Content uploaded by Max Kinateder
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Max Kinateder on Sep 17, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Abstract—Virtual reality (VR) has become a popular
approach to study human behavior in fire. The present position
paper analyses Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and
Threats (SWOT) of VR as a research tool for human behavior
in fire. Virtual environments provide a maximum of
experimental control, are easy to replicate, have relatively high
ecological validity, and allow safe study of occupant behavior
in scenarios that otherwise would be too dangerous. Lower
ecological validity compared to field studies, ergonomic aspects,
and technical limitations are the main weaknesses of the
method. Increasingly realistic simulations and other
technological advances provide new opportunities for this
relatively young method. In this position paper, we argue that
VR is a promising complementary laboratory tool in the quest
to understand human behavior in fire and to improve fire
safety.
I. INTRODUCTION
TUDIES on fire evacuation seek to understand how
occupants react when they are confronted with fire
emergencies. Various disciplines, such as safety
engineering, computer modeling, human factors, and
psychology contribute to this field of research, all aiming to
better understand human behavior in fire (HBiF) and
ultimately to improve safety. One of the biggest challenges
in this field is the access to ecologically valid and at the
same time experimentally controlled empirical data (see for
example references [1, 2]). Researchers in HBiF need safe,
objective, reliable, and valid methods of data collection. The
scope of this position paper is to discuss how virtual reality
S
Paul Pauli and Andreas Mühlberger are shareholders of a commercial
company that develops virtual environment research systems for empirical
studies in the field of psychology, psychiatry, and psychotherapy. Mathias
Müller is executive officer of the same company. No further potential
conflicting interests exist.
The presentation of this paper was supported by the German Academic
Exchange Service (DAAD).
(VR) studies complement other well established research
methods, such as case studies, unannounced drills, field
studies, laboratory studies, and hypothetical studies [3-6].
The present article seeks to analyze Strengths,
Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) of VR
research on HBiF. SWOT analysis originates in the
management literature and has been applied to VR in the
context of rehabilitation research [7].
I. VR in Fire Evacuation
VR has been defined as a “real or simulated environment
in which the perceiver experiences telepresence” (the feeling
of being present in a virtual environment) [8]. Note that this
very wide definition implies that VR is not limited to
computer generated environments or any specific
technology. In a way, a real world laboratories can also be
seen as virtual environments. However, for the scope of this
article, VR refers only to computer generated simulations.
The experience of telepresence comprises the illusion of
being in the place displayed by the VR technology, and the
illusion that events happening in the virtual environment
(VE) are plausible and real [9]. Note that this definition does
not imply the use of any specific technology. However, VR
systems generally use computer generated visual and
auditory simulations to immerse participants into a VE.
Although less immersive systems – such as simulations on
desktop computers [10] – can be used to study HBiF, the
present paper mainly addresses highly immersive VR
systems using CAVE (Cave Automatic Virtual
Environment) systems, Powerwalls, or head mounted
displays (HMD). These systems allow the presentation of
highly realistic interactive visual and auditory stimuli to
participants. Enhanced multimodal systems extend VR with
olfactory [11, 12] and proprioceptive stimuli like wind, heat,
or motion [13].
Virtual Reality for Fire Evacuation Research
Max Kinateder
Department of Cognitive,
Linguistic, and Psychological
Sciences
Brown University, Box 1821
Providence, RI 02912, USA
Email: max_kinateder@brown.edu
Enrico Ronchi & Daniel
Nilsson
Department of Fire Safety
Engineering and Systems Safety
Lund University
P.O. Box 118, 22100 Lund,
Sweden
Email: enrico.ronchi@brand.lth.se,
daniel.nilsson@brand.lth.se
Margrethe Kobes
Institute for Safety
PO Box 7010
6801 AH Arnhem
The Netherlands
Email: Margrethe.Kobes@ifv.nl
Mathias Müller & Paul Pauli
Department of Psychology I
University of Würzburg
Marcusstr. 9-11, D-97072 Würzburg, Germany
Email: m.mueller@psychologie.uni-wuerzburg.de,
pauli@psychologie.uni-wuerzburg.de
Andreas Mühlberger
Department of Psychology, Clinical Psychology, and
Psychotherapy
University of Regensburg
Universitätsstr. 31, D-93053 Regensburg, Germany
Email: Andreas.Muehlberger@psychologie.uni-
regensburg.de
Preprints of the Federated Conference on
Computer Science and Information Systems pp. 319–321
c
2014 319
VR has become a well-established method in other
research fields such as traffic behavior [14], and clinical,
social, or experimental psychology, e.g., for the
psychotherapy of phobias [15], post-traumatic stress disorder
[16], and for rehabilitation [7]. However, the usefulness of
VR for HBiF is still under discussion and the method needs
to be validated. Ecological validity can be assumed, if
participants show similar behavioral, emotional, cognitive,
and psychophysiological reactions in VR and in the real
world [17]. The extent of emotional responses to a real
world or virtual laboratory scenario is not necessarily the
same as one might expect in a real fire emergency.
Ecological validity does not mandate that participants have
to believe that a simulated fire scenario is real. In fact,
perceptual input (e.g., a visual simulation) can elicit
emotional reactions, such as fear reactions, even if
participants know that what they see is a simulation [18].
These reactions are probably of a lower intensity, however,
future research is necessary to shed light on this question in
the context of HBiF. More importantly, VEs have to be
designed in a way that the observations from participants’
behavior allow valid conclusion for real world scenarios.
