Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 159 references

Exploring Viewing Modalities in Cinematic Virtual Reality: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Challenges in Evaluating User Experience

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A meta-analysis of 13 CVR experiments finds no viewing modality with a reliable effect on user experience; the paper attributes the inconsistency to measurement practice.

desk verdict The descriptive review of CVR evaluation practice is solid and worth publishing; the meta-analysis is too small and too construct-mixed to carry the headline numbers. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15583 v1 pith:55SCINPL submitted 2024-11-23 cs.HC

Yawen Zhang , Han Zhou , Zhoumingju Jiang , Zilu Tang , Tao Luo , Qinyuan Lei This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords cinematicvirtualrealityviewingmodalityuserexperiencesystematicreviewmeta-analysispresenceimmersionnarrativeengagement
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Cinematic Virtual Reality (CVR)—narrative 360-degree video watched on a head-mounted display—promises viewers an unscripted field of view, and researchers have tried to shape that field with guidance cues, intervened rotation, perspective shifts, and avatars. This paper asks whether these viewing modalities actually change the viewer's experience, pooling 45 experiments and carrying 13 of them into a meta-analysis. The pooled evidence is inconclusive: no modality shows a statistically reliable effect, and effect sizes swing from $g=-1.13$ to $g=2.10$ even within the same modality. The paper's diagnosis is that the field's measurement practices are the main problem: presence, immersion, and narrative engagement are used interchangeably; validated questionnaires are mixed with self-designed items; and many studies do not report the statistics meta-analysis needs. If this diagnosis is right, the next bottleneck in CVR research is methodological standardization rather than another round of content experiments.

What carries the argument

The engine of the paper is a six-way coding of viewing modalities—explicit or implicit, diegetic or non-diegetic guidance cues, agency (avatar assistance), and limited or forced rotation—combined with a random-effects meta-analysis that expresses every result as a standardized mean difference (Hedges' $g$) between the experiment and a "Swivel-Chair" CVR baseline. Because studies contribute multiple dependent effect sizes, the authors pool them with a correlated hierarchical effects working model and robust variance estimation, testing sampling correlations of $\rho=0$, $0.3$, $0.6$, and $0.9$. The same coding book records questionnaire type, terminology mixing, sample size, design, and data-reporting completeness, which lets the paper pair its quantitative null result with a qualitative account of why the numbers do not line up.

What would settle it

A concrete check: if a re-analysis of the 26 reported effect sizes, grouped by the exact questionnaire used instead of by modality, showed little reduction in heterogeneity, the paper's claim that measurement practice drives the inconsistency would be weakened. Conversely, a well-powered study using one validated instrument across several CVR contents and several modalities that still finds large, modality-dependent effect-size swings would point to content variability rather than instrument noise.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the existing evidence does not yet support any conclusion about which CVR viewing modalities improve or harm user experience. Across 26 effect sizes from 14 studies, the authors found no statistically significant pooled effect for any of the six modality categories, and a robust Wald test could not reject the hypothesis that all modalities have the same average effect ($p\approx 0.74$). What stood out was not the size of any single effect but the inconsistency: effect sizes ranged from $g=-1.13$ to $g=2.10$, with substantial heterogeneity in several subgroups. The paper attributes this inconsistency to evaluation practice. It documents that "presence," "immersion," and "narrative engagement" are frequently treated as synonyms, that several standardized questionnaires share identical items, that 42.4% of the questionnaire-based studies rely at least partly on self-developed instruments, and that many studies report incomplete summary statistics. The conclusion is that unrigorous and nonstandard evaluation, more than any specific modality, is what makes the field's quantitative findings unreliable.

