PL EN
Opponents of Digital Immersion. Analysis of Current Technological And Perceptual Obstacles for VR, AR, Mr, Xr on the Example Of The Installation Entitled ‘Modelling Reality’
 
More details
Hide details
1
Katedra Technologii Informacyjnych i Mediów, Wydział Humanistyczny, AGH Akademia Górniczo-Hutnicza, Polska
 
 
Submission date: 2023-08-09
 
 
Final revision date: 2023-11-07
 
 
Acceptance date: 2023-11-08
 
 
Publication date: 2023-12-30
 
 
Corresponding author
Adam Krzysztof Żądło   

Katedra Technologii Informacyjnych i Mediów, Wydział Humanistyczny, Akademia Górniczo-Hutnicza im. Stanisława Staszica w Krakowie, Antoniego Gramatyka 8A, 30-071, Kraków, Polska
 
 
Studia Humanistyczne AGH 2023;(2):81-100
 
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Nowadays digital worlds operate on a conventionality and require the user to constantly “actively believe” in the presented reality. The article presents conclusions from the creation and displaying of the MR artistic installation entitled “Reality Mock-ups”. On its basis, it presents current technical and perceptual problems resulting from attempts to combine virtual and physical reality (as VR, AR, MR, XR): functioning of digital hands, parallax adjustment, movements of objects, optical deformations, the moment of connecting and switching between realities, combined communication, physiological responses. These are factors that disrupt immersion and/or the sense of “presence”, causing the “detachment” of the digital world from the physical one. Their analysis lets to verify popular beliefs about the current and future functioning of digital worlds, reveals our level of technological advancement and indicates areas that turn out not to meet the ideas and expectations created in pop culture.
 
REFERENCES (46)
1.
Abramowicz, M. (2018). Rising. Pobrano z: https://acuteart.com/artist/ma... [1.08.2023].
 
2.
Bailenson, J. (2018). Experience on Demand: What Virtual Reality Is, How It Works, and What It Can Do. W. W. Norton & Company.
 
3.
Bostrom, N. (2003). Are you living in a computer simulation? Philosophical Quarterly, 53, 243–255.
 
4.
Botvinick, M., Cohen, J.D. (1998). Rubber hand ‘feels’ what eyes see. Nature, 391.
 
5.
Bowman, D.A., McMahan, R.P. (2007). Virtual Reality: How Much Immersion Is Enough?. Computer, 40, 7, 36–43, https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.200....
 
6.
Brigner, W.L., Deni, J.R. (1993). Motion Parallax, Relative Size, and Benussi Effect. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 76(3_suppl), 1320–1322.
 
7.
Casini, M. (2022). Extended Reality for Smart Building Operation and Maintenance: A Review. Energies, 19, 8–20.
 
8.
De la Peña, N., Weil, P., Llobera, J., Giannopoulos, E., Pomés, A., Spanlang, B., Friedman, D., Sanchez-Vives M.V., Slater, M. (2010). Immersive Journalism: Immersive Virtual Reality for the First-Person Experience of News. Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 19 (4), 91–301.
 
9.
Donghee, S. (2018). Empathy and embodied experience in virtual environment: To what extent can virtual reality stimulate empathy and embodied experience? Computers in Human Behavior, 18, 64–73.
 
10.
Edwards, T. (2015). Hands-on with Valve’s amazing VR demo: The holodeck is here. Pobrano z: PC Games, http://www.pcgamesn.com/hands-... [1.08.2023].
 
11.
Engberg, M., Bolter, J.D. (2020). The aesthetics of reality media. Journal of Visual Culture, 19, 1, 81–95.
 
12.
Ferris, S.H. (1972). Motion parallax and absolute distance. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 95(2), 258–263. https://doi.org/10.1037/h00336....
 
13.
Gibson, W. (1984). The Neuromancer. New York: Ace Hardcover.
 
14.
Gniady, M. (2019). Słoń. Pobrano z: https://vimeo.com/322584349 [1.08.2023].
 
15.
Grau, O. (2003). Virtual art from illusion to immersion. Cambridge, MA i Londyn, Anglia: The MIT Press.
 
16.
Heath, L. (2017). VR isn’t an empathy machine. Dangerous Tech, 9, 68–76.
 
17.
Hoffman, D. (2019). Do we see reality? New Scientist, 14, 196–204.
 
18.
 
19.
Jenkins, A. (2019). The fall and rise of VR: The struggle to make virtual reality get real. Pobrano z: Fortune, https://fortune.com/longform/v... [1.08.2023].
 
