A Mini Review of Presence and Immersion in Virtual Reality

Abstract

Virtual reality technology is constantly improving such that a virtual environment is more like a physical one. However, some research evidence suggest that certain virtual reality scenarios are less real than others to human observers (e.g., experience of falling from a high place) leading to potential limitations of using virtual reality as a research tool for certain tasks. Moreover, since the inception of VR research the terms presence and immersion have been somewhat convoluted and at times, even used interchangeably. Using a thematic content analysis based on seventeen articles, a theme for each term emerged. Presence is an experiential quality in virtual environments and immersion is associated with the technical aspects of a virtual system that aide the user in feeling a sense of presence. Several new technologies, as well as more traditional approaches are discussed as potential methods to improve of immersion, and therefore presence, in virtual reality.

Full text

A Mini Review of Presence and Immersion in Virtual Reality
Michael Wilkinson, Sean Brantley, Jing Feng
North Carolina State University
Virtual reality technology is constantly improving such that a virtual environment is more like a physical
one. However, some research evidence suggest that certain virtual reality scenarios are less real than others
to human observers (e.g., experience of falling from a high place) leading to potential limitations of using
virtual reality as a research tool for certain tasks. Moreover, since the inception of VR research the terms
presence and immersion have been somewhat convoluted and at times, even used interchangeably. Using a
thematic content analysis based on seventeen articles, a theme for each term emerged. Presence is an
experiential quality in virtual environments and immersion is associated with the technical aspects of a
virtual system that aide the user in feeling a sense of presence. Several new technologies, as well as more
traditional approaches are discussed as potential methods to improve of immersion, and therefore presence,
in virtual reality.
INTRODUCTION
Virtual reality (VR) is a computer-generated
environment (Biocca, 1992) with a user-interface (UI) that
displays a real-time simulation by which an individual(s) can
interact through one or more sensory channels (Burdea &
Coiffet, 1994; Lee & Wong, 2014). The current and
continuously evolving technology allows for an impressive
experience using virtual reality with head-mounted displays
(VR-HMDs), especially with regard to height-related events.
In recent years, the use of this technology has become
more widespread due to cheaper buy-in options. VR has found
a home in gaming (Oculus, HVT Vive, PlayStation, Google
Cardboard, etc.), clinical and more generalized research, and
in training.
VR-HMDs tend to have a more palpable sense of
presence compared to traditional two-dimensional (2D)
displays. For example, Pallavicini et al. (2019) found that
while there were no differences in performance with regards to
usability between VR and traditional 2D desktop displays,
participants elicited stronger emotional responses as well as a
stronger sense of presence in VR while playing a video game.
In particular, height-related events in VR makes the interactive
experience evocative and realistic and are frequently studied
in VR as well as other fear-inducing stimuli. While research
concerning presence and realism between VR and 2D displays
is reasonably strong, that evidence notwithstanding, it is
unclear whether there are any presence-related limitations to
VR and whether is it possible to mitigate those limitations.
There have been a wide range of studies that examine the
efficacy of VR associated with presence which is generally
measured by objective arousal such as heart rate and skin
conductance, and subjective arousal using a multitude of
rating scales. Some research points to the equivalency of VR
to physical reality. Notably, Simeonov et al. (2005) compared
a real-world situation of leaning over a rail from a 9m high
balcony to a similar surround screen virtual reality (SSVR)
simulation. Their results indicated comparable levels of
anxiety and risk in both situations; however, SSVR achieved
lower heart rate and skin conductance responses, as well as a
lower sense of danger. One of the limitations of this study is
the use of SSVR which tends to have a less immersive quality
compared to VR-HMDs because participants are able to see
the edges of the screens. In contrast, other evidence seems to
suggest notable limitations of VR related to presence. Peterson
et al. (2018) used a beam walk for their VR study to test
physiological stress and cognitive load. They also used a
physical wooden beam for participants to walk across as a way
to provide tactile feedback. By recording beam step-offs
(errors), heart rate, electrodermal activity, response time and
electroencephalography (EEG), they found that their high
height condition elicited increased heart rate variability
compared to the low height condition. Further, participants’
performance (balance) decreased. While these findings do
suggest that VR may provide an experience which is
comparable to reality, VR does seem to be associated with
poorer physical and cognitive performance such as increased
RT as compared to performance when participants walked on
a physical wooden beam.
