skip to main content
research-article

Is Photorealism Important for Perception of Expressive Virtual Humans in Virtual Reality?

Published:06 September 2019Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

In recent years, the quality of real-time rendering has reached new heights—realistic reflections, physically based materials, and photometric lighting are all becoming commonplace in modern game engines and even interactive virtual environments, such as virtual reality (VR). As the strive for realism continues, there is a need to investigate the effect of photorealism on users’ perception, particularly for interactive, emotional scenarios in VR. In this article, we explored three main topics, where we predicted photorealism will make a difference: the illusion of being present with the virtual person and in an environment, altered emotional response toward the character, and a subtler response—comfort of being in close proximity to the character. We present a perceptual experiment, with an interactive expressive virtual character in VR, which was designed to induce particular social responses in people. Our participant pool was large (N = 797) and diverse in terms of demographics. We designed a between-group experiment, where each group saw either the realistic rendering or one of our stylized conditions (simple and sketch style), expressing one of three attitudes: Friendly, Unfriendly, or Sad. While the render style did not particularly effect the level of comfort with the character or increase the illusion of presence with it, our main finding shows that the photorealistic character changed the emotional responses of participants, compared to the stylized versions. We also found a preference for realism in VR, reflected in the affinity and higher place illusion in the scenario, rendered in the realistic render style.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

