The findings from the analysis confirmed that visual immersiveness did significantly impact perceptions of spatial experience with the exception of one dimension, self-location. In the literature, it is speculated that manipulations of visual immersion alone would enrich but, not establish a sense of presence (Wirth, et al., 2007). This idea suggests that influences of interactivity should also exist as they relate to Dalgarno and Lee (2010)’s ‘interactive capabilities’. The results from this study indicated that visual immersiveness alone was sufficient in influencing spatial experience when controlling for gender and attention. Looking closer at the manipulations of visual immersiveness, when field of view was wide, feelings for each spatial presence
dimension increased except for self-location. Adversely, stereoscopy had little to no role in impacting spatial presence. This suggests the immersive experience is not dependent on a higher/lower level of each affordance.
Spatial presence is about establishing the experience that one feels present within a simulated space (Schubert, Friedmann, & Regenbrecht, 1999). Wirth et al. (2007) established this sensation occurs due to attention allocation and being able to block out the real-world. A wider field of view is able to occupy more of an individual’s periphery vision, thus blocking out the immediate physical environment to keep focus on the virtual space. Stereoscopy only provides an added illusion of depth and therefore does not provide the same ability in maintaining user focus on the virtual space.
120
Of the measures of spatial experience, self-location was found to not be
significantly influenced by either measure of visual immersiveness. Interestingly, there was a near significant influence from stereoscopy though the mean differences between the stereo and non-stereo groups were small. Stereoscopy provides visual depth cues to existing images (Crone, 1992). Self-location is the feeling of being located within a simulated space (Wirth, et al., 2007). It was speculated that from its shared characteristics with embodiment that self-location was dependent on the perception of sensory cues to develop an ‘image schemata’. It is also important to note that stereoscopy is only one of many depth cues. In an interactive, highly navigable VR environment, an abundance of other depth cues are present reducing the necessity for stereoscopy, hence only the near significance of stereoscopy.
The connection between stereoscopy and self-location is dependent on the use of visual depth cues to enhance image schemata which, leads to a higher sense of self- location. Again with this finding it is also important to consider controlling for attention which, would have allowed the visual depth cues provided by stereoscopy to be more prominent. Overall, the findings of significance of field of view and near significance of stereoscopy support earlier findings of the influence of visual immersion on spatial presence (IJsselsteijn, et al., 2001). Each technology feature (field of view and
stereoscopy) impacts spatial experience in a different way and these differences should be considered when attempting to achieve a certain type of spatial experience.
Possibilities for action, the dimension of spatial presence focused on users feeling as ‘active participants’ in a virtual environment, was speculated to have an interactive
121
effect between manipulations of immersion and interactivity. This was due to the nature of the ‘active participant’ being connected to movement of the body (Glenberg, 1997). The findings of this study though found a significant interactive effect for field of view and stereoscopy when the main effects for each affordance was not significant.
Subsequently, there were no significant influences from interactivity. This suggests that other factors may have played a role in raising user perceptions of possibilities for action. The significance occurred when controlling for class standing, experience with 3D
software, and enjoyment.
Possibilities for action are reported as higher when there is suppression of the influence of the immediate real world on perceptions of the virtual environment and focus is placed on visual cues from the simulated space (Wirth, et al., 2007). This requires focused attention to the virtual environment but also mechanisms to aid in filtering out the real world. It is known that both field of view and stereoscopy are capable of helping user’s focus attention on the simulated environment by filtering out the immediate physical environment (Hendrix & Barfield, 1995). In the case of the findings from this study, a wider field of view increased possibilities for action, meaning it was able to block out more of the real world supporting this notion. In doing so
though, stereoscopy became less necessary. This result again supports the idea that technology affordances of visual immersiveness can work independently from one another.
Field of view is able to help suppress the outside world in two ways: 1) by providing more visual cues at any given time and 2) to fill more of the peripheral view
122
reducing the amount of external visual distraction. Through the interactive effect the opposite effect occurred when field of view was narrow and stereoscopy compensated for increased user experiences for possibilities for action. This could be due to the visual depth cues described by Crone (1992). With a narrow field of view though visual depth cues may not be enough to keep a user’s attention focused on being active in the virtual environment.