Virtual
Reality in museums
Master Thesis MSc Business AdministrationAugust, 18th 2017
F.
Peerenboom
Studentnumber: 11415436 MSc Business Administration
Entrepreneurship and Management in the Creative Industries University of Amsterdam
Abstract
While a sufficient amount of existing literature can be found on the use of Virtual Reality in museums, we still know very little about how this technology comes into play in serving any predefined objectives, such as contributing to educational efforts. The aim of the study is to offer insights based on both theoretical and empirical research to provide a solid foundation for subsequent investigation around this new phenomenon. To that end it presents, firstly, the theoretical relation between VR and current museological trends; and secondly, the empirical results with the intention of studying the rationale behind the decision whether to use this kind of technology in in a museum setting. The results have finally shown that VR can be used to have people interact with whatever is presented in museums. The high potential of this technology lies in the fact that it is able to create access to inaccessible or nonexistent places. Furthermore, it can be used to serve museums’ educational goals by enhancing visitors’ experience. In that respect, 14 expert interviews are conducted to illuminate the realities of Virtual Reality as applied in museum exhibitions, while focusing attention on the effect it has related to its educational features.
Acknowledgements
This thesis was written in the context of my graduation for the Master Study Business Administration at the University of Amsterdam 2016-2017. Hereby I would like to thank my supervisor Matthijs Leendertse for his guidance and professional feedback throughout the project. I would also like to thank all participants who have worked on this research. Without their cooperation, I had never been able to obtain the required amount of valuable insights. Finally, I would like to thank my parents, friend Lana and boyfriend Thomas. Their wisdom and motivational words have helped me to make a success of this thesis.
I hope you enjoy reading.
Felicia Peerenboom
Nans les Pins, France, 18 August 2017
Statement of Originality This document is written by Felicia Peerenboom who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document. I declare that the text and the work presented in this document are original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
Table
of Contents
Abstract 1
Acknowledgements 2
Table of contents 3
1. Introduction 5 2. Theoretical Framework 8 2.1 Museums 8 2.1.1 Background 8 2.1.2 Business models 9 2.1.3 Value propositions 11 2.1.4 Customer relationships 13 2.1.5 Channels 14 2.1.6 Customer segments 15 2.2 Virtual Reality 16 2.2.1 Introduction 16
2.2.2 Types and forms 18
2.2.3 Features 21
2.3 Virtual Reality in museums 24
2.3.1 Application 24
2.3.1.1 Entertainment 25
2.3.1.2 Education 26
2.3.2 Level of potential 28
2.3.3 Edutainment 30
2.3.4 Considerations 32
2.4 Conceptual Model 34
3. Methodology 36
3.1 Type of research 36
3.2 Research design 37 3.3 Assuring quality 38 3.4 Data collection 41 3.5 Operationalization 42 3.6 Data Analysis 45 3.7 Ethics 47 4. Results 49 4.1 Museums 49 4.1.1 Value propositions 49 4.1.2 Channels 52 4.1.3 Customers 54 4.2 Virtual Reality 56 4.2.1 Introduction 56 4.2.2 Elements 57
4.3 Virtual Reality in museums 59
4.3.1 Utilization 59
4.3.2 Implementation 62
4.3.3 Evaluation 65
5. Conclusion of results 69
5.1.2 Channels 69
5.1.3 Customers 70
5.2 Virtual Reality 70
5.2.1 Introduction 70
5.2.2 Elements 71
5.3 Virtual Reality in museums 71
5.3.1 Utilization 71 5.3.2 Implementation 72 5.3.3 Evaluation 73 6. Discussion 74 Bibliography 77 Appendix I 82 Appendix II 86
1. Introduction
Currently, multiple attractions and new venues compete in a market where consumers have less time to spare than ever before. This becomes especially prevalent as informal public institutions are not confined solely to cultural participants (Burton & Scott, 2003) and therefore need to address a broad audience. In other words, it becomes increasingly prevalent that the dynamic nature of today’s society requires organizations to adapt rapidly to their environment. This forces museums and other cultural establishments to become highly sensitive for development opportunities in order to meet the expectations of their audience. It also makes it more difficult for these institutions to keep pace in terms of attendance as they struggle to maintain their audience by serving their changing needs. However, when it comes to business models, museums and other cultural institutions are found to be more static than dynamic, which means reacting slowly to change (Stylianou-Lambert, 2011). Thus, in order to remain relevant, museums need to re-examine and possibly innovate their current business model. Therefore, traditional functions need to be reassessed referring to the relationship between objects and collections. Recent research provides the suggestion that these institutions create new business models by using a bottom up approach stressing the audience’s needs. It may not only contribute in attracting new visitors, but also provides value for the maintenance of their old target group through staying interesting (Falk & Dierking, 2000). In other words, it is vital that museums in the 21st century constantly improve and innovate themselves. An aspect of which becomes especially apparent as that over the last 20 years, the availability of broadcast media has grown exponentially. This has