One study found promising results by comparing
participants’ behavior in VR evacuation scenario with real
world case studies [19]. Other studies found HBiF
comparable in conventional laboratory and VR simulated
tunnel emergency scenarios [20, 21]. Note that similarity of
two forms of artificial experimental methods (VR and
classical laboratory studies) does not warrant ecological
validity. There are still not enough studies systematically
comparing virtual and real HBiF. In related research fields,
however, validation studies have repeatedly demonstrated
the ecological validity of VR. For example, several driving
simulator studies documented ecological validity of VR
simulations in terms of driving behavior, as well as the
ability to elicit adequate emotional responses to VR [22-24].
In addition, several validation studies of virtual driving
simulators demonstrated similar behavior in the real and the
virtual world [25-28].
So far, VR has been used in several studies on diverse
aspects of human behavior in fire, such as evacuation from
buildings [10, 19, 29-32], occupant behavior in road tunnel
fires [33-35], fire training [36-40], and other areas of safety
and security research [41-43].
If proven sufficiently valid, VR will be a promising route
to gain objective and reliable insights in HBiF. Results from
VR studies can be used to test theories of HBiF, verify and
validate evacuation models [44], and be integrated into VR
training measures [29, 45].
II. VR in Comparison to other Methods
Table I compares six different empirical research
methods, which gather data on HBiF, on several important
aspects such as the degree of experimental control,
experimental setting, and the type of data that can be
collected with each method.
In hypothetical studies have been used in evacuation
research [46]. Participants are usually either shown videos or
are instructed to imagine a certain scenario and then asked
how they would react in that situation. Another example
would be data acquisition from experts who evaluate the
outcome of a given hypothetical scenario. These scenarios
can be in the form of an interview or questionnaires. Data
TABLE I.
COMPARISON OF RESEARCH METHODS
Hypothetical
study
"Classical" lab
experiment VR experiment Field studies Drills Case Studies
Setting laboratory laboratory laboratory real-world real-world real-world
Experimental
control
yes
Yes (less than in
VR)
yes
limited
no
no
Setting
laboratory
laboratory
laboratory
real-world
real-world
real-world
Type of data subjective
(statements from
participants or
experts)
subjective,
objective
(behavior &
psycho-
physiology)
subjective, objective
(behavior &
psycho-physiology)
subjective,
objective
(behavior)
subjective,
objective
(behavior)
subjective,
objective
(behavior)
Possibility of use
of stressors no (only
hypothetical) limited limited limited limited yes
Ecological
validity low medium medium medium high, if
unannounced;
limited, if
announced
high
Possibility of
adjusting
experimental
setting
yes yes yes limited no no
Possibility of
exact replication
yes
yes
yes
limited
no
no
Time and cost
intensity for
data collection
very low low low high medium -
Automatic data
collection
possible
yes yes yes limited limited no
320 PREPRINTS OF THE FEDCSIS. WARSAW, 2014
from hypothetical studies is always subjective as they reflect
the participants’ personal opinion, knowledge, or experience.
Subjective data, although being prone to bias, can be highly
useful to gain insights into how occupants experienced an
event or to reconstruct chains of events.
In “classical” laboratory studies real world scenarios are
transferred into the controlled environment of a laboratory.
Here, causal effects can be investigated with experimental
methods by manipulating independent variables and
measuring dependent variables (e.g., behavior, subjective
data, and physiological data). Participants have to be
assigned randomly into at least two experimental conditions
for a true experiment which vary only in one condition (the
independent variable). It is crucial that laboratory studies are
ethical acceptable. That is, the experimenter may, for
example, only use stimuli/stressors that are not actually
harming the participant.
In VR experiments, participants can be confronted with
simulated fire emergencies. Simulations of fire emergencies
can be presented to participants in an extremely controlled
way. VR experiments allow the convenient recording of
behavioral and physiological data with a very high
resolution as well as the collection of subjective data. In
comparison to other methods, the presentation of stressors
(e.g., flames) is ethically less critical compared to classical
laboratory and field studies.
In field studies, emergency scenarios can be reenacted in a
naturalistic setting outside of a laboratory. Unlike in
laboratory settings, field studies are usually in less controlled
environments (although certain infrastructures like road
tunnels are highly controllable). Similar to classical
laboratory studies and VR experiments, field studies use
subjective and objective data (recorded behavior).
Drills are either announced or unannounced practice
scenarios in real world settings. Although very similar to
field studies, the focus of drills is usually on practicing
emergency procedures. They allow the observation of
occupant behavior under naturalistic conditions in a specific
location. Similar to field studies, observational data and self-
report data can be acquired.
Case studies refer to the descriptive, exploratory or
explanatory analysis of a real fire emergency. Subjective
self-report data from occupants and analysis of closed-circuit
television footage can be used to reconstruct the events of a
real emergency.
In addition, mixed methods may help to overcome
limitations of individual methods. For example it is possible
to modify participants experience in real world settings
using augmented reality, or increase the immersiveness of a
VR system by adding real elements (for example objects that
participants can touch) to a VR study.
When planning studies on HBiF researchers have to
consider certain factors and restrictions (See Table I). These
include the necessary degree of experimental control, the
choice of setting (laboratory or real-world), or the type of
data required (subjective vs objective) and whether or not it
is important to be able to adjust or replicate the experimental
scenario during data acquisition. There are also factors
related to the efforts necessary for the realization of a study.
