CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 142Virtual Reality Applications and ImpactsAdvanced Optical Imaging TechnologiesInteractive and Immersive Displays

Cinematic virtual reality: Evaluating the effect of display type on the viewing experience for panoramic video

Open access
MacQuarrie, Andrew, Steed, Anthony·2017·2017 IEEE Virtual Reality (VR)
DOI 10.1109/vr.2017.7892230
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The proliferation of head-mounted displays (HMD) in the market means that cinematic virtual reality (CVR) is an increasingly popular format. We explore several metrics that may indicate advantages and disadvantages of CVR compared to traditional viewing formats such as TV. We explored the consumption of panoramic videos in three different display systems: a HMD, a SurroundVideo+ (SV+), and a standard 16:9 TV. The SV+ display features a TV with projected peripheral content. A between-groups experiment of 63 participants was conducted, in which participants watched panoramic videos in one of these three display conditions. Aspects examined in the experiment were spatial awareness, narrative engagement, enjoyment, memory, fear, attention, and a viewer's concern about missing something. Our results indicated that the HMD offered a significant benefit in terms of enjoyment and spatial awareness, and our SV+ display offered a significant improvement in enjoyment over traditional TV. We were unable to confirm the work of a previous study that showed incidental memory may be lower in a HMD over a TV. Drawing attention and a viewer's concern about missing something were also not significantly different between display conditions. It is clear that passive media viewing consists of a complex interplay of factors, such as the media itself, the characteristics of the display, as well as human aspects including perception and attention. While passive media viewing presents many challenges for evaluation, identifying a number of broadly applicable metrics will aid our understanding of these experiences, and allow the creation of better, more engaging CVR content and displays.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/vr.2017.7892230

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The Place app has been shown to create positive changes in mindful awareness and to be safe without producing related simulator sickness.

    “Crucially, the app has been shown to create positive changes in mindful awareness as well as being safe and not producing any related simulator sickness.”

    From Examining the Use of Virtual Reality to Support Mindfulness Skills Practice in Mood and Anxiety Disorders: Mixed Methods Study (2024) · cites this paper as [19]

    The Results and Limitations report simulator-sickness findings for the paper’s short panoramic videos, not for the Place app. A search for the Place app and mindful awareness found no relevant passage; this copy therefore does not establish the claimed benefits or safety of that app. (LLM, conf=0.77)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The Place app was developed through a user-centered design process and has been evaluated with a general population sample.

    “The app was developed through a user-centered design process and has been evaluated with a general population sample [19].”

    From Examining the Use of Virtual Reality to Support Mindfulness Skills Practice in Mood and Anxiety Disorders: Mixed Methods Study (2024) · cites this paper as [19]

    The Introduction describes a study of display types for panoramic-video viewing, and §3.1 describes its 63 participants. Searches for the Place app, user-centered design, and a general-population evaluation found no passage addressing those claims. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. B. Jones, R. Sodhi, M. Murdock, R. Mehra, H. Benko, A. Wilson, E. Ofek, B. MacIntyre, N. Raghuvanshi, and L. Shapira. Roomalive: magical experiences enabled by scalable, adaptive projector-camera units. In Proceedings of the 27th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology, pages 637-644. ACM, 2014.
  2. B. R. Jones, H. Benko, E. Ofek, and A. D. Wilson. Illumiroom: pe- ripheral projected illusions for interactive experiences. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 869-878. ACM, 2013.
  3. P. Mills, A. Sheikh, G. Thomas, and P. Debenham. Surround video. In Proceedings of the 2011 Networked and Electronic Media Summit, pages 55-63, September 2011.
  4. A. Rizzo, L. Pryor, R. Matheis, M. Schultheis, K. Ghahremani, and A. Sey. Memory assessment using graphics-based and panoramic video virtual environments. In Proc. 5th Intl Conf. Disability, Virtual Reality & Assoc. Tech, 2004.
  5. P. Seuntiens, I. Vogels, and A. Van Keersop. Visual experience of 3D-TV with pixelated ambilight. Proceedings of PRESENCE, 2007, 2007.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
MacQuarrie, A., & Steed, A.
Affiliations
University College London (GB)
ORCID
Venue
2017 IEEE Virtual Reality (VR)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2017
Pages
45-54
ISSN
1087-8270 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1109/vr.2017.7892230
OpenAlex
W2587994530
Cited by
142
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 5
FWCI
12.40
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR) (publishedVersion)
  • Greenwich Academic Literature Archive (University of Greenwich) (acceptedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • University College London
  • Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/G037159/1)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Virtual Reality Applications and Impacts
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Media Technology › Advanced Optical Imaging Technologies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Interactive and Immersive Displays
Keywords
cinematic virtual reality, panoramic video, head-mounted displays, display type, viewing experience, enjoyment, spatial awareness, narrative engagement, incidental memory, attention, fear

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review