Load-bearing premise

The meta-analysis assumes that scores from different questionnaires—IPQ, IEQ, MNEQ, SUS, and self-designed items—can be pooled as one shared measure of "user experience"; if those instruments measure distinct constructs, the pooled estimates and the observed inconsistency partly reflect construct mixing rather than true modality effects.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • No viewing modality can currently be declared beneficial or harmful on the basis of pooled evidence; the meta-analyzed studies are consistent with zero average effect.
  • Comparisons between CVR experiments are unreliable until the field agrees on what "presence," "immersion," and "narrative engagement" mean and adopts shared instruments.
  • Research on attention-driven modalities needs manipulation checks: most modalities are assumed to change attention, but the surveyed studies rarely verify that assumption.
  • Future meta-analyses will need fuller reporting of means and standard deviations; incomplete reporting is a major reason only 13 of 45 reviewed papers contributed effect sizes.
  • A validated CVR-specific questionnaire, built from the non-overlapping content of existing instruments, would directly address the terminological confusion the paper documents.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If construct mixing were the main source of inconsistency, re-coding the 26 effect sizes by the exact questionnaire used (rather than by modality) should reduce heterogeneity; the paper's tables hint that questionnaire type alone may not explain the variance, but the cell sizes are too small to tell.
  • A testable prediction follows: a single well-powered study using one validated instrument across several content types and several modalities would either tighten the pooled estimates or show that content variability, not measurement noise, drives the spread.
  • The same terminological and questionnaire migration likely troubles adjacent areas such as social viewing and collaborative virtual reality, where the same instruments are used; those fields could inherit the same unreliability.
  • Because 32 of 45 reviewed papers could not enter the meta-analysis for lack of usable statistics, recovering their data or encouraging raw-data sharing would be the quickest way to test whether the null result is an artifact of selective reporting.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper reports a systematic review (45 studies) and meta-analysis (13 studies, 26 effect sizes) of viewing modalities in cinematic virtual reality (CVR), covering guidance cues, intervened/forced rotation, perspective shifting, and avatar assistance. The meta-analysis pools standardized mean differences (SMDs) on presence, immersion, and narrative engagement between a swivel-chair control condition and experimental conditions, using random-effects models and robust variance estimation under several assumed sampling correlations. The review finds no significant overall modality effects, large cross-study heterogeneity within modalities, and documents measurement problems: interchangeable use of presence/immersion/narrative engagement, frequent use of self-developed or adapted questionnaires, and incomplete reporting of statistics. The paper concludes that evaluation practice, not any intrinsic modality effect, limits the comparability of CVR user-experience studies.

Significance. The descriptive, corpus-based findings are a useful contribution. The screening is PRISMA-based, the coding book is specified, inter-rater agreement is reported, and the robust variance estimation is accompanied by a sensitivity analysis over the sampling correlation. If the descriptive claims hold, the paper offers an evidence-based argument for standardizing CVR terminology and measurement, which is of clear value to HCI and CVR researchers. The meta-analytic part, however, is too small and too construct-heterogeneous to support the headline 'inconsistency' claim on its own; its value is mainly as a quantitative illustration of the field's reporting problems rather than as a reliable estimate of modality effects.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.5, §4.2, §4.4, Table 5] The meta-analysis outcome is defined as 'presence, immersion and narrative engagement,' but the SMDs are pooled across instruments designed for different constructs (IPQ/PQ/SUS for presence, IEQ for immersion, MNEQ/NTS for narrative engagement; Table 4). Section 4.4 shows overlapping questionnaire items, but item overlap does not establish construct equivalence, especially because some studies use self-developed items or single items. Consequently, the pooled SMDs and the I² statistics that drive the 'inconsistency' claim in Section 4.2 and Figure 3 are partly artifacts of outcome-construct mixing. The moderator analysis in Table 5 groups only by questionnaire type (valid/adapted/selected/self-developed), not by construct; a moderator for construct (presence vs. immersion vs. narrative engagement), or restricting the pooling to a single construct, is needed before cross-study inconsistency can be attributed to modality effects or study design.
  2. [§4.2.2, Table 5] The reported RVE results contain internal inconsistencies that prevent interpretation. The text says the estimated effects range from 0.961 (SE = 0.294) for 'viewing modality with an agency' to 0.068 for explicit diegetic guidance, but Table 5 shows 0.961 under 'Limited rotation' and 0.309 (at ρ = 0.6) under 'With agency.' Moreover, Table 5 has no row for 'With implicit diegetic guidance,' even though Modality 2 (implicit diegetic guidance) is a central category in Section 4.2.1 and appears in the forest plot; the Wald test comparing modalities therefore does not compare all six modalities described. The positive coefficients for limited and forced rotation also contradict the statement in Section 4.2.1 that Modality 6 'generally shows negative results.' Finally, the 'Studies' column in the Questionnaire block sums to 15 studies, conflicting with the stated 14 studies in the meta-analysis. These issues must be corrected before the RVE estimates and p-values can be used.
  3. [§3.5, §4.1.3] The effect-size extraction does not account for the design of the primary studies. Most experiments (64.7%) used within-subjects designs, yet the coding book says Hedge's g was computed from 'means and standard deviations from groups' or from F/t/p values. For within-subjects data, computing an SMD from the two marginal distributions without the paired-difference correlation yields different and generally more variable effect sizes than a proper within-subject SMD. The sensitivity analysis over ρ addresses dependence among multiple effect sizes within a study, but it does not address the missing within-pair correlation in the SMD itself. Please specify how within-subject SMDs were computed, or exclude within-subject studies in a sensitivity analysis.
minor comments (6)
  1. [References / §2.2] Reference [65] is used for both Hong and Kim's rotational gain work and for Aitamurto et al.'s half-sphere experiment; the latter should cite [3].
  2. [Title page] There are several typos in the author affiliations, including 'Chian' for China and 'Netherland' for Netherlands.
  3. [§3.4] The inter-rater agreement formula '87.5% [i.e., 8−1/8]' is ambiguous; it should read (8−1)/8, and the authors should clarify what the 8 coded items were.
  4. [Appendix Figure 5] The appendix table in Figure 5 is visually cluttered; the mapping from effect-size IDs to study IDs and conditions is difficult to follow and should be reformatted for readability.
  5. [Table 2] The MNEQ row lists citation [73] (Kennedy et al., SSQ) instead of the correct source [22] (Busselle & Bilandzic).
  6. [§4.2.1] The phrase 'with an agency' is confusing and inconsistent with the coding book's 'with agency' and the more natural 'with an avatar'; please standardize the terminology.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the meta-analytic estimates are extracted from external studies, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and the paper contains no load-bearing self-citation; the construct-pooling critique is a validity concern, not a reduction by construction.