also made its impact on museum visitation (Burton & Scott, 2003). The reality on this current state of affairs is being illustrated in a recent news article:
Museum
de Waag: ‘Images of the
past
and future of Deventer’
March
10, 2017
‘Images’ is a semi-permanent exhibition in Museum de Waag. The exhibition shows the history of Deventer seen in five historic layers in which the relationship between the city and the IJssel becomes apparent. The time layers show the history of the city during a period around 600, as an early medieval town, as an Hanseatic city, in the 17th and 18th century and the middle of the 19th century up until the present day. The purpose is to make the history of Deventer literally visible to both interested group of the exhibition as well as visitors of the city. During the exhibition, various innovative techniques are used. For instance, some of the objects as can be found in the current city centre of Deventer will be converted to 3D. This give visitors the opportunity to experience former historical buildings in a special way (IJsselbiënnale, 2017).
While a sufficient amount of existing literature can be found on the use of Virtual Reality in museums, we still know very little about how this technology comes into play in serving any predefined objectives, such as contributing to educational efforts. The present paper is aimed at contributing to the construction of a sufficient body of empirical knowledge consisting of specific methodological standards about the use of Virtual Reality in museums in order to guide future management decisions relating to this new phenomenon. In other words, attention is directed towards the use of Virtual Reality in museums. In effect, it makes an attempt to provide an explanation to the question: How can museums use Virtual Reality to contribute to a museum visit and achieve its predefined educational objectives? In order to do so, a first elaboration is made of relevant components of museums’ business models to
develop an understanding of its decisions and considerations when serving the changing needs of their audience. As these goals mostly address themes related to education and entertainment, specific focus will be placed on both in conjunction with museum activities, while explaining their underlying relationship. Thus, answering the following research objectives: How can temporary museums most effectively educate their visitors? and What is the role of entertainment in museum education? Secondly, as the belief is that Virtual Reality can serve as a valuable source for communication purposes, the use of this channel will be addressed and its potential opportunities in conjunction with museum education. Thus,
finding an answer to the following question: To what extent does Virtual Reality contribute to a museum visit? Accordingly, the study will focus on how Virtual Reality can support
2.
Theoretical Framework
2.1
Museums
Background
According to the definition of the International Council of Museums (Status, I.C.O.M.): ‘A museum is a non-profit making, permanent institution in the service of society and of its development, open to the public, which acquires, conserves, researches, communicates and exhibits, for purposes of study, education and enjoyment, material evidence of people and their environment’ (Styliani, Fotis, Kostas & Petros, 2009). Or as Mase, Kadobayashi & Nakatsu (1996) more romantically describe: ‘Museums are society’s great archives of wonderful natural phenomena, historical artifacts and artistic masterpieces which are on display for visitors to come and see.’ While the principal functions of museums have changed over the years, most recent literature (f.e. Davies, Paton, & O'Sullivan, 2013) divides the core functions of museums into four themes (Figure 1). First, preserving the material culture or objects (applying appropriate treatment to preserve objects from deterioration and extend or consolidate existing collections); second, understanding the material (through research and study); third, communicating (the presentation and interpretation of the collection through different means in order to address different groups of visitors) and fourth, contributing to civic society (offering exhibitions to present its work to the public and fulfil its educational function). In general, all four functions appear in museums, but the relative priority given to each of the functions varies depending on the museum and the individual perception.
