IEEE Consumer Electronics Magazine - July 2018 - 38

The qualitative approach allows
for a more detailed understanding
of a subject's perceptions and
experiences during their initial
encounter with a VR world.
e.g., spatial audio [18] and haptic systems [22]. Most recent
studies concerning interaction and immersion identify the role
of tracking technology and controllers [25], the visual representation and virtual hands [2] of the avatar [15], and the avatar's
walking techniques [11] to be significant for improving the
user's immersion. As a rule, it is assumed that more interactivity
will lead to a deeper immersion.
The most important factors for immersive consumer technology are well known, e.g., a wide field-of-view, stereoscopic
view with spatial sound, head tracking, and low-latency/highresolution displays. These factors, however, provide insight
only into the theoretical application of creating the most
immersive VR environment with certain hardware. So, while
the technical prerequisites for immersion are quite clear,
insight into the importance of the users' profiles is still lacking. For example, the findings of Lin and Jörg [13] and
Coxon et al. [9] demonstrate that the reactions to their experiments vary highly between participants. In immersion research,
only a few studies have taken into account the impact of individual subject factors on immersive tendencies ([1], [4], and
[23] are the exceptions to this). So the question remains:
What facilitates immersion aside from the technical aspects
of VR technology?

ouR Study
Note that current VR research does not include qualitative data
of an individual's experiences; therefore, from an individual
user perspective, it must be determined whether the degree of
interaction increases immersion in VR and whether the feeling
of being present is perhaps more associated with the user's habits of connecting with unknown environments. For this reason,
our study is devoted to the desideratum of qualitative data in the
field of interaction design and immersion in consumer VR.

Methods
Using a within-subject design and a multimethod qualitative
approach, this study addresses the generalized typology of
individual preferences concerning immersion.

ParticiPants
The sample of our study consists of ten participants recruited
from Witten/Herdecke University's student community. They
were between the ages of 19 and 27, with five males (averaging 23.4 years old) and five females (averaging 22 years
old). All of the subjects were randomly divided into two
groups, each containing five participants. Participants were
38 IEEE Consumer Electronics Magazine

july 2018

excluded if they had prior experience with VR or had a
known health issue regarding the use of head-mounted displays (e.g., epilepsy).

design
Our study uses a 2 × 2 within-subject design, offering a crossdesigned, first-time experience in two VR environments. This
design allows users to interact with a smaller pool of participants and helps to eliminate the likelihood of first-time exposure when analyzing both conditions.

survey instruMents and Procedures
Within the scope of this multimethod research design, a
broad range of surveying instruments was used. Prior to the
start of this study, all of the participants completed a general
self-efficacy scale, which is a ten-item psychometric scale
designed to assess the optimistic self-beliefs used to cope
with a variety of difficult life choices [24]. All of the items on
the scale were based on the concept of perceived self-efficacy
and outlined individual agency and responsibility for successful outcomes in unknown situations. Demographic data were
gathered to assess the participants' age, gender, and prior
gaming experience.
The main assessment instrument used was an interview
questionnaire administered after each experience. The interviews were conducted individually and lasted 10 min on average. The questionnaires contained fixed questions and mainly
focused on the user's experiences during the VR session [e.g.,
"What did you experience?" "Did you have the feeling of
being present at another place?" "Why and how was that?"
"How did you experience your (virtual) body?"]. After the second experience in the VR environment, participants were asked
to describe the differences in their perceptions of both demos.
After their individual discussions with our research team, all of
the participants were invited to join an open group discussion
after to capture collective meaning processes.
After each interview, a presence questionnaire was administered. It comprised ten statements adapted from Witmer and
Singer [31] and analyzed the degree of presence the users felt
while in a virtual environment. Participants responded on a
scale of 1-5, with responses ranging from "I do not agree at
all" to "I fully agree." The results of the users' questionnaires
were cross-checked to ensure consistency with statements the
users made in the interviews.
All of the test subjects were videotaped during their experiences in the VR environment to capture their movements
and physical interactions on a more objective level. The
recordings simultaneously captured both virtual and real
movements as well as any utterances. On average, the participants were in VR environment for a total of 15 min.

Materials and equiPMent
All of the participants used an Oculus Rift Development Kit 2,
in which head tracking was provided by the Oculus Rift and
the participants' hands were tracked using a Leap Motion
platform that consisted of two cameras that could detect a

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Consumer Electronics Magazine - July 2018