full rationale

The paper's central claims—inconsistent effect sizes across studies using the same viewing modality, and irregular questionnaire use—are descriptive summaries of data extracted from 13 external studies, not predictions derived from fitted parameters. The effect sizes (Hedges' g) are computed from means, SDs, F/t values reported in the primary papers (Section 3.5), and the 'inconsistency' finding is an observed spread in those external estimates, not an output that was fed back into the analysis. There is no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, no equation reduces to its input by construction, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work; indeed, the author list does not appear among the 162 cited references, so the self-citation patterns (kinds 3, 4, 5) are absent. The descriptive findings on terminology confusion (Section 4.4) are classifications of the included studies' questionnaire usage, independently supported by the coding procedure. The skeptic's load-bearing concern—that pooling presence, immersion, and narrative engagement as one outcome (Section 3.5) may artifactually create cross-study heterogeneity because the instruments measure distinct constructs—is a construct-validity critique of the meta-analysis, not circularity: the pooled outcome is the input being summarized, and the claimed inconsistency does not reduce to the definition of any term by construction. The paper itself acknowledges the pooling problem as a finding ('This complicated the quantitative comparison of similar studies and raised concerns over the standardization of CVR measurements', Section 4.4), rather than hiding it as an assumption. Internal reporting errors (e.g., Table 5 labels the 0.961 estimate as 'Limited rotation' while Section 4.2.2 text attributes it to 'an agency') affect the reliability of the numerical claims and belong under correctness risk, not circularity, per Hard Rule 5. Under Hard Rule 1, circularity requires exhibiting a specific reduction (Eq. X = Eq. Y by construction, or a fitted parameter renamed as prediction); none is present here, so the honest finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

There are no invented entities. The only hand-set numeric parameter is the assumed sampling correlation. The central claims also rest on coding choices and on the comparability of different questionnaires as measures of user experience, which the paper itself problematizes.