Figure 1: The four core functions of museums - Davies, et al., 2013
Business
models
As the subject of investigation concerns a relatively new phenomenon - Virtual Reality in cultural institutions - new insights are required. To facilitate this process, Morris,
Schindehutte & Allen (2005) emphasize the importance of a framework addressing the key components of an organization’s business model. According to Osterwalder & Pigneur (2010, p.14), ‘A business model describes the rationale of how an organization creates, delivers, and captures value’. When applied to cultural institutions, museums could use this blueprint to map their organizational structures, processes, and systems in order to innovate successfully and create new strategic alternatives. This model consists out of nine basic building blocks that cover the four main areas of a business: customers, offer, infrastructure, and financial viability (Figure 2). A select few become especially apparent as museums create value for their customers by delivering certain ‘value propositions’ to ‘customer segments’ through various ‘channels’, thereby establishing ‘customer relationships’ (Figure 3). These values are a bundle of products and services aimed at different groups of people (Osterwalder &
Pigneur, 2010) that determine their core functions and goals. Virtual Reality (from now on used in the abbreviated form - VR) can be one of the channels used for this purpose. Several
functions of this kind of medium are found to be particularly helpful as it shares
corresponding features with and work towards referable objectives in relation to museums. In sum, since this research concerns the delivery of value through VR the most important
elements of the canvas are value propositions, customer relationships, channels, and customer segments. An elaboration on these aspects in the case of museums’ business model will be provided in the following section.
Figure 3: Relationship Value propositions; customer relationships; channels; customer segments - Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010
Value
propositions
Compared to its commercial competitors, the public places a high value on the ethos of museums (Fopp, 1997). Most museums are founded with the belief that they can create a better society by providing the public access to a place of ‘education and enlightenment’. This educational role of museums also has wider implications on all the other activities of the museum, such as collection management, research and commercial activities. What differs, however, is how to achieve its educational purpose and how museums decode this
considering the fact that it is not merely limited to acquiring new information, but also shapes the social, historical and economic context of citizens (Rolince, Giesser, Greig & Knittel, 2001). Providing new information to increase the knowledge of the public is therefore transformed into a wider vision: providing a framework to develop the socio-cultural
development through complex interaction (Zbuchea, 2013). Besides the cultural value of the collection, a certain social value is added that includes an educational-, economic,
heritage is to build a comprehensive model by introducing the institution, historical period, artistic movement, etc. while at the same time offering a basic description of objects. The recognition that consumption is the experience derived from the interaction between the consumer and an object within a given context, supports the theory that consumers draw a variety of personal meaning from consumption (Addis, 2005). Such form of interpretation is an interactive event that allows consumption of art and culture to be experiential. While, in effect, investigation can serve as the best way to address the public, the risk is that it is extremely hard to generalize the individual interests and level of understanding and thereby tends to undermine the broader mission of cultural development (Zbuchea, 2013). Thus, modern museums face the challenge of attracting visitors while maintaining their financial viability, without neglecting their obligation to society by fulfilling their duty as a public institution. Especially the latter is vital for these institutions to preserve their legitimization of public funding they need in order to survive. In consequence, museums experience a duality between the strategic necessity for audience development by delivery of visitor-oriented services, and their political demand to contribute to social public. Likewise, Burton & Scott (2003) state that museums in the 21st century face a challenge to ensure their place in this world: more to do in less time to serve the needs of their customers. To fulfill such a heavy duty, they opt that activities which provide the possibility to differentiate through novel systems that require intellectual engagement should be taken seriously. Strategic
management, which concerns with success in the long term by dealing with competition and changing contextual conditions (Reussner, 2003), is used as a possible approach to deal with such a challenge.
