With all these different opinions and misconceptions about what "presence" is, in the technical sense within the VR "science" scope, may it be possible for Oculus to issue a blog post addressing the subject? with a non ambigous definition, some historical context ('cos AFAIK it's not a new concept) and examples of what is NOT "presence".
"crim3" wrote: With all these different opinions and misconceptions about what "presence" is, in the technical sense within the VR "science" scope, may it be possible for Oculus to issue a blog post addressing the subject? with a non ambigous definition, some historical context ('cos AFAIK it's not a new concept) and examples of what is NOT "presence".
Good luck with that! Presence is the feeling of being there, and when feelings are involved, it's not exactly going to be easy to come up with anything definitive so be prepared for plenty more differing opinions. When we arrive at an answer, maybe then we can get a non-ambiguous definition of love or such.
13700K, RTX 4070 Ti, Asus ROG Strix Z790-A Gaming, Corsair H150i Capellix, 64GB Corsair Vengence DDR5, Corsair 5000D Airflow, 4TB Samsung 870 , 2TB Samsung 990 Pro x 2, DK2, CV1, Rift-S, Quest, 2, 3, Pro, Windows 11 Pro 24H2 (10.0.26100)
Presence and Immersion have been defined in regards to virtual environments (VE: to include virtual, augmented, and mixed reality) in academia for a long time. If you would like to look into a little more depth M. Slater has a number of papers on immersion and presence.
Generally: Immersion is capturing ones the attention and focus...pulling them into the environment. This is not only a VE thing though. You can (and probably have) experienced this in reading a book, watching a movie, playing a game of chess or traditional video game.
Presence on the other hand is tricking someone into believing that they are actually in a different place. That they are physically in that virtual environment. This is specifically the domain of VR (and head mounted displays, such as Oculus Rift and VIVE)
What are you actually asking here? The definition of presence is out there, so what is it exactly that you're looking to standardize? Are you trying to set a standard for training, entertainment, information exchange? It might be more complicated that you realize.
For example studies have shown that in order to effectively transfer training from a virtual environment to the real world not only do you need immersion and presence but also "Buy-in" from the participants. Something as seemingly unimportant as the color of ones shirt can break the scenario due to lack of buy-in. Studies have also shown that there is a distinct level of diminishing returns when it comes to graphics fidelity that differs based on the scenario. The graphics don't have to be that good to maintain immersion, presence and buy in for some scenarios, but must be high in others.
I would refer to the Abrash talks at Oculus Connect 1. My take-away is that it's not so much about "feelings" or conscious acceptance of the virtual environment. That's more akin to "immersion" and is easily accessible through other mediums like television or even books. So deep emotional involvement would not be considered presence. The way that Abrash approached it had to do with subconscious reactions to the virtual environment - bodily preparations for falling being an example.
I read a book recently on 'the feeling of presence in a synthetic environment and its potential for clinical change' a very interesting subject written and studied by 'Fabrizia Mantovani' of Italy , Centre for Studies in Communication Sciences. – CESCOM, University of Milan-Bicocca, Milan, Italy and 'Giuseppe Riva' of Italy , Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, to be of great interest in the matter and one we should all be aware of moving into the VR technological age.
I think I have an understanding of what it means thanks to Abrash's talks, but many people keeps using the common meaning of presence. And when someone tries to correct him/her with the technical meaning within the context of VR, people just doesn't believe it, and the discussion becomes steril.
I'd love that Michael Abrash would take advantage of the almost unused Oculus blog to give a good definition and use it as a reference for discussions about the sense of presence in VR.
It's a catch-phrase now and is commonly used to mean something like "deep engagement". But it's not that. It's not even an extrapolation of immersion which everyone seems to assume. At this point, I've seen so much VR that I remain almost permanently mentally detached from it - to the point of boredom. I don't feel much involvement in something like ToyBox anymore, but that doesn't mean my body doesn't respond with presence. Even in a disinterested state and fully aware of the technical realities of the presentation, I will catch myself doing things like involuntarily avoiding or anticipating collisions with objects.
This is something I think about all the time. Presence is not a feeling of awe or excitement or engagement or novelty. Those things are separate from the experience of presence, just as in real life. I feel "presence" in real life, even when I am at my desk at work at 3:00 PM ready to fall asleep.
"brantlew" wrote: It's a catch-phrase now and is commonly used to mean something like "deep engagement". But it's not that. It's not even an extrapolation of immersion which everyone seems to assume. At this point, I've seen so much VR that I remain almost permanently mentally detached from it - to the point of boredom. I don't feel much involvement in something like ToyBox anymore, but that doesn't mean my body doesn't respond with presence. Even in a disinterested state and fully aware of the technical realities of the presentation, I will catch myself doing things like involuntarily avoiding or anticipating collisions with objects.
This helps me greatly to define what's needed for a good vr experience. We need to be presented with something that you want to see, something that draws you in like fine art, something compelling so you can't look away. Perhaps that's obvious, but it's needed to keep the viewer's attention. The opposite of boring. Of course it takes an artist to create the thing, but that's what makes something unique. Seriously, think of what you have enjoyed seeing, whether a sunset on a warm beach or the workings of a complicated machine. It's art, and it grabs you. There's a lot of ground to cover.
i7-5820K @ 4.2Ghz, water cooled, Asus X99-Pro USB 3.1, 48 Gb DDR4 2400, Samsung 950 pro M.2 SSD, GTX 980 Ti SC, 750w psu