Efforts can be financial (e.g., costs for hard and software,
personnel, participant recruitment, or lab space in VR
experiments) but also whether or not data can be collected
and processed automatically (e.g., with tracking devices) or
has to be extracted from video footage.
These comparisons do not necessarily reflect strengths or
weaknesses, rather factors that should be considered when
deciding on which research method is most suitable for a
certain research question. The methods discussed here do not
provide the best solution for every research issue. There are
arguments for and against the use of each method to address
specific concerns. In this section, the VR studies are
analyzed with respect to key aspects of a research question.
II. SWOT ANALYSIS
SWOT analysis refers to the analysis of Strengths,
Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats of a given method
or product [7]. The present SWOT analysis (Table II) aims
to uncover internal strengths and weaknesses of VR as a
research tool in HBiF and to identify its surrounding
conditions (opportunities and threats). A detailed
description of SWOT analysis can be found in reference
[7].
• Strengths refer to inherent resources and capacities of
VR helping to gather objective, reliable, and valid
empirical data on HBiF.
• Weaknesses describe inherent shortcomings,
limitations, and problems of VR to achieve its goal.
• Opportunities comprise surrounding conditions or
trends from which VR research will potentially
benefit and which is promising to overcome
weaknesses.
• Threats are surrounding conditions which are
detrimental to the use of VR as a research tool in
HBiF and which need to be overcome.
I. Strengths
Internal validity is possibly the most important strength of
VR studies. Entire VEs can be easily controlled. Stimulus
control and experimental stimulus manipulation is a key
feature in investigating cause and effect relations [47]. It is
extremely difficult to impossible to control the environment
in field studies, drills, and even classical lab studies. For
instance, in VR smoke can be numerically calculated and
then repeatedly presented in exactly the same way to several
participants. “Real” smoke, even in the controlled
environment of a classical laboratory study, will always
vary, and consequently visibility conditions may change
across observations. Lack of experimental control limits the
reliability and consequently the internal validity of these
methods.
Replication. VR studies can be replicated to the last detail,
given the usage of the same or comparable equipment. One
major criterion for empirical studies is that they can
be/should be reproducible. Replication refers to the
MAX KINATEDER ET AL.: VIRTUAL REALITY FOR FIRE EVACUATION RESEARCH 321
repetition of a study using the same methods but different
participants and experimenters. Studies need to be replicated
in order to test their reliability and validity and to test their
generalizability and the role of confounding variables. Real
world studies, especially field and case studies, provide data
for only one specific event and are extremely difficult to
replicate.
Ecological validity refers to the degree with which the
methods of a study represent the real world scenario that is
being examined. VR offers a similar degree of ecological
validity as classical laboratory studies, but depending on the
research question one method or the other may be more
suitable. For example, certain features of a fire emergency,
such as the visual simulation of flames, may be simulated
with higher control in VR but other features (e.g. touch) may
be more difficult but not impossible to simulate in VR (e.g.
using a mix of virtual and real elements). However,
simulation of heat or olfactory cues is possible but still
limited as it is both technically challenging to present
olfactory stimuli in an experimentally controlled manner.
Ecological validity of VR studies is higher than in
hypothetical studies since the latter require the ability of
participants to correctly imagine a scenario. High – but not
absolute – ecological validity of VR studies can be assumed
if the visualization, observed behavior, and task difficulty of
a simulated fire emergency is realistic, i.e., based on valid
models and representative of real world events. VR
simulations can have the same degree of visual realism as
simulations in classical laboratory studies.
All laboratory experiments including VR studies,
however, are abstractions of reality and therefore some loss
of ecological validity is inherent to the method in
comparison to real events [47]. Even the most sophisticated
field experiment and the most advanced VR simulation on
human behavior in dangerous situations cannot (and should
not) claim absolute ecological validity. Participants will
always know that they are taking part in an artificial
situation. However, this is true for all methods compared in
the present article with the exception of unannounced drills
and case studies. Knowing that one takes part in a study
and/or that there is no real danger, may lead to systematic
biases in participants’ responses.
External validity refers to the question whether the results
of a study can be generalized from the experimental setting
to other situations or populations [48]. VR and other
laboratory studies allow controlling confounding factors and
thus studying general underlying effects in HBiF is possible.
Results from uncontrolled studies (e.g., drills, case studies,
and to some extent also in field studies) cannot not be
generalized because confounding variables are not
controlled.
Safety for participants. VR allows the controlled
simulation of perilous scenarios, such as extreme tunnel
fires, without putting the participants at risk of a physical
harm. That is, VR studies are ethically less problematic than
field studies since it is possible to simulate catastrophic and
life threatening situations without risking to physical harm
participants. However, there are also limitations for VR
studies (see Threats).
Real-time feedback. Precise tracking of various
parameters as well as the highly controlled visual input
technologies allow to give participants and researchers
immediate feedback of behavior, performance, and even
psychophysiological processes. For example, task-
performance or physiological parameters such as heart rate
can be displayed online during trials. This allows the
experimenter to have real time access to data. Real time
feedback for participants can be used to test training
measures (e.g., fire evacuation training).
Multi-modal simulations. In theory, simulation of any
modality is possible. To date, combined simulation of visual
and auditory stimuli are very well developed. Olfactory,
nociceptive, or thermoceptive simulations are also possible,
however, still less technologically advanced.
Precise measurement. Precise tracking technology allows
accurate analysis of various aspects of participants’ behavior
(e.g., full body tracking, head movement, eye tracking) with
extremely high sampling rates.