Customer
relationships
The central idea that influences the direction of museum work is attributed to the attitude towards visitor-orientation.As a primary benchmark, visitor-orientation is best equipped to judge the success of any museum activity. Information about current visitors and potential customers in their service area is relevant to assess their internal and external position in the competitive environment. Reussner (2003) suggests that museums can benefit from various forms of audience research and evaluation. As instruments of strategic analysis and control they can be used to review the whole range of functions, marketing campaigns, programmes, and other activities. This is used to optimise measures before final implementation, judge programmes in terms of success in view of the strategic goals, and assess the efficiency and effectiveness. In the case of a positive result, the effectiveness of the central object of observation can be evaluated, namely exhibits. This both encourages and makes learning possible. In practice it means that the visitor-focus demands museum to acknowledge the motives, needs, and interests of museum work related to visitor strategies. What makes this extremely difficult is that being appropriate to the diverse range of museum audience can hardly be achieved. Instead of using a standard protocol directed towards a stereotyped audience, museum services need to be designed according to a broad range of specific subgroups of visitors. This strategy aims to support museums to differentiate and become attractive to a variety of visitors. As previously mentioned, it becomes apparent that when looking for satisfactory users’ experiences and justifying their existence with regard to the socio-political role, museums are pressured to know who their audience is and develop exhibitions that will be popular. Therefore, to fulfill communication needs and overcome a gap, ‘context adaptivity’ is demanded (Paolini & Rubegni, 2010). The result is that - while solely verbal communication can be accompanied with difficulties - new technologies
including photos, video and contextual exhibitions lead to improved storytelling by supporting the transmission of information connected to the cultural objects (Cerquetti, 2014). In other words, the public demands contemporary museums to focus more attention on interpretation of material. Thus, next to the collection, preservation, and investigation of objects that are of cultural relevance, museums need to develop strategies to create interest in their services and material and enable recreation including social interaction. This is because museum visits should be acknowledged as leisure and social experiences , while at the same time they aim to provide access to material that enables the cultural participation of a wide population and facilitate informal education (Reussner, 2003). In fact, the museums
educational purpose plays as much a role in the visitor-orientation as it is a precondition for an enjoyable visit.
Channels
Since the 1980s ‘multimedia applications, such as websites, podcasts, audio guides, interactive multimedia guides, information points, educational stations, interactive panels, multi-touch tables, etc. are continuously generated in great numbers’ (Paolini & Rubegni, 2010). This shift shows that over the last few years museums already begin to change the way they communicate information to the wider public. As this becomes more and more
acknowledged, museums are increasingly using information technology for internal and external organizational purposes by incorporating a higher number of interactive exhibits into their galleries. Computer technology can help museums quantitatively and qualitatively expand, deepen, and enhance the museum experience for their visitors, while at the same time - especially non-frequent and novice - audiences appreciate and benefit from additional forms of information that make museums a more accessible and attractive location (Thomas &
Mintz, 1998). Ultimately the belief is that new technology will provide the means by which museums and galleries’ huge resources can be capitalised and made a ‘shareholder’ in the future information age (Fopp, 1997). In reality, the aim is to bring the visitor’s experience – which means offering a better understanding of what one actually sees or is going to see – to a next level by offering additional information, recreate the context of artefacts (Galani, 2003), while at the same time providing a solution for curator’s concern regarding the fragility of some museum artifacts (Styliani et al., 2009). Thus, to achieve satisfaction from their visitors museums are increasingly enhancing their galleries with digital media, which allows the museology concept to shift towards considering the importance of the context of a cultural artefact more than the item itself (Styliani et al., 2009). The central role of digital
technologies for museum innovation to attract new audiences and improve their service quality additionally becomes apparent in the analysis of papers on museum audience development. For example, museums are found to improve user involvement and
participation and thereby reshaping the provision of services also relates to the increasing familiarity of young generations with Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) (Cerquetti, 2014). Additionally, Markovic, Raspor Jankovic and Komsic (2013) support the notion that new technologies generating informative, educational and attractive exhibitions are among the service attributes representing strong points of the museum offer that should be maintained in the future.