20.
Jenkins, A. (2019). Virtual Reality: Fictional all the Way Down (and That’s OK). Disputatio, 11, 55, 333–343.
 
21.
Kerckhove, D. (2001). Powłoka kultury. Odkrywanie nowej elektronicznej rzeczywistości, przeł. W. Sikorski, P. Nowakowski, Mikom.
 
22.
Krogulec, J. (2015). Immersja i tworzenie podmiotowości w grach. CreatioFantastica, 1, 48, 6–12.
 
23.
Kurzweil, R. (1999). The coming merging of mind and machine. Scientific American, 88, 164–169.
 
24.
Madary, M., Metzinger, T. (2016). Real virtuality: A code of ethical conduct, recommendations for good scientific practice and the consumers of VR-technology. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 5, 53–61.
 
25.
Makransky, G., Petersen, G.B. (2021). The Cognitive Affective Model of Immersive Lear ning (CAMIL): a Theoretical Research-Based Model of Learning in Immersive Virtual Reality. Educational Psychology Review, 33, 937–958.
 
26.
Mandy, R. (2018). The immersive turn: hype and hope in the emergence of virtual reality as a nonfiction platform. Studies in Documentary Film, 19, 132–149.
 
27.
Metzinger, T. (2003). Being No One: The Self-Model Theory of Subjectivity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
 
28.
Metzinger, T. (2013). The transparent avatar in your brain. Zaprezentowano: TEDX Barcelona 2013. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [1.08.2023].
 
29.
Milgram, P., Colquhoun, H. (1999). A taxonomy of real and virtual world display integration. Mix. Reality. Merging Real Virtual Worlds, 1, 1–26.
 
30.
Morse, M. (1998). Virtualities: Television, Media Art, and Cyberculture, Indiana University Press, 3, s. 210–221.
 
31.
Murray, J. (2016). Not a film and not an empathy machine: How necessary failures will help VR designers invent new storyforms. Immerse, 66, 88–96.
 
32.
Murray, J. (2017). How close are we to the Holodeck. Clash of Realities, 21, 22–31.
 
33.
Murray, J. (2020). Virtual/reality: how to tell the difference. Journal of Visual Culture, 19, 1, 11–27.
 
34.
Myoo, S. (2022). VR Art. Art Inquiry. Recherches sur les arts, 24, 73–85.
 
35.
Nilsson, N.C., Nordahl, R., Serafin, S. (2016). Immersion revisited: A review of existing definitions of immersion and their relation to different theories of presence. Human Technology, 12(2), 108–134.
 
36.
Lanier, J. (1992). Virtual reality: The promise of the future. Interactions Learning International, 8, 275–279.
 
37.
Ostrowicki, M. (2009). Doświadczenie telematyczne w rzeczywistości elektronicznego „realis”. Odczuwanie. Kultura Współczesna, 3, 61.
 
38.
Robinson, J.O., Piggins, D.J., Wilson, J.A. (1985). Shape, Height and Angular Movement in Stereokinesis. Perception, 14, 6, 677–683.
 
39.
Ryan, M.L. (2001). Narrative as Virtual Reality: Immersion and Interactivity in Literature and Electronic Media. John Hopkins University Press.
 
40.
Sheridan, T. (1992). Musings on telepresence and virtual presence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 1, 120–126.
 
41.
Skok, K. (2014). Wykorzystanie rzeczywistości wirtualnej w grach. Wnioski z badań nad iluzją gumowej ręki i obecnością. Homo Ludens, 1, 6, 13–30.
 
42.
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.
 
43.
Steuer, J. (1992). Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence. Journal of Communication, 42, 4, 73–93.
 
44.
Van Krevelen, R. (2007). Augmented Reality: Technologies, Applications, and Limitations. VU University Amsterdam.
 
45.
Wirth, W. (2007). A process model of the formation of spatial presence experiences. Media Psychology, 9v, 3, 493–525.
 
46.
Wrońska, M. (2013). Dorastanie w środowisku cyfrowym  – od immersji, poprzez bezkrytyczną fascynację, do kultury medialnej. Katedra Pedagogiki Medialnej i Komunikacji Społecznej, Uniwersytet Rzeszowski, Rzeszów. Pobrano z: https://ktime.up.krakow.pl/sym... [1.08.2023].
 
eISSN:2300-7109
Journals System - logo
Scroll to top