Psychophysiological monitoring. In addition to behaviors,
psychophysiological parameters such as heart rate or skin
conductance can be measured easily in a VR laboratory.
Measuring physiological correlates of behavior while being
immersed into a VE allows researchers to analyze emotional
reactions (e.g., fear reactions) to simulated emergencies.
Low costs. Once a VR system is set up, it can be used, in
theory, infinitely. Virtual scenarios can be re-used and easily
modified. With the decrease in prices for hardware and
software (some VR simulation software are even free to
use), VR experiments have become more and more
affordable. Although costs for individual studies vary
significantly, VR studies are generally cheaper than field
studies. However, setting up a complete complex VR
laboratory such as CAVE systems is cost intensive and
requires space but is relatively affordable to run.
Repeated measurements. Participants can easily be
immersed repeatedly into VEs and repeated measurements in
identical scenarios are possible. Recreating identical
conditions is complex or even impossible with other
methods (See also Replication). Repeated measurements can
be used to test, for example, training measures aimed to
improve HBiF.
Flexibility. Experimental settings in VR can be adjusted
easily, allowing to run pilot studies and to quickly develop
minor alterations of the experimental set-up.
Control of confounding variables. There are many
variables that potentially confound the effect of a given
independent variable but are not of primary interest (e.g.,
minor changes in starting positions, left/right turning
preferences). These can be easily controlled in VR and
laboratory studies but is difficult to impossible in other
designs.
Independent of imagination abilities/willingness of
participants. Producing highly immersive VEs reduces the
variance in participants’ response caused by individual
322 PREPRINTS OF THE FEDCSIS. WARSAW, 2014
differences in the ability and willingness to imagine a given
scenario. Hypothetical studies rely on the ability of
participants to imagine a scenario. Here, researchers have no
control of the ability and willingness of participants to
imagine, for example, a fire evacuation from a high-rise
building.
Participant recruitment. Although not an important
strength of VR studies, it is worth mentioning that recruiting
a sample for a VR study has less restrictions than recruiting
for a drill or field study. In field studies, the experimental
set-up is often only available on limited occasions and may
be time and cost intensive to install. For example, certain
infrastructures such as underground public transportation
systems or road tunnels may only be accessible to
researchers at a very limited time or during certain hours of
the day making data collection difficult. Once a VR scenario
has been set-up it can be repeated, in theory, at any given
time which allows longer and more flexible time-windows
for data collection.
II. Weaknesses
Need for confirmation/validation. To date, there are still
not enough validation studies. These are necessary to test the
assumptions that behavior in a simulated scenario can
predict or be transferred to “real” HBiF.
Non-intuitive interaction methods. Although VEs are
interactive, participants often need devices like gamepads to
navigate in and interact with the virtual environment. This
always reminds the participants that they are in an artificial
scenario, and if the scenario is not well designed, may bias
behavior. For example, evacuation times may vary
depending on how well participants can handle their
navigation device. However, developments in input devices
may partially address this weakness (See also
Opportunities).
Inter-individual differences in ease of interaction with VR.
Depending on various factors, such as age or experience
with VR, participants may have difficulties when using VR.
For example, participants who have a lot of experience using
3D video games may find it easier to navigate in a VE.
Participants, who have less experience with computers (e.g.,
elderly participants) may need longer practice sessions
before they can navigate without limitations in a VE.
Technical limitations. Visual input as well as well as
interaction methods are still limited. Although visual
simulation of virtual environments has improved
tremendously in recent years, the current simulations will
always be recognized as such by participants. Such
imperfections (e.g. in model rendering, spatial resolution,
field of view (for HMDs), graphic update rate, lags between
head tracking and visualization) of VEs may lead to artifacts
[49]. Especially the simulation of behaviorally realistic
virtual humans is still challenging. Another technological
limitation is the need for interaction tools, such as game pads
or HMDs, to immerse into and interact in the VE. For
example, navigation, even in a highly immersive CAVE
system is either limited to a few square meters or
participants have to use interaction devices. These technical
challenges may limit the immersiveness of a VR system and
lead to a lower experience of presence.
Technology-induced side effects. Prolonged exposure to
VR may cause symptoms of nausea and vertigo (simulator
sickness; for a review on simulator sickness, see references
[49, 50]). The incidence of these side effects depends upon
characteristics of the VR system (e.g., display field of view,
lag between tracking device and update of the visualization)
and participants [51]. Such side-effects need to be
considered when planning and evaluating the ethical
innocuousness (e.g., participants need to be able to terminate
the experiment whenever they want to).
TABLE II.
SUMMARY OF A SWOT ANALYSIS FOR VR IN FIRE EVACUATION RESEARCH.
Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats
• Internal validity
• Replication
• Ecological validity
• External validity
• Safety for participants
• Real-time feedback
• Multi-modal simulations
• Precise measurement
• Psychophysiological
monitoring
• Low costs
• Repeated measurements
• Flexibility
• Control of confounding
variables
• Independent of imagination
abilities/willingness of
participants
• Participant recruitment
• Need for
confirmation/validation
• Non-intuitive interaction
methods
• Inter-individual differences
in ease of interaction with
VR
• Technical limitations
• Technology-induced side
effects
• Efforts
• Intuitive and natural
navigation
• Graphical developments
• Multi-modal simulation and
feedback
• Usability for researchers
• Exchange of 3D-scenes or
experiments
• Failure to show ecological
validity
• Ethical challenges
• Side-effects due to interaction
with other medical conditions
• Misleading expectations
• Technical faults
MAX KINATEDER ET AL.: VIRTUAL REALITY FOR FIRE EVACUATION RESEARCH 323
Efforts. Setting up a highly immersive VR laboratory is
time and cost intensive. [49]. Creating plausible VEs is also
complex (the differences between less immersive and simple
environments and complex highly immersive VEs is
extreme) and requires expertise with special hard- and
software systems. Given the rapid developments in this type
of technology, constant investment may be required to stay
up-to-date.