free parameters (1)
  • Assumed sampling correlation rho = 0, 0.3, 0.6, 0.9
    Chosen by hand for the CHE robust-variance model in Section 3.5 and Table 5. The results are reported across all values, so it is a sensitivity parameter rather than a fitted constant, but it shapes the standard errors of the meta-analytic estimates.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Presence, immersion, and narrative engagement can be treated as one comparable user-experience outcome for pooling SMDs.
    Section 3.5 pools SMDs across these constructs; Section 4.4 documents that they overlap and are used interchangeably, so comparability is assumed, not demonstrated.
  • domain assumption The CHE working model with a constant within-study sampling correlation adequately captures dependence among multiple effect sizes from the same experiment.
    Section 3.5 invokes Pustejovsky and Tipton (2022) and reports results under rho=0, 0.3, 0.6, 0.9; with only 2 to 6 effect sizes per group, the model is fragile.
  • domain assumption The exclusion decisions, including removal of two studies for 'unrigorous data collection' and retention of one effect size per modality per study, do not systematically bias the corpus.
    Figure 1 and Section 3.4 describe exclusions without formal criteria, and the appendix caption only partially specifies the retention rule.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exploring Viewing Modalities in Cinematic Virtual Reality: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Challenges in Evaluating User Experience." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/55SCINPL

@misc{pith2026241115583,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exploring Viewing Modalities in Cinematic Virtual Reality: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Challenges in Evaluating User Experience},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/55SCINPL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15583}
}
read the original abstract

Cinematic Virtual Reality (CVR) is a narrative-driven VR experience that uses head-mounted displays with a 360-degree field of view. Previous research has explored different viewing modalities to enhance viewers' CVR experience. This study conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis focusing on how different viewing modalities, including intervened rotation, avatar assistance, guidance cues, and perspective shifting, influence the CVR experience. The study has screened 3444 papers (between 01/01/2013 and 17/06/2023) and selected 45 for systematic review, 13 of which also for meta-analysis. We conducted separate random-effects meta-analysis and applied Robust Variance Estimation to examine CVR viewing modalities and user experience outcomes. Evidence from experiments was synthesized as differences between standardized mean differences (SMDs) of user experience of control group ("Swivel-Chair" CVR) and experiment groups. To our surprise, we found inconsistencies in the effect sizes across different studies, even with the same viewing modalities. Moreover, in these studies, terms such as "presence," "immersion," and "narrative engagement" were often used interchangeably. Their irregular use of questionnaires, overreliance on self-developed questionnaires, and incomplete data reporting may have led to unrigorous evaluations of CVR experiences. This study contributes to Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) research by identifying gaps in CVR research, emphasizing the need for standardization of terminologies and methodologies to enhance the reliability and comparability of future CVR research.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15583 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A PRISMA-style flow diagram of the literature selection process [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Number of records for different research topics per year [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Forest plot presence. Modality 6 (limited or forced rotation): Most results in this modality were negative. Three studies [23, 60, 124] indicated that partial or complete control over the participants’ FOV rotation can lead to noticeable motion sickness 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Funnel plot 26 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Information of Studies Included in Meta-analysis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

159 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Belén Agulló, Mario Montagud, and Isaac Fraile. 2019. Making interaction with virtual reality accessible: rendering and guiding methods for subtitles. AI EDAM (2019), 416–428. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0890060419000362

    work page doi:10.1017/s0890060419000362 2019

  2. [2]

    Sun Joo Ahn, Amanda Minh Tran Le, and Jeremy Bailenson. 2013. The effect of embodied experiences on self-other merging, attitude, and helping behavior. Media Psychology (2013), 7–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2012.755877

    arXiv 2013

  3. [3]

    Tanja Aitamurto, Andrea Stevenson Won, Sukolsak Sakshuwong, Byungdoo Kim, Yasamin Sadeghi, Krysten Stein, Peter G Royal, and Catherine Lynn Kircos. 2021. From FOMO to JOMO: Examining the fear and joy of missing out and presence in a 360 video viewing experience. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–14. https:...