Recently, Wilkinson et al. (2019) conducted a study to
explore subjective experience of slow-motion using VR which
consisted of various height-related events (three events for
arousal manipulations: walking on a sidewalk, plank-walking
from 100m height, falling from the plank from top of a
building) coupled with a perceptual encoding task. Heart rate
was used as an objective measure of arousal. Although it was
hypothesized that the condition involving falling would be the
most arousal eliciting, the study found the two conditions
involving planks had comparable heart rates and were both
significantly higher than that of the condition that involved
walking on a sidewalk. A potential explanation is a ceiling
effect such that the conditions of presence and/or immersion in
VR are not sufficient enough to elicit a higher arousal
response while falling. If this is the case, is it possible to break
through this ceiling? But what is presence and what is
immersion? Given the inconsistencies in the findings as well
as how the two constructs are defined, a mini review was
conducted. In particular, attention was given to the
operationalization of presence and immersion as well as how
they were manipulated in research.
Copyright 2021 by Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. All rights reserved. 10.1177/1071181321651148
Proceedings of the 2021 HFES 65th International Annual Meeting 1099

Many studies examining presence and immersion in VR
generally compare this [VR] technology to another medium or
the real world. Although some research suggests the
effectiveness of VR-HMDs in supporting participants’
feelings of being in the world just like in the physical one,
Wilkinson et al. (2019) discovered that there may be a ceiling
effect that certain scenarios may not lead to optimal presence
(i.e., the experience of falling was not realistic enough to make
participants believe they were actually falling).
VR technology has been used for a few decades now and
the terms of presence and immersion have, at times, become
convoluted, and even used interchangeably in some cases.
Therefore, an exploration of how they are defined is
necessary. Furthermore, few studies have explored ways to
increase presence. Thus, the purpose of this paper is two-fold:
(1) to explore how presence and immersion are defined and
distinguished (if so) in the literature and (2) explore possible
methods that may increase presence in VR.
METHOD
A mini review was conducted with a literature search
involving two databases (PsycINFO and ProQuest) of peer-
reviewed articles from 2016 to 2021 using key terms and
AND/OR logics (Figure 1). The most recent five years were
chosen as a way to clarify the most findings. Some literature
was also identified via checking publications cited in those
articles’ reference lists, which were not restricted by date.
Articles were initially screened based on title and abstract to
determine whether an article was specifically exploring
presence and/or immersion in VR. Additional
inclusion/exclusion criteria are described in Figure 1. A
thematic content analysis was conducted to explore the key
words/phrases used to define presence and immersion and also
the share terms between presence and immersion.
Figure 1. Literature search and screening procedure.
An initial search revealed 132 matches for keywords and
terms which were narrowed down to 17 articles at the end of
the process. We plan to extract various information such the
definition of presence and immersion, how they were
manipulated (and any limitations), a well as the findings on
subjective and objective behavioral measures. This present
paper analyzes how each study defined presence and
immersion related to VR and provides a brief summary of how
to improve presence and immersion.
RESULTS
Definitions of Presence and Immersion
First, each term’s [total discovered] definitions (presence
= 11; immersion = 6) were input into MonkeyLearn, a word
cloud generator. Word clouds are visual representations of
words used in text. The more often a word is used within a
given text, the larger that word is in the cloud. The
visualization for presence revealed four meaningful
words/phrases: environment, illusion, experience, and
subjective feeling (Figure 2). The phrase, “virtual
environment” was excluded due to its contextual similarity to
“environment”. The visualization for immersion revealed three
meaningful words: experience, system, and environment
(Figure 3). The word “extent” is used frequently; however, in
the absence of context it provides no value itself with regard to
VR.
Figure 2. Word cloud for the term, “presence”.
Figure 3. Word cloud for the term, “immersion”.
Copyright 2021 by Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. All rights reserved. 10.1177/1071181321651148
Proceedings of the 2021 HFES 65th International Annual Meeting 1100

In addition to the preliminary analysis using word cloud
visualization, we also examined how each included article
operationalized the terms presence and immersion. In its
context within the definition, presence is generally associated
with the experience of being in another place or situation – a
detachment from normal reality and a perceptual attachment
to a different reality (Table 1). On the other hand, immersion
is associated with the more technical aspect related to the
illusion. It is a more objective quality of VR insofar as the
technology is capable of providing realistic feedback, general
interaction, and its ability to allow the user to move and
behave as they would normally (Table 2). The thematic
content analysis revealed two themes: presence is experiential,
immersion is the technical qualities of a system that aide the
feeling of presence. This seems to fall in line with the
Presence Questionnaire (PQ) by Witmer et al., (2005)
suggesting that presence and immersion are related, but not
completely identical, as the questions related to the abilities of
the system loaded onto the immersion/adaptation factor of
their scale, which accounted for 5.7% of the variance.