Customer
segments
In sum, theories in museum studies and best practices confirm that museums are complex organizations with a heterogeneous image on the wider public. While some are associated with an extremely high level of inertia, others are more dynamic and creative in terms of its
public offer (Zbuchea, 2013). Generally, the inner perspective of the museum (i.e. museum professionals) should be balanced with expectations of the public, which can vary
considerably. Turning towards visitors involves a modification in the delivery of information but also in the way professionals see museums and themselves. Ross (2004) states that museum professionals consider themselves as interpreters of cultural meaning rather than providers of facts. This explains why organisational culture plays an important role in shaping the behaviour in museums as values help to explain some of the most familiar and fundamental debates in museums. Values can be conflicting when the needs of different audiences are taken into account. Those working in museums may find it difficult to meet the needs of one audience without compromising the service offered to another at the same time and place, especially when the purpose and the functions of museums are poorly articulated (Davies, et al., 2013).
2.2
Virtual Reality
Introduction
It is the dynamic process museums are involved in that leads to the consideration of new technologies in their strategy for visitor involvement. In this case some museums see the high potential use of VR systems (IJsselbiënnale, 2017), since it offers museum visitors the unique opportunity to enter art. Generally, participants using these devices get immersed into a completely artificial world but there are various types of digital systems. Depending on the aim it can take a certain shape: Virtual Reality, Augmented Reality, and Mixed Reality. This covers all possible approaches and stresses the main features of the technology: supporting a -
mainly visual - multimedia form of communication that is immersive, virtual, computational, dynamic and interactive. Broadly defined, this technological system creates an electronically simulated environment in which users can experience a sense of presence, i.e. the sense of being in an environment (Biocca, Levy & Lawrence, 1997). Presence is a subjective concept and an important aspect that determines if one perceives two separate environments
simultaneously, namely the physical environment in which one is actually present, and the environment presented via the medium. The fundamental idea is that participants are highly present when they experience the mediated environment as a more engaging reality than the surrounding physical world. It therefore requires consistent behaviour in both spaces (Rebelo, Noriega, Duarte & Soares, 2012). Communication media is the means to which presence in an environment can be experienced, also called telepresence. This telepresence ultimately determines the extent to which one feels present in the mediated environment, rather than the immediate space. In that sense, VR does not refer to a piece of technology but more to an emerging communication system (Biocca, et al., 1997). It encompasses any medium that attempts to immerse the user into an artificially generated environment by fooling the user’s senses in believing that it is a real experience (Steuer, 1992). Likewise, Ryan (2001, p.12) describes it as an ‘immersive, interactive experience generated by computer technology.’ VR is frequently used in association with a variety of environments that project materials - such as texts, images, and video - with the aim to change, enhance, or replace our sense of reality (Yuen, Yaoyuneyong & Johnson, 2011). To interact with factitious places, real-world phenomenon of sight, sound, and touch are simulated through a combination of computer-generated input.
Types
and forms
Relating to the concept of Virtual Environments (VEs) Milgram & Kishino (1994) proposed the concept of the ‘Mixed Reality (MR) spectrum’, or the ‘Reality-Virtuality (RV)
Continuum’. As illustrated in Figure 4 this involves the merging of different worlds that fall somewhere along the general area of Mixed Reality (MR). This consists of the real world and virtual worlds where all information is perceived through computer-generation and unrelated to real locations, objects, or activities. Between these two extremes exist two types of
augmented environments: Augmented Reality (AR), where computer-generated content is inserted into physical environments and Augmented Virtuality (AV), in which real objects are added to virtual ones. While AR takes place in the physical space, both VE and AV replace the surrounding environment by a virtual one. (Van Krevelen & Poelman, 2010).