III. Opportunities
Intuitive and natural navigation. Although, highly
immersive VR systems, such as CAVE or HMD systems,
allow participants to move freely with their whole body
within the VE [52], even the most advanced systems still
have movement restrictions and participants have to use
navigation and input devices. Advances in tracking
technology, innovative interaction devices, and VR systems
that allow natural navigation (e.g., bigger CAVE systems or
wireless HMDs and walking platforms) may reduce the
weakness of limited space and non-intuitive interaction
devices, e.g. [52]. These advances promise even better
immersion into VEs and consequently improved ecological
validity.
Graphical developments. The dramatic improvement of
graphical simulations allows more and more photorealistic
simulation of fire emergencies. In addition, numerical
calculated fire and smoke have been successfully
implemented into VR simulations [37]. Similar to the
advances in navigation devices, improved realism of
simulations will lead to increased experience of presence for
participants and better ecological validity.
Multi-modal simulation and feedback. The integration of
multi-modal simulations for visual and auditory simulation
extended by kinesthetic, olfactory, haptic, thermoceptive
simulation allows the simulation of more complete
scenarios. For examples, see references [53, 54].
Usability for researchers. The widespread use of VR
technology depends highly on its usability for researchers.
Recent developments in easy to use VR tool kits make VR
technology more accessible. The improved cross platform
compatibility helps the use of VR over different platforms
and operation systems.
Exchange of 3D-scenes or experiments. Researchers can
easily exchange 3D models or even entire experiments with
each other. This may foster cooperation between laboratories
and also lead to the development of standard scenarios
which could be used as references and thus increase
comparability of different VR studies.
IV. Threats
Failure to show ecological validity. This is the biggest
threat to VR as a research tool to study HBiF. Systematic
validation of VR for HBiF has still not demonstrated its
range of applicability. Future studies are clearly necessary to
test the ecological validity of VR to study HBiF.
Ethical challenges. Scientific studies on HBiF have to
comply with ethical standards such as the Declaration of
Helsinki which define ethical standards for studies with
human subjects [55]. Even though most participants are
aware that a virtual fire provides no threat to them, some
participants may still experience extreme fear. Just as with
any other method, VR research needs to ensure that the
experienced fear cannot lead to longer lasting difficulties for
participants such as traumatization, especially if one has in
mind that VEs are getting closer and closer in means of
realism to real scenarios. In addition, a VR system that
causes extreme side effects (e.g., seizures or strong nausea)
would be ethically unacceptable.
If participants cannot differentiate between a simulated
and a real scenario, which may be the case, for example,
with small children, the same ethical restrictions as with
other methods apply.
Side-effects due to interaction with other medical
conditions. Some scenario for HBiF may be particularly
risky in causing side-effects in interaction with pre-existing
medical conditions. For example, studies using flashing
lights may cause seizures in at-risk populations; patients
with specific phobias (e.g., of tunnels or heights) may
experience extreme fear; Simulation of fire emergencies may
induce flashbacks in participants who previously have
experienced a traumatizing event. Other methods, however,
bear similar risks.
Misleading expectations. The expectation that VR
experiments can completely replace real world tests and
holistically covers all aspects of human behavior in fire is
misleading. Similar to classical laboratory experiment, VR
allows investigating general underlying processes of HBiF
and testing specific aspects (e.g., the effect of safety
installations on evacuation behavior). The conclusions from
these studies may even lead to changes in the design of real
world safety installations. However, HBiF is highly
complex; one can never exclude that individual decision-
making, behavior, and experience in a specific real scenario
may differ significantly from trends found in VR studies.
Certain technical faults in the implementation of a VR
system (e.g., jitter errors, discrepancies in simulation or
tracking latency) even can reduce the immersiveness and
even may increase side-effects like simulator sickness.
III. GENERAL DISCUSSION
The present position paper provides a SWOT analysis for
VR as a research tool to study HBiF. We provided an
overview of various methods used in HBiF and
systematically compared VR to these methods.
The biggest strength of VR is surely its ability to create
highly immersive, externally valid, highly controlled, and
safe experimental set-ups. The biggest weakness is the
reduced ecological validity in comparison with field and
case studies, as well as the lack of validation studies
specifically for HBiF. These studies should compare VR
experiments with the results of other laboratory experiments
and field studies.
The diverse methods used to study HBiF always have to
trade-off between ecological validity and experimental
control. For instance, case and field studies in real world
324 PREPRINTS OF THE FEDCSIS. WARSAW, 2014
settings provide almost perfect ecological validity. However,
strict experimental control is impossible to achieve here, and
financial and logistic efforts as well as ethical limitations
need to be considered. Hypothetical studies need to consider
less strict ethical limitations and are easier to realize, but rely
heavily on the ability of the participant’s imagination and are
prone to response biases.