Table 1.
Definitions of presence related to virtual reality.
Study
Definition
Roettl & Terlutter
(2018)
Sense of being in a virtually mediated location
instead of being in a real location.
Triberti & Riva (2016)
Cognitive process with the purpose to locate the
Self in a physical space or situation, based on
the perceived possibility to act in it.
Zahorik & Jenison
(1998)
Tantamount to successfully supported action in
the environment.
Lombard & Ditton
(
1997)
Perceptual illusion of non-mediation.
Slater (2018)
Illusion of being there, notwithstanding that you
know for sure that you are not. It is a perceptual
but not a cognitive illusion.
Pan & Hamiliton (2018)
Making you feel like you are somewhere else.
Cooper et al. (2018)
Subjective feeling of being present in the virtual
environment, rather than the real space.
Makransky & Lilleholt
(2018)
A psychological state in which the virtuality of
the experience goes unnoticed.
Kisker et al. (2019).
The subjective feeling of being there in a virtual
environment while the awareness of the
physical environment and technical equipment
diminishes.
Slater (2003)
The extent to which the unification of simulated
sensory data and perceptual processing
produces a coherent place that you are in and
where there may be a potential for you to act.
Diemer (2015)
The perceptual distance between the actual
experience and the simulated experience.
Table 2.
Definitions of immersion related to virtual reality.
Study
Definition
Slater (2018)
Objective property of the system, to the extent
to which a VR system can support natural
sensorimotor contingencies for perception
including the response to a perceptual action.
Witmer & Singer (1998,
2005
)
A subjective experience: the psychological
state where one perceives oneself as being
included in and interacting with an
environment that provides a continuous stream
of stimuli and experience.
Kisker et al. (2019)
Slater & Wilbur (1997)
The degree to which a technical system
generates an inclusive, extensive, surrounding,
and vivid illusion of reality.
Slater et al. (1996)
A quantifiable description of technology,
which includes the extent to which the
computer displays are extensive, surrounding,
inclusive, vivid, and matching.
Shu et al. (2019)
The result of a good gaming experience that
includes disconnection from the real world and
real time, and involvement in the task
environment.
Slater & Wilbur (1997)
To be shut out of physical reality, offering high
fidelity simulations through multiple sensory
modalities, finely maps a user’s virtual bodily
actions to the physical counterparts, and
removes the participant from the external world
through self
-contained plots and narratives.
Improving Presence and Immersion in VR
Based on the findings of the reviewed articles and
authors’ understanding of other relevant domains and
technology, the section summarizes methods that may be
effective in improving presence and/or immersion in VR.
One way to enhance presence is to increase immersion.
Older graphics cards render three-dimensional (3D) images
through a series of polygons that can be shaded. New graphics
cards, such as the NVIDIA RTX 2080 Super simulate the
behavior of light by tracing the path it would take if it were
traveling from the human eye through the environment,
allowing it to create shadows and refractions (NVIDIA
Developer, n.d.).
Multi-sensory feedback is also another way to increase
immersion. Hecht et al. (2008) found that RT for trimodal
signals were faster than RT for bimodal signals. The use of
haptic feedback is now commercially viable and may serve as
another sensory feedback system to supplement traditional
visual and auditory stimuli (Figure 4). It is also possible to
create haptic feedback outside of the VR environment. For
instance, Simeonov et al. (2005) built a physical railing for
participants to lean over when comparing height effects in real
life and virtual environments using SSVR. Additionally, many
studies such as Kisker et al. (2019) have employed the use of
wooden planks or beams as a means for haptic feedback
outside the virtual world, providing participants the sensation
of having to balance while seeing a plank in VR.
Copyright 2021 by Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. All rights reserved. 10.1177/1071181321651148
Proceedings of the 2021 HFES 65th International Annual Meeting 1101

Auditory stimuli in the environment could also play a
role in presence and immersion. While conducting research,
we often attempt to mute ambient sound for more
experimental control. Although, this may not necessarily be
beneficial for research conducted in VR. The cinema industry
has led the way in terms of sound design to create a more
intense sense of presence in movies and games (Serafin &
Serafin, 2004). This may also be an overlooked but important
aspect of developing relevant research design in VR if one
were to attempt more realism for their study.
Emotion has often been linked to presence (Roettl &
Terlutter, 2018), especially in regard to physiological or
subjective arousal. Gromer et al. (2019) found that not only
more detailed sound and visual stimuli led to higher ratings of
presence within participants, but emotional responses also led
to stronger feelings of presence during height exposure in VR.
