point Detec
Page 55 and 56:
4.4. Automatic Motion Adaptation fo
Page 57 and 58:
4.4. Automatic Motion Adaptation fo
Page 59 and 60:
4.5. Results Figure 4.4: Illustrati
Page 61 and 62:
4.6. Discussion Cs 100 200 300 400
Page 63 and 64: CHAPTER 5 Interaction with Virtual
Page 65 and 66: 5.2. Tracking in the CAVE animation
Page 67 and 68: 5.3. Interest Point Definition In t
Page 69 and 70: 5.4. Automatic Motion Adaptation Th
Page 71 and 72: 5.6. Results Figure 5.4: Results ob
Page 73 and 74: CHAPTER 6 Experimental Validations
Page 75 and 76: 6.2. Clinical Study on VRET for Soc
Page 85 and 86: 6.3. Eye-tracking as Assessment and
Page 95 and 96: 6.4. Eye-tracking for Interaction 6
Page 97 and 98: 6.4. Eye-tracking for Interaction D
Page 99 and 100: 6.4. Eye-tracking for Interaction F
Page 101 and 102: 6.4. Eye-tracking for Interaction F
Page 103 and 104: 6.4. Eye-tracking for Interaction t
Page 105 and 106: CHAPTER 7 Experimental Validation -
Page 107 and 108: 7.3. Experimental Protocol Figure 7
Page 109 and 110: 7.4. Results User-centered Interest
Page 111 and 112: 7.4. Results 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
Page 113: 7.4. Results 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
Page 117 and 118: 7.6. Conclusion percentage of the v
Page 119 and 120: CHAPTER 8 Conclusion In the past de
Page 121 and 122: 8.2. Perspectives and Future Work 8
Page 123 and 124: APPENDIX A Ethics Commission Reques
Page 125 and 126: - Cette condition persiste pendant
Page 127 and 128: laires sur un groupe de personnes s
Page 129 and 130: Richard G Heimberg, Social Phobia -
Page 131 and 132: APPENDIX B Fearful Situation Docume
Page 133 and 134: APPENDIX C List of Abbreviations AS
Page 135 and 136: APPENDIX D Glossary Acrophobia: acr
Page 137 and 138: List of Figures LIST OF FIGURES 2.1
Page 139 and 140: List of Figures 6.3 Results to the
Page 141 and 142: Bibliography BIBLIOGRAPHY American
Page 143 and 144: Bibliography Dassault Systèmes. ht
Page 145 and 146: Bibliography Iscan. http://www.isca
Page 147 and 148: Bibliography A. Mühlberger, M.J. W
Page 149 and 150: Bibliography B.O. Rothbaum, L.F. Ho
Page 151: WHO. The ICD-10 Classification Of M
Page 154 and 155: 154
show all

Texte intégral / Full text (pdf, 20 MiB) - Infoscience - EPFL

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?