Field studies are often characterized by the combination
of setting and participants, e.g., real world settings with
participants that naturally are in these settings. In the
evacuation area, this allows doing unannounced
experiments. This can never be achieved in VR or other
laboratory experiments, as participants need to be recruited
and enter the VR-lab (or ask them to put on some
equipment). At most, participants may be "deceived" by
telling them that they will take part in one study and then
exposing them to something else. However, this is easily
feasible in classical laboratory studies but requires more
efforts in VR studies. It can be argued that affects the
external validity of a study.
The differentiation between ecological and external
validity is important. Ecological validity refers to how good
a research method represents reality. External validity
describes how well study results can be transferred to other
situations and generalized over populations. Whereas
ecological validity is not, external validity is a prerequisite
for the overall validity of a study. A study, can be
ecologically valid (e.g., the results from an unannounced
drill) but not generalizable to other settings, populations,
cultures etc., if it lacks experimental control and, therefore,
internal validity).
I. What can we study in VR?
VR can be used to design complex laboratory experiments
on HBiF. It allows studying how occupants react to fire
cues, such as flames or smoke; it allows collecting precise
behavioral and psychophysiological data during controlled
simulated events. Virtual scenarios can be designed with an
extremely high level of detail. That way, we can use VR to
study underlying processes of HBiF (e.g. phenomena like
risk perception of occupants, social influence, architectural
influences, way-finding abilities in smoke, etc.). That way,
VR studies can contribute to a better understanding of HBiF.
In addition, evacuation concepts for large complex
buildings can be tested in VR making it possible to identify
potentially problematic evacuation routes before a new
building is constructed. This is particularly useful since
evacuation models implemented in simulation software tools
still oversimplify HBiF (e.g., some models assume that
occupants always take the shortest route to an emergency
exit [33]).
It is important to note that VR cannot replace any of the
other methods mentioned above but is complementary. VR
studies can be used in experimental pilot studies in order to
test a number of possible factors that may theoretically be
influencing HBiF (e.g. various design aspects of safety
equipment). Then, those factors deemed as the most
important ones in VR can then be tested in field experiments
or used to predict behavior in case studies or drills.
II. What can we not study in VR?
Virtual reality is not reality. Participants will always know
that they take part in an artificial situation. It is impossible to
generate situations in which participants’ would risk actual
physical harm. Extremely perilous situations may induce
effects (e.g., extreme fear) which are not attainable with
artificial scenarios, which in turn may affect behavior. Only
observations from real events and to some degree
unannounced drills may have this effect. It is impossible to
investigate these parts of HBiF using VR laboratory studies.
III. Conclusion and positioning statement
We argue that VR is a powerful approach to study HBiF.
VR allows shedding light on aspects of occupant behavior
that were previously impossible to investigate under
controlled conditions. Although we identified several
weaknesses and limitations of the method, the most
important one being the need for validation studies, it seems
possible that these can be overcome, either by technical
progress or by combining several different research
approaches (triangulation approach). None of the state of the
art research methods (including VR) are able to validly grasp
all aspects of HBiF, and VR does not aim to replace any of
the other presently established research methods. We see it
as a promising complementary laboratory tool in the quest to
understand HBiF and to improve fire safety.
IV. REFERENCES
[1] K. Fridolf, D. Nilsson, and H. Frantzich, "Fire evacuation in
underground transportation systems: a review of accidents and
empirical research," Fire Technology, vol. 49, pp. 451-475,
2013.
[2] M. Kobes, I. Helsloot, B. de Vries, and J. G. Post, "Building
safety and human behaviour in fire: A literature review," Fire
Safety Journal, vol. 45, pp. 1-11, 1// 2010.
[3] R. F. Fahy and G. Proulx, "A comparison of the 1993 and 2001
evacuations of the World Trade Center," in Proceedings of the
2002 Fire Risk and Hazard Assessment Symposium, 2002, pp.
111-117.
[4] D. Nilsson, H. Frantzich, and W. Saunders, "Coloured Flashing
Lights to Mark Emergency Exits - Experiences from Evacuation
Experiments," presented at the Fire Safety Science - Proceedings
of the Eighth International Symposium, Beijing, China, 2005.
[5] T. Shields and K. Boyce, "A study of evacuation from large
retail stores," Fire Safety Journal, vol. 35, pp. 25-49, 2000.
[6] P. Burns, G. Stevens, K. Sandy, A. Dix, B. Raphael, and B.
Allen, "Human behaviour during an evacuation scenario in the
Sydney Harbour Tunnel," Australian Journal of Emergency
Management, The, vol. 28, p. 20, 2013.
[7] A. S. Rizzo and G. J. Kim, "A SWOT Analysis of the Field of
Virtual Reality Rehabilitation and Therapy," Presence:
Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, vol. 14, pp. 119-146,
2005/04/01 2005.
[8] J. Steuer, "Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining
telepresence," Journal of communication, vol. 42, pp. 73-93,
1992.
[9] M. Slater, B. Spanlang, and D. Corominas, "Simulating virtual
environments within virtual environments as the basis for a
psychophysics of presence," ACM Transactions on Graphics
(TOG), vol. 29, p. 92, 2010.
[10] N. W. Bode, A. U. K. Wagoum, and E. A. Codling, "Human
responses to multiple sources of directional information in
MAX KINATEDER ET AL.: VIRTUAL REALITY FOR FIRE EVACUATION RESEARCH 325
virtual crowd evacuations," Journal of The Royal Society
Interface, vol. 11, p. 20130904, 2014.