This is also related to Slater and Wilbur’s (1997) definition
that immersion encompasses the removal of a participant from
the real world through self-contained plots and narratives.
Figure 4. Plexus haptic feedback gloves for virtual reality systems,
(Nadyrshin, 2019)
Lastly, newer technology such as commercially available
LiDAR has been increasingly useful for 3D model rendering.
It may now be possible to create more realistic avatars and
other environmental features (such as furniture) via LiDAR
scanning (Figure 5). With this in mind, we propose a new
method of a slow integration into a virtual environment for
research. A researcher can take a 360-degree video of a real
room, where a participant is able to look around in all
directions. Over the course of several minutes, 3D rendered
models can fade into the environment, similar to that if one
were transitioning from one scene to another in a movie. More
realistic figures and objects afford the user a smaller leap into
a virtual world and may provide a stronger sense of presence
given more familiarity with their interaction in an environment
(Figure 6).
Figure 5. 3D rendering of a bust using a mobile application, (Sculpteo, 2021).
Figure 6. Transition of a real human from video to avatar in VR.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this paper was to examine and distinguish
definitions of presence and immersion in an attempt to more
accurately define them, as well as to provide a synopsis about
how they may be improved in VR. Further, presence has been
more often used in VR research when comparing two or more
mediums to ascertain which is more practical or useful for a
given purpose. Moreover, many studies relate to presence in
the sense that it exists or does not exist under context-specific
conditions in VR.
There are newer, commercially available options for
enhancing immersion in VR, which can subsequently improve
presence, such as haptic feedback gloves and vests and ray-
tracing graphics cards. A more traditional method is sound
design for auditory feedback taken from the entertainment
industry. These newer technologies and re-visited methods
may be instrumental in raising the ceiling effect for increasing
presence. Lastly, we propose a LiDAR as a way to easily (and
affordably) render 3D models to be used in VR which can be
slowly transitioned into an environment to mitigate the
uncanny valley.
There are a few limitations of the current study that
could be addressed in future research. First, this mini review
was based on article searches from only two databases,
PsycINFO and ProQuest. A more comprehensive and
exhaustive search with more databases could widen the
coverage. Another limitation of this paper was the
methodology. Thematic content analyses are subject to biases
by the researcher(s). In addition, the preliminary analysis used
word clouds for easier theme searchability; however, word
clouds on their own as a sole means to a thematic content
analysis tend to lack context. Despite this limitation, word
clouds provide some unique values by visualizations which
distinguished the terms while also showing that presence and
immersion had been a point of contention in the past.
There is no question that involving new technological
aspects for better immersion (ray-tracing graphics cards,
haptic feedback apparel) is likely to be a more costly option as
well suffering from usability issues both for researchers and
participants. Moreover, Cummings and Bailenson (2015)
found that immersion itself has a medium-sized effect on
presence, although individual immersive features varied in
their effect size. However, the advent of newer technology
coupled with the ability to slowly transition a participant into a
virtual world may prove to be worthwhile. Cummings and
Copyright 2021 by Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. All rights reserved. 10.1177/1071181321651148
Proceedings of the 2021 HFES 65th International Annual Meeting 1102

Bailenson (2015) concur that the limitation of their meta-
analysis is that it compares technologies that change and
improve with time.
One potential future research is to explore commercially
available LiDAR technology as a viable option to realistically
render models in virtual reality. This technology has the
potential to work along with ray-tracing graphics cards, better
sound design, and haptic feedback, all of which may
contribute to presence and immersion in VR, enhancing the
VR experience as well as its value in research.
REFERENCES
Biocca, F. (1992). Communication within virtual reality: Creating a space for
research. Journal of Communication, 42(4), 5-22.
Burdea, G.C., & Coiffet, P. (1994). Virtual reality technology (1st ed.).
London: Wiley-Interscience.
Cummings, J.J. & Bailenson, J.N. (2015). How immersive is enough? A
Meta-analysis of the effect of immersive technology on user presence. Media
Psychology, 19(2), 272-309. doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2015.1015740
Diemer, J., Alpers, G. W., Peperkorn, H. M., Shiban, Y., & Mühlberger, A.