Figure 4: The Reality Virtuality Continuum - Milgram & Kishino, 1994
In effect, technology can make such a new form of communication possible. It take various forms that includes different types of environments. Like telephone or television, VR is a medium typically defined in terms of a particular collection of technological hardware, including headmounted displays, computers, motion-sensing gloves and headphones.
Properties of the interface affect the perception of VR. Important factors influencing this include the combination of sensory activity exposed in the environment, the ways in which users are able to react within the environment, and the characteristics of the individual present in this imaginary environment. The range of VR systems is differentiated by their provided levels of interaction and immersion. For example, weak VR, is characterized by the
appearance of a 3D environment on a 2D screen, whereas strong VR includes a total sensory immersion (Styliani et al., 2009). Common visualization displays include head-mounted devices and polarizing glasses, while sound - that also plays an important role to increase the simulation’s realism - is included through headphones, for instance (Rebelo, et al., 2012). Another distinction is made by Biocca, et al. (1997) who alter between vehicle-based systems that allow the user to interact with an artificial world through the manipulation of a cab or vehicle; and immersion systems, which use a head-mounted display (HMD) or helmet. In addition, two types of spaces are described, namely passive- and interactive location-based sites. The latter is an extension of the first, where although users have no control of the action, high-quality images and audio combined with motion signals the senses into an imaginary ‘being there’ experience. Broadly, VR covers all possible approaches of technology to support a multimedia form of communication that is immersive, virtual, computational, dynamic and interactive. Depending on its aim it takes different forms: Virtual Reality, Augmented Reality, and Mixed Reality. Virtual Reality (VR) is a visual experience that provides the illusion of reality in an imaginary environment. With the generation of special technology a person is immersed into a virtual space through the use of interactive devices and able to attain knowledge and communicate (Rebelo, et al., 2012). As a social medium, VR facilitates communication between users at the same time in the same information
participants in real time across vast spaces and inaccessible places (Nash, 1992). Recent research effort has been made in the area of Augmented Reality (AR). In order to offer a natural view of real scenes, it extends VR by blending real and virtual elements into integrated scenes through the combination of video processing and computer vision
techniques (Wojciechowski, Walczak, White & Cellary, 2004). In AR, the person operating the system interacts with something in the real world, whereas everything in the environment in VR is fake. This includes the development of complement items for VR such as computer vision techniques and video processing to enrich real environments with virtual objects. Although it is harder to achieve, AR offers more advantages to its users by giving the impression that an object actually exist in the real environment. If VR and AR are combined with the real environment, one speaks of a ‘Mixed’ or ‘Hybrid’ Reality (MR). This happens when a visual representation of objects in both real and virtual spaces is presented on a single display (Styliani et al., 2009). Users of mixed reality systems can interact with physical and digital information in an integrated way where people in a virtual space can reach out to a physical environment and vice versa. Thereby, people are enabled to communicate with one another even when they are distributed across multiple physical and virtual spaces (Galani, 2003). Similar, but not the same, the most important difference between VR (including VE and AV) and AR is that users’ frame of reference in the former is completely tied to the virtual world. Second Life is a well-known example of VE, whereas games where players’ real-world movements control a virtual avatar within a virtual environment is the most common form of AV. In contrast, when virtual objects are superimposed such that real and virtual objects seem to coexist in the same space, AR places users’ perception in the real world. AR is not restricted to particular display technologies such as a head-mounted display (HMD), nor is it limited to the sense of sight, as AR in extension applies to hearing, touch and
smell (Van Krevelen & Poelman, 2010). The best known example of AR are smartphone apps that utilize GPS data or which display virtual images tied to real world locations. Due to rapid advancements in technologies it seems possible that virtual elements and real world elements continue to share space in MR environments. This is one of the most important reasons that Yin (2009) believes that it will become more and more difficult to tell apart.