[11] W. Barfield and E. Danas, "Comments on the use of olfactory
displays for virtual environments," Presence: Teleoperators and
Virtual Environments, vol. 5, pp. 109-121, 1996.
[12] E. Richard, A. Tijou, P. Richard, and J.-L. Ferrier, "Multi-modal
virtual environments for education with haptic and olfactory
feedback," Virtual Reality, vol. 10, pp. 207-225, 2006.
[13] F. Hülsmann, N. Mattar, J. Fröhlich, and I. Wachsmuth, "Wind
and Warmth in Virtual Reality–Requirements and Chances," in
Proceedings of the Workshop Virtuelle & Erweiterte Realität
2013, 2013.
[14] L. N. Boyle and J. D. Lee, "Using driving simulators to assess
driving safety," Accident Analysis and Prevention, vol. 42, pp.
785-787, May 2010.
[15] K. Meyerbröker and P. M. Emmelkamp, "Virtual reality
exposure therapy in anxiety disorders: a systematic review of
process‐and‐outcome studies," Depression and anxiety, vol. 27,
pp. 933-944, 2010.
[16] B. K. Wiederhold and M. D. Wiederhold, "Virtual Reality
Treatment of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Due to Motor
Vehicle Accident," Cyberpsychology Behavior and Social
Networking, vol. 13, pp. 21-27, Feb 2010.
[17] C. A. Anderson and B. J. Bushman, "External validity of
“trivial” experiments: The case of laboratory aggression,"
Review of General Psychology, vol. 1, pp. 19-41, 1997.
[18] H. M. Peperkorn, G. W. Alpers, and A. Mühlberger, "Triggers of
Fear: Perceptual Cues Versus Conceptual Information in Spider
Phobia," Journal of clinical psychology, 2013.
[19] M. Kobes, I. Helsloot, B. de Vries, and J. Post, "Exit choice,
(pre-)movement time and (pre-)evacuation behaviour in hotel
fire evacuation — Behavioural analysis and validation of the use
of serious gaming in experimental research," Procedia
Engineering, vol. 3, pp. 37-51, 2010/01// 2010.
[20] F. Malthe and Vukancic, "Virtual Reality och människors
beteende vid brand [Virtual Reality and human behavior in
fire]," Lund University LUCATORG: 011033007, 2012.
[21] J. Johansson and L. Petersson, "Utrymning och vägval i Virtual
Reality."
[22] A. Mühlberger, H. H. Bülthoff, G. Wiedemann, and P. Pauli,
"Virtual reality for the psychophysiological assessment of
phobic fear: responses during virtual tunnel driving,"
Psychological Assessment, vol. 19, pp. 340-346, Sep 2007.
[23] A. Calvi and M. R. De Blasiis, "How Long is Really a Road
Tunnel? Application of Driving Simulator for the Evaluation of
the Effects of Highway Tunnel on Driving Performance," in 6th
International Conference Traffic and Safety in Road Tunnels,
Hamburg, Germany, 2011.
[24] A. Calvi, "Analysis of Driver’s Behaviour in Road Tunnels: a
Driving Simulation Study," in 2010 International Symposium on
Safety Science and Technology, Zhejiang, China, 2010.
[25] J. Törnros, "Driving behaviour in a real and a simulated road
tunnel - A validation study," Accident Analysis and Prevention,
vol. 30, pp. 497-503, Jul 1998.
[26] T. Hirata, T. Yai, and T. Tagakawa, "Development of the driving
simulation system MOVIC-T4 and its validation using field
driving data," Tsinghua Science & Technology vol. 12, pp. 141-
150, 2007.
[27] O. Shechtman, S. Classen, K. Awadzi, and W. Mann,
"Comparison of Driving Errors Between On-the-Road and
Simulated Driving Assessment: A Validation Study," Traffic
Injury Prevention, vol. 10, pp. 379-385, 2009.
[28] S. Heliovaara, J.-M. Kuusinen, T. Rinne, T. Korhonen, and H.
Ehtamo, "Pedestrian behavior and exit selection in evacuation of
a corridor - An experimental study," Safety Science, vol. 50, pp.
221-227, Feb 2012.
[29] U. Rüppel and K. Schatz, "Designing a BIM-based serious game
for fire safety evacuation simulations," Advanced Engineering
Informatics, vol. 25, pp. 600-611, 2011.
[30] E. Duarte, F. Rebelo, J. Teles, and M. S. Wogalter, "Behavioral
compliance for dynamic versus static signs in an immersive
virtual environment," Applied Ergonomics, in press.
[31] G. Lawson, S. Sharples, D. Clarke, and S. Cobb, "Validating a
low cost approach for predicting human responses to emergency
situations," Applied Ergonomics, vol. 44, pp. 27-34, 1// 2013.
[32] L. Gamberini, P. Cottone, A. Spagnolli, D. Varotto, and G.
Mantovani, "Responding to a fire emergency in a virtual
environment: different patterns of action for different situations,"
Ergonomics, vol. 46, pp. 842-858, Jun 20 2003.
[33] E. Ronchi, M. Kinateder, M. Müller, M. Jost, M. Nehfischer, P.
Pauli, et al., "Evacuation travel paths in virtual reality
experiments for tunnel safety analysis," submitted.
[34] M. Kinateder, E. Ronchi, M. Müller, M. Jost, M. Nehfischer, P.
Pauli, et al., "Social influence on route choice in a virtual reality
tunnel fire," submitted.
