For a more complete description of Pilot Study AIIP1, see Prothero and Hoffman [82].
Title: AIIP1: Foreground Occlusions and Field-of-View. Background: A theoretical argument based on selected rest frames put
forward in this dissertatation suggests that foreground occlusions (as well
as FOV) should influence presence. How are the two manipulations related?
If presence depends heavily on whether the display contents are interpreted
as being the visual background, it might be that FOV is irrelevant if a
foreground occlusion is used to block out depth cues at the same or greater
distance than the display contents. Hypothesis: If a foreground
occlusion is installed, presence does not depend of FOV. Methods:
Thirty-eight participants were exposed to the interactive ``Sharkworld''
environment on a Division ProVision 100 using a dVisor HMD. Exposures were
for 2.5 minutes in each of two conditions. In one condition, the FOV was an
unrestricted 105
, with no foreground occlusion. In the other
condition, the FOV was restricted with a foreground occlusion to
40 (which could be foviated on) or equivalently 60(which could be seen with peripheral vision). The order of conditions was
counter-balanced across subjects. After the experiment, a written
questionnaire was used to measure reported presence in the two
conditions. Results: Presence ratings were analyzed with a
non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Presence ratings were
significantly lower in the foreground occlusion than the full FOV condition
(Z = -2.4, p = 0.02). Conclusions: FOV apparently has a positive
effect on level of reported presence even when a foreground occlusion is
used. For this reason, FOV was controlled for in subsequent experiments
examining the effect of foreground occlusions (AIIE1, AIIE2, AIIP2, AIIP3
and AIIE3).