Features
Biocca, et al. (1997) assume media to be purposive and goal-directed and predominantly used to satisfy felt needs. Therefore, individuals select media. However, new models of media impact have moved away from the typical view of transporting opinion and information to passive viewers. This creates a more receiver-oriented perspective with a ‘participant’ model of effects. There are certain reasons to believe that enhancing applications with dynamic elements is the main reason why VR is becoming successful in an increasing number of areas. For one, all rely on the realistic experience provided to the user. This requires a high level of sensory (visual, auditory, etc.) cues similar to those experienced in the real world. Another necessity, and already discussed, is that user’s experience in the virtual world closely matches the simulated real-world experience without the need for physical presence.
Alternatively, the visualization might even be purposefully abstract, or unrealistic, to help the user better understand the space’s critical features (Bowman & McMahan, 2007). Former work has led Bailenson et al. (2008) to identify key elements that continue to enter the surface during the discussion on VR. Firstly, as already mentioned, Virtual Environments (VEs) track user’s movements to achieve information about the focus of attention, point of observation and reaction from the user. Secondly, due to the fact that the designer of the created environment can alter the appearance and design of the virtual world, he has a huge
amount of control over the user’s experience. These elements come together and create the unique features of VR which can be defined in terms of interaction and immersion (Zbuchea, 2013). In this respect, VR differs from conventional mass media in at least two ways. First, as the sensory experience can be much more like the sensory experience of the real world, it leads to an increased level of interactivity. Interactivity can be defined as ‘the degree to which a communication technology can create a mediated environment in which participants can communicate both synchronously and asynchronously and participate in reciprocal message exchanges’ (Liu & Shrum, 2002, p.379). It should be acknowledged that besides solely human interaction, reciprocity can take place between people and machines, people and software, or even machines and machines. With respect to human-computer
environments, it refers to the ability of users to perceive an experience as a simulation of interpersonal communication and respond appropriately in real time (Roussou, 2004). This means that the user is connected with a technological system and has the capacity to detect its motions and actions and adapt the environment according to those inputs. The second thing relates to an effect that is called immersion. It refers to the degree to which a virtual environment submerges the perceptual system of the user in a computer-generated stimuli and is related to one’s sense of presence. Nonetheless, immersion is defined as the physical feeling of being in a virtual space. This is usually achieved by means of sensory interfaces that ‘surround’ the user. (Carrozzino & Bergamasco, 2010). Created by multiple types of media, new technology provides the ability to deliver the message content in a VE that is associated with the feeling of being inside a cognitive environment. In result, a realistic experience is provided that effectively places the user in the simulated environment. Slater & Wilbur (1997) elaborates on the distinction between immersion and presence. They describe immersion as ‘the extent to which ‘the computer displays are capable of delivering an
inclusive, extensive, surrounding and vivid illusion of reality to the senses of a human participant’ (p.3). On the other hand, presence refers to a state of consciousness and
psychological sense of being in the virtual environment . In effect, immersion is objective and quantifiable - one system can have a higher level of immersion than another - and VR’s system’s level of immersion depends only on the system’s software and display technology, whereas presence refers to user’s subjective responses (Carrozzino & Bergamasco, 2010). Especially the level of imagination combined with immersion, determines the extent to which the applications produce a sense of presence. Imagination relates to the user’s capacity to perceive nonexistent things and the will to believe that he or she is present in one place or environment (Burdea & Coiffet, 2003). It partly depends on the type of equipment used to influence the degree of realism. Consequently, different users can experience different levels of presence with the same VR system, and multiple levels of presence can be experienced with the same system at different times by a single user depending on several factors. Although VR refers to an individual activity, multiple people can experience similar virtual realities by sharing the same (virtual) space. Interactivity and immersion require a
self-representation in the VE that is both part of the perceived environment, while also representing the one doing the perceiving. Each dimension of these features have associated scales that indicate the extent of realisation possible. Thus, the level of interactivity or
immersion depend on how much of the real world the user can perceive. The more the system encaptures the senses and blocks out incentives from the physical world, the more the
arrangement is considered interactive or immersive (Biocca, et al., 1997). For example, surrounding can either be delivered by a small external screen or on a wide field of view HMD or CAVE system. It derives from the fact that information is recognized to be