[35] M. Kinateder, M. Müller, A. Mühlberger, and P. Pauli, "Social
Influence in a Virtual Tunnel Fire - Influence of Passive Virtual
Bystanders," in Human Behaviour in Fire 2012, Cambridge,
2012, pp. 506-516.
[36] M. Kinateder, P. Pauli, M. Müller, J. Krieger, F. Heimbecher, I.
Rönnau, et al., "Human behaviour in severe tunnel accidents:
Effects of information and behavioural training," Transportation
Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, vol. 17, pp.
20-32, 2013.
[37] Z. Xu, X. Z. Lu, H. Guan, C. Chen, and A. Z. Ren, "A virtual
reality based fire training simulator with smoke hazard
assessment capacity," Advances in Engineering Software, vol.
68, pp. 1-8, 2// 2014.
[38] K. M. O'Connell, M. J. De Jong, K. M. Dufour, T. L. Millwater,
S. F. Dukes, and C. L. Winik, "An Integrated Review of
Simulation Use in Aeromedical Evacuation Training," Clinical
Simulation in Nursing, vol. 10, pp. e11-e18, 1// 2014.
[39] S. L. Farra, E. T. Miller, and E. Hodgson, "Virtual reality
disaster training: Translation to practice," Nurse Education in
Practice.
[40] M. Cha, S. Han, J. Lee, and B. Choi, "A virtual reality based fire
training simulator integrated with fire dynamics data," Fire
Safety Journal, vol. 50, pp. 12-24, 5// 2012.
[41] A. I. Ginnis, K. V. Kostas, C. G. Politis, and P. D. Kaklis,
"VELOS: A VR platform for ship-evacuation analysis,"
Computer-Aided Design, vol. 42, pp. 1045-1058, 11// 2010.
[42] K. Andree, M. Kinateder, and D. Nilsson, "Immersive Virtual
Environment as a Method to experimentally study human
behaviour in fire," in 13th International Conference and
Exhibition on Fire Science and Engineering, Royal Holloway
College, University of London, UK, 2013, pp. 565-570.
[43] J. Drury, C. Cocking, S. Reicher, A. Burton, D. Schofield, A.
Hardwick, et al., "Cooperation versus competition in a mass
emergency evacuation: A new laboratory simulation and a new
theoretical model," Behavior research methods, vol. 41, pp. 957-
970, 2009.
[44] T. Kretz, S. Hengst, A. P. Arias, S. Friedberger, and U. D.
Hanebeck, "Using a Telepresence System to Investigate Route
Choice Behavior," arXiv preprint arXiv:1111.1103, 2011.
[45] J. Ribeiro, J. E. Almeida, R. J. Rossetti, A. Coelho, and A. L.
Coelho, "Using Serious Games to Train Evacuation Behaviour."
[46] W. Saunders, "Decision making model of behaviour in office
building fire evacuations," PhD PhD thesis, Department of
Psychology, Victoria University of Technology, 2001.
[47] J. M. Loomis, J. J. Blascovich, and A. C. Beall, "Immersive
virtual environment technology as a basic research tool in
psychology," Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, &
Computers, vol. 31, pp. 557-564, 1999.
[48] W. R. Shadish, T. D. Cook, and D. T. Campbell, "Experimental
and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal
inference," 2002.
[49] J. Loomis, J. Blascovich, and A. Beall, "Immersive virtual
environment technology as a basic research tool in psychology,"
Behavior Research Methods, vol. 31, pp. 557-564, 1999.
[50] R. Patterson, M. D. Winterbottom, and B. J. Pierce, "Perceptual
issues in the use of head-mounted visual displays," Human
Factors, vol. 48, pp. 555-573, Fal 2006.
[51] K. M. Stanney and R. S. Kennedy, "Simulation Sickness," in
Human factors in simulation and training, P. A. Hancock, D. A.
Vincenzi, J. A. Wise, and M. Mouloua, Eds., ed Boca Raton,
Florida: CRC Press, 2010, pp. 117-124.
326 PREPRINTS OF THE FEDCSIS. WARSAW, 2014
[52] A. Nybakke, R. Ramakrishnan, and V. Interrante, “From virtual to
actual mobility: Assessing the benefits of active locomotion through
an immersive virtual environment using a motorized wheelchair,” in
3D User Interfaces (3DUI), 2012 IEEE Symposium on, 2012, pp.
27-30.
[53] B. Weber, M. Sagardia, T. Hulin, and C. Preusche, “Visual,
Vibrotactile, and Force Feedback of Collisions in Virtual
Environments: Effects on Performance, Mental Workload and Spatial
Orientation,” in Virtual Augmented and Mixed Reality. Designing
and Developing Augmented and Virtual Environments. vol. 8021,
R. Shumaker, Ed., ed: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2013, pp. 241-250.
[54] Heidelberg, 2013, pp. 241-250. J. Hummel, J. Dodiya, R. Wolff,
A. Gerndt, and T. Kuhlen, “An evaluation of two simple methods for
representing heaviness in immersive virtual environments,” in 3D
User Interfaces (3DUI), 2013 IEEE Symposium on, 2013, pp. 87-94.
[55] W. M. Association, “World Medical Association Declaration of
Helsinki. Ethical principles for medical research involving human
subjects,” Bulletin of the World Health Organization, vol. 79, p. 373,
2001.
MAX KINATEDER ET AL.: VIRTUAL REALITY FOR FIRE EVACUATION RESEARCH 327
