Image Processing Reference
In-Depth Information
contributing to this realistic response are identified in [
54
]. These are:
place
illusion
, defined as
the subjective sensation of being in a real place
(i.e., presence);
and,
plausibility illusion,
referred as the
illusion that the scenario being depicted is
actually occurring,
even when the person is cognitively aware of the fact that it
isn
t. In this sense, the plausibility judgment is highly related to the capability of the
system as a whole to produce events that are meaningful and credible in comparison
to the individual
'
s expectations [
54
].
The capability of a technical system “
to deliver an inclusive, extensive, sur-
rounding and vivid illusion of reality to the senses of a human participant
” has been
defined as
immersion
[
12
,
55
]. At this point, it should be emphasized a conceptual
difference observed along this chapter between
immersion
, describing the capabil-
ities of the system in an objective manner, and
presence
, considered a state of
consciousness derived from the subjective perception of the experience [
55
].
An immersive system can be characterized in terms of four major dimensions as:
inclusive
, the extent to which it is able to isolate the physical reality;
extensive
, the
range of sensory modalities addressed;
surrounding
, the extent to which the user is
physically surrounded by the displayed environment; and,
vivid
, the resolution,
fidelity, and variety of the sensorial stimuli delivered through each sensory modal-
ity. Each of these dimensions can be present at different levels and scales according
to the correlating psycho-physiological responses and to the extent of their reali-
zation, respectively [
12
,
56
].
'
2.3.1 Breakdown of System Factors
The independent and combined influence of system factors (including media form
and content variables) on the emotional response, on the subjective assessment of
presence and on quality judgment (in terms of QoE) has been analyzed extensively
in scientific literature. In this section, we present and discuss relevant findings
illustrating the complexity and wide variety of approaches to these fields on a
non-exhaustive basis. Table
2.1
summarizes in a schematic way the facts analyzed
as follows.
The influence of factors such as image motion, stereoscopy, and screen size has
been studied in [
57
]. Image motion and stereoscopy showed to have, in that order,
a great influence on presence. A large effect of screen size on presence was also
observed, but only for the video stimulus that contained motion. High motion
content has also shown an impact on the relative quality of video and audio
perceived by the user, being the video quality weighted significantly higher than
the audio quality when high motion content is presented [
58
].
A relationship between motion-based interaction and the perceived field-of-view
(FOV) is reported in [
59
]. The perceived FOV for a small-hand held device was
found around 50 % greater than the actual value when motion-based interaction was
used. Coherently, the sense of presence under this condition was higher than
or comparable to those in VR platforms with larger displays. The effects of
head tracking, visual cues (including stereoscopic and motion parallax cues), and