(2015). The impact of perception and presence on emotional reactions: a
review of research in virtual reality. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(26), 1-9.
doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00026
Gromer, D. Reinke, M., Christner, I., & Pauli, P. (2019). Causal interactive
links between presence and fear in virtual reality heigh exposure. Frontiers in
Psychology, 10 (141), 1-11. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00141
Hecht, D., Reiner, M., & Karni, A. (2008). Enhancement of response times to
bi-and-tri-modal sensory stimuli during active movements. Experimental
Brain Research, 185(4), 655. doi.org/10.1007/s00221-007-1191-x
Kisker, J., Gruber, T., & Schöne, B. (2019). Behavioral realism and lifelike
psychophysiological responses in virtual reality by the example of height
exposure. Psychological Research, 85, 68-81. doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-
01244-9
Lee, E. A.-L., & Wong, K. W. (2014). Learning with desktop virtual reality:
Low spatial ability learners are more positively affected. Computers &
Education, 79, 49-58. doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.07.010
Lombard, M. & Ditton, T. (1997). At the heart of it all: The concept of
presence. Journal of Computer Communications, 3(2).
doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.tb00072.x
NVIDIA Developer (n.d.). Get started with real-time ray tracing. Retrieved
from: developer.nvidia.com/rtx/raytracing
Pallavicini, F., Pepe, A., & Minissi, M.E. (2019). Gaming in virtual reality:
What changes in terms of usability, emotional response, and sense of presence
compared to non-immersive video games? Simulation & Gaming, 50(2), 136-
159. doi.org/10.1177/1046878119831420
Peterson, S. M., Furuichi, E., & Ferris, D. P. (2018). Effects of virtual reality
high heights exposure during beam-walking on physiological stress and
cognitive loading. PLoS ONE, 13(7), e0200306.
doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200306
Roettl J. & Terlutter R. (2018) The same video game in 2D, 3D or virtual
reality - How does technology impact game evaluation and brand placements?
PLoS ONE, 13(7), e0200724. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200724
Sculpteo (2021). 3D scan with a phone: Our best tips. Retrieved from:
https://www.sculpteo.com/en/3d-learning-hub/best-articles-about-3d-
printing/3d-scan-smartphone/
Serafin, S. & Serafin, G. (2004) Sound design to enhance presence in
photorealistic virtual reality. Proceedings in ICAD 04-Tenth Meeting of the
International Conference on Auditory Display, Sydney Australia.
Shu, Y., Huang, Y. Z., Chang, S. H., & Chen, M. Y. (2019). Do virtual reality
head-mounted displays make a difference? A comparison of presence and
self-efficacy between head-mounted displays and desktop computer-facilitated
virtual environments. Virtual Reality, 23, 437-446. doi.org/10.1007/s10055-
018-0376-x
Simeonov, P.I., Hsiao, H., Dotson, B.W., & Ammons, D.E. (2005). Height
effects in real and virtual environments. Human Factors, 47(2), 430-438.
doi:10.1518/0018720054679506
Slater, M. (2018). Immersion and the illusion of presence in virtual reality.
British Journal of Psychology, 109, 431-433.
Slater, M., Linakis, V., Usoh, M., & Kooper, R. (1996). Immersion, presence,
and performance in virtual environments: An experiment with tri-dimensional
chess. In M. Green, K. M. Fairchild, & M. Zyda (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd
ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology (VRST 1996)
(pp. 163-172). New York, NY: ACM Press.
Slater, M., & Wilbur, S. (1997). A framework for immersive virtual
environments (FIVE): Speculations on the role of presence in virtual
environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 6(6), 603-
616. doi.org/10.1162/pres.1997.6.6.603.
Triberti S, & Riva G. (2016). Being present in action: A theoretical model
about the “Interlocking” between intentions and environmental affordances.
Frontiers in Psychology, 6, e2052. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.02052
Wilkinson, M., Pugh, Z., Crowson, A., Feng, J., Mayhorn, C.B., and Gillan,
D. (2019). Seeing in Slow Motion: Manipulating Arousal in Virtual Reality.
Proceedings of Human Factors & Ergonomics Society 2019 Annual Meeting,
1649-1653. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181319631512
Witmer, B. G., Jerome, C. J., & Singer, M. J. (2005). The factor structure of
the presence questionnaire. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual
Environments, 14(3), 298-312.
Witmer, B.G. & Singer, M. J. (1998). Measuring presence in virtual
environments: A presence questionnaire. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual
Environments, 7(3), 225-240.
Zahorik, P. & Jenison, R.L. (1998). Presence as being-in-the-world. Presence
Teleoperators Virtual Environments, 7(1), 78-89.
Copyright 2021 by Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. All rights reserved. 10.1177/1071181321651148
Proceedings of the 2021 HFES 65th International Annual Meeting 1103