Comparing Continuous and Retrospective Emotion Ratings in Remote VR Study

Overview

• This study investigates the feasibility of conducting remote virtual reality (VR) experiments at home using VR headsets and video conferencing.
• The experiment focused on measuring emotional responses using continuous ratings and retrospective questionnaires.
• The researchers compared these two methods to see if continuous ratings during the VR experience would better capture users' emotions compared to post-experience questionnaires.

Plain English Explanation

The researchers wanted to see if it's possible to do VR experiments with people in their own homes, using VR headsets and video calls. They had 20 people use VR headsets to watch 360-degree videos that were meant to evoke emotional responses. The participants used two different methods to rate their emotions:

1. A continuous rating system, where they used a graphical interface to rate their emotions as they experienced the videos.
2. A retrospective questionnaire, where they rated their emotions on a scale after the videos were over.

The researchers hypothesized that the continuous rating method would better reflect the participants' actual emotions, compared to the questionnaire, which could be influenced by things like the "peak-end rule" (where people tend to remember the most intense and final moments of an experience).

The results showed that there were significant differences between the two rating methods for measuring "valence" (how positive or negative the emotion was), with moderate to strong effects. However, there were no significant differences for measuring "arousal" (how intense the emotion was), with only low to moderate effects.

This suggests that more research is needed to understand the best ways to measure emotions in VR studies. The study provides an example of how remote VR experiments can be conducted and offers insights into methods for eliciting emotions in VR.

Technical Explanation

The study deployed an experiment where 20 participants used head-mounted displays to immerse themselves in 360-degree videos selected to evoke emotional responses. The researchers compared two methods for measuring the participants' emotions:

1. Continuous Ratings: Participants used a graphical interface to provide continuous ratings of their emotional arousal and valence (positivity/negativity) during the VR experience.
2. Retrospective Questionnaires: After the VR experience, participants completed digitized Likert-scale questionnaires to rate their arousal and valence, based on the self-assessment manikin (SAM) model.

The researchers hypothesized that the continuous rating method would lead to significantly different values for both valence and arousal compared to the retrospective questionnaires. This was to investigate whether continuous ratings during the experience would better reflect users' emotions by mitigating biases such as the peak-end rule.

The results showed significant differences with moderate to strong effect sizes for valence, but no significant differences for arousal with low to moderate effect sizes. This indicates the need for further investigation of the methods used to assess emotion ratings in VR studies.

Critical Analysis

The study provides valuable insights into the feasibility of conducting remote VR experiments and the challenges of measuring emotional responses in VR. However, there are a few potential limitations and areas for further research:

1. Sample Size: The study had a relatively small sample size of 20 participants. Larger-scale studies would be needed to increase the statistical power and generalizability of the findings.
2. Emotion Elicitation: While the 360-degree videos were selected to evoke emotional responses, the efficacy of this method could be further explored by comparing it to other emotion-elicitation techniques in VR.
3. Rating Interfaces: The study compared two rating methods (continuous and retrospective), but there may be other interface designs or approaches that could provide even more accurate emotional assessments in VR.

Overall, this study serves as a valuable example of a remotely conducted VR experiment and highlights the need for continued research into the best methods for assessing emotions in VR-based interventions.

Conclusion

This study explored the feasibility of remote VR experiments conducted at home using VR headsets and video conferencing. By comparing continuous emotional ratings during the VR experience to retrospective questionnaires, the researchers found significant differences in valence (positivity/negativity) but not arousal (intensity).

These results suggest the need for further investigation into the most effective methods for measuring emotions in VR studies. The study provides a practical example of a remote VR experiment and offers insights into emotion elicitation and assessment in immersive virtual environments. As VR technology continues to evolve, studies like this will be crucial for understanding how to best leverage VR for emotional and behavioral research.