References

  1. 3DScanstore. 2018. Retrieved from https://www.3dscanstore.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Jeremy N. Bailenson, Jim Blascovich, Andrew C. Beall, and Jack M. Loomis. 2001. Equilibrium theory revisited: Mutual gaze and personal space in virtual environments. Presence 10, 6 (2001), 583--598. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Jeremy N. Bailenson, Jim Blascovich, Andrew C. Beall, and Jack M. Loomis. 2003. Interpersonal distance in immersive virtual environments. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 29, 7 (2003), 819--833.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Jeremy N. Bailenson, Kimberly R. Swinth, Crystal L. Hoyt, Susan Persky, Alex Dimov, and Jim Blascovich. 2005. The independent and interactive effects of embodied-agent appearance and behavior on self-report, cognitive, and behavioral markers of copresence in immersive virtual environments. Presence 14, 4 (2005), 379--393. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Jeremy N. Bailenson, Nick Yee, Dan Merget, and Ralph Schroeder. 2006. The effect of behavioral realism and form realism of real-time avatar faces on verbal disclosure, nonverbal disclosure, emotion recognition, and copresence in dyadic interaction. Presence: Teleoper. Virt. Environ. 15, 4 (2006), 359--372. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Jim Blascovich. 2002. Social influence within immersive virtual environments. In The Social Life of Avatars. Springer, 127--145. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Andrea Bönsch, Sina Radke, Heiko Overath, Laura M. Asché, Jonathan Wendt, Tom Vierjahn, Ute Habel, and Torsten W. Kuhlen. 2018. Social VR: How personal space is affected by virtual agents’ emotions. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR’18). IEEE, 199--206.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Elizabeth J. Carter, Moshe Mahler, and Jessica K. Hodgins. 2013. Unpleasantness of animated characters increases viewer attention to faces. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium in Applied Perception. 35--40. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Thierry Chaminade, Jessica Hodgins, and Mitsuo Kawato. 2007. Anthropomorphism influences perception of computer-animated characters’ actions. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 2, 3 (2007), 206--216.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Mark H. Davis. 1983. Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 44, 1 (1983), 113.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. James A. Ferwerda. 2003. Three varieties of realism in computer graphics. In Human Vision and Electronic Imaging VIII, Vol. 5007. International Society for Optics and Photonics, 290--298.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Philip W. Fink, Patrick S. Foo, and William H. Warren. 2007. Obstacle avoidance during walking in real and virtual environments. ACM Trans. Appl. Percept. 4, 1 (2007), 2. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Maia Garau. 2003. The Impact of Avatar Fidelity on Social Interaction in Virtual Environments. Ph.D. Dissertation, University College London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Maia Garau, Mel Slater, Simon Bee, and Martina Angela Sasse. 2001. The impact of eye gaze on communication using humanoid avatars. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 309--316. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Maia Garau, Mel Slater, Vinoba Vinayagamoorthy, Andrea Brogni, Anthony Steed, and M. Angela Sasse. 2003. The impact of avatar realism and eye gaze control on perceived quality of communication in a shared immersive virtual environment. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 529--536. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Simon Baron-Cohen, Ofer Golan, and Jacqueline Hill. 2006. The cambridge mindreading (CAM) face-voice battery: Testing complex emotion recognition in adults with and without Asperger syndrome. J. Autism Dev. Disorders 36, 2 (2006), 169--183.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Jennifer Hyde, Elizabeth J. Carter, Jessica K. Hodgins, and Sara Kiesler. 2013. Perceptual effects of damped and exaggerated facial motion in animated characters. In Proceedings of the 10th IEEE International Conference on Automatic Face and Gesture Recognition. 1--6.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Sungchul Jung, Christian Sandor, Pamela J. Wisniewski, and Charles E. Hughes. 2017. Realme: The influence of body and hand representations on body ownership and presence. In Proceedings of the 5th Symposium on Spatial User Interaction. ACM, 3--11. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Kristi J. K. Klein and Sara D. Hodges. 2001. Gender differences, motivation, and empathic accuracy: When it pays to understand. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 27, 6 (2001), 720--730.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Marc Erich Latoschik, Daniel Roth, Dominik Gall, Jascha Achenbach, Thomas Waltemate, and Mario Botsch. 2017. The effect of avatar realism in immersive social virtual realities. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology. ACM, 39. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. R. Michael Latta. 1978. Relation of status incongruence to personal space. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 4, 1 (1978), 143--146.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Myungho Lee, Gerd Bruder, Tobias Höllerer, and Greg Welch. 2018. Effects of unaugmented periphery and vibrotactile feedback on proxemics with virtual humans in AR. IEEE Trans. Visual. Comput. Graph. 24, 4 (2018), 1525--1534. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Lorraine Lin and Sophie Jörg. 2016. Need a hand?: How appearance affects the virtual hand illusion. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Applied Perception. ACM, 69--76. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Karl F. MacDorman, Robert D. Green, Chin-Chang Ho, and Clinton T. Koch. 2009. Too real for comfort? Uncanny responses to computer generated faces. Comput. Hum. Behav. 25, 3 (2009), 695--710. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Rachel McDonnell, Martin Breidt, and Heinrich Buelthoff. 2012. Render me real Investigating the effect of render style on the perception of animated virtual humans. ACM Trans. Graph. 31, 4 (2012), 91:1--91:11. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Wade J. Mitchell, Kevin A. Szerszen Sr., Amy Shirong Lu, Paul W. Schermerhorn, Matthias Scheutz, and Karl F. MacDorman. 2011. A mismatch in the human realism of face and voice produces an uncanny valley. i-Perception 2, 1 (2011), 10--12.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Masahiro Mori. 1970. The uncanny valley. Energy 7, 4 (1970), 33--35.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Kristin Nowak. 2001. The influence of anthropomorphism on social judgment in social virtual environments. In Proceedings of the Annual Convention of the International Communication Association.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Otoy. 2018. Retrieved from https://home.otoy.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Lazlo Ring, Dina Utami, and Timothy Bickmore. 2014. The right agent for the job? In Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents. Springer, 374--384.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Ulrike Schultze. 2010. Embodiment and presence in virtual worlds: A review. J. Info. Technol. 25, 4 (2010), 434--449.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Richard Skarbez, Solene Neyret, Frederick P. Brooks, Mel Slater, and Mary C. Whitton. 2017. A psychophysical experiment regarding components of the plausibility illusion. IEEE Trans. Visual. Comput. Graph. 23, 4 (2017), 1369--1378. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Mel Slater. 2009. Place illusion and plausibility can lead to realistic behaviour in immersive virtual environments. Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. London B: Biol. Sci. 364, 1535 (2009), 3549--3557.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Mel Slater and Anthony Steed. 2002. Meeting people virtually: Experiments in shared virtual environments. In The Social Life of Avatars. Springer, 146--171. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. UE4. 2018. Paragon Phase. Unreal Engine 4, Paragon Phase. Retrieved from https://www.unrealengine.com/marketplace/paragon-phase.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. UE4. 2018. Unreal Engine 4, Realistic Rendering. Retrieved from https://docs.unrealengine.com/en-us/Resources/Showcases/RealisticRendering.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Matias Volante, Sabarish V. Babu, Himanshu Chaturvedi, Nathan Newsome, Elham Ebrahimi, Tania Roy, Shaundra B. Daily, and Tracy Fasolino. 2016. Effects of virtual human appearance fidelity on emotion contagion in affective inter-personal simulations. IEEE Trans. Visual. Comput. Graph. 22, 4 (2016), 1326--1335. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. David Watson, Lee A. Clark, and Auke Tellegen. 1988. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales.J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 54, 6 (1988), 1063.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Yuki Yamada, Takahiro Kawabe, and Keiko Ihaya. 2013. Categorization difficulty is associated with negative evaluation in the “uncanny valley” phenomenon. Japan. Psychol. Res. 55, 1 (2013), 20--32.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Nick Yee and Jeremy Bailenson. 2007. The proteus effect: The effect of transformed self-representation on behavior. Hum. Commun. Res. 33, 3 (2007), 271--290.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Eduard Zell, Carlos Aliaga, Adrian Jarabo, Katja Zibrek, Diego Gutierrez, Rachel McDonnell, and Mario Botsch. 2015. To stylize or not to stylize?: The effect of shape and material stylization on the perception of computer-generated faces. ACM Trans. Graph. 34, 6 (2015), 184:1--184:12. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Katja Zibrek, Elena Kokkinara, and Rachel McDonnell. 2017. Don’t stand so close to me: Investigating the effect of control on the appeal of virtual humans using immersion and a proximity-based behavioral task. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Applied Perception. ACM, 3. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Katja Zibrek, Elena Kokkinara, and Rachel McDonnell. 2018. The effect of realistic appearance of virtual characters in immersive environments—Does the character’s personality play a role? IEEE Trans. Visual. Comput. Graph. 24, 4 (2018), 1681--1690. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Is Photorealism Important for Perception of Expressive Virtual Humans in Virtual Reality?

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in

        Full Access

        • Published in

          cover image ACM Transactions on Applied Perception
          ACM Transactions on Applied Perception  Volume 16, Issue 3
          Special Issue on SAP 2019 and Regular Paper
          July 2019
          91 pages
          ISSN:1544-3558
          EISSN:1544-3965
          DOI:10.1145/3360014
          Issue’s Table of Contents

          Copyright © 2019 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 6 September 2019
          • Received: 1 July 2019
          • Accepted: 1 July 2019
          Published in tap Volume 16, Issue 3

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article
          • Research
          • Refereed

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader

        HTML Format

        View this article in HTML Format .

        View HTML Format