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    Hironori Akiduki, Suetaka Nishiike, Hiroshi Watanabe, Katsunori Matsuoka, Takeshi Kubo, and Noriaki Takeda. 2003. Visual-vestibular conflict induced by virtual reality in humans. Neuroscience letters (2003), 197–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3940(03)00098-3

    work page doi:10.1016/s0304-3940(03)00098-3 2003

  5. [5]

    Devon Allcoat and Adrian von Mühlenen. 2018. Learning in virtual reality: Effects on performance, emotion and engagement. Research in Learning Technology (2018). https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v26.2140

    work page doi:10.25304/rlt.v26.2140 2018

  6. [6]

    Dorit Alt. 2015. College students’ academic motivation, media engagement and fear of missing out. Computers in human behavior (2015), 111–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.057

    work page doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.057 2015

  7. [7]

    Lemonia Argyriou, Daphne Economou, and Vassiliki Bouki. 2020. Design methodology for 360 immersive video applications: the case study of a cultural heritage virtual tour. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing (2020), 843–859. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-020-01373-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s00779-020-01373-8 2020

  8. [8]

    Ahlem Assila, Houcine Ezzedine, et al. 2016. Standardized usability questionnaires: Features and quality focus. Electronic Journal of Computer Science and Information Technology (2016). https://uphf.hal.science/hal-03400437

    2016

Show all 159 references
  1. [9]

    storification

    Ruth Aylett. 2000. Emergent narrative, social immersion and “storification”. In Proceedings of the 1st international workshop on narrative and interactive learning environments. 35–44. https://cdn.aaai.org/Symposia/Fall/1999/FS-99-01/FS99-01-014.pdf

    2000

  2. [10]

    Ruth Aylett and Sandy Louchart. 2003. Towards a narrative theory of virtual reality. Virtual Reality (2003), 2–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055- 003-0114-9 19 Conference acronym ’XX, June 03–05, 2018, Woodstock, NY Yawen Zhang, Han Zhou, Zhongmingju Jiang, Zilu Tang, Tao Luo,...

    2003 doi

  3. [11]

    Jessica Babineau. 2014. Product review: Covidence (systematic review software). Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association/Journal de l’Association des bibliothèques de la santé du Canada (2014), 68–71. https://www.covidence.org/

    2014

  4. [12]

    Sojung Bahng, Ryan M Kelly, and Jon McCormack. 2020. Reflexive VR storytelling design beyond immersion: facilitating self-reflection on death and loneliness. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376582

    2020

  5. [13]

    When the Elephant Trumps

    Paulo Bala, Raul Masu, Valentina Nisi, and Nuno Nunes. 2019. "When the Elephant Trumps": A Comparative Study on Spatial Audio for Orientation in 360º Videos. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300925

    2019

  6. [14]

    Aaron Bangor, Philip T Kortum, and James T Miller. 2008. An empirical evaluation of the system usability scale. Intl. Journal of Human–Computer Interaction (2008), 574–594. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447310802205776

    2008 doi

  7. [15]

    Joseph Bates. 1992. Virtual reality, art, and entertainment. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments (1992), 133–138. https://doi.org/10.1162/ pres.1992.1.1.133

    1992

  8. [16]

    Thomas Beck and Sylvia Rothe. 2021. Applying diegetic cues to an interactive virtual reality experience. In 2021 IEEE Conference on Games (CoG) . IEEE, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/CoG52621.2021.9619025

    2021

  9. [17]

    Stuart Bender. 2019. Headset attentional synchrony: tracking the gaze of viewers watching narrative virtual reality. Media practice and education (2019), 277–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/25741136.2018.1464743

    2019

  10. [18]

    Frank Biocca and Mark R Levy. 2013. Communication in the age of virtual reality . Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410603128

    2013 doi

  11. [19]

    Grant Bollmer. 2017. Empathy machines. Media International Australia (2017), 63–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878X17726794

    2017 doi

  12. [20]

    Jessica Brillhart. 2015. The language of VR . Retrieved Jul 6, 2016 from https://medium.com/the-language-of-vr

    2015

  13. [21]

    John Bucher. 2017. Storytelling for virtual reality: Methods and principles for crafting immersive narratives . Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/ 9781315210308

    2017

  14. [22]

    Rick Busselle and Helena Bilandzic. 2009. Measuring narrative engagement. Media psychology (2009), 321–347. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 15213260903287259

    2009

  15. [23]

    Alberto Cannavò, Antonio Castiello, F Gabriele Pratticò, Tatiana Mazali, and Fabrizio Lamberti. 2023. Immersive movies: the effect of point of view on narrative engagement. AI & SOCIETY (2023), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01622-9

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    Chong Cao, Zhaowei Shi, and Miao Yu. 2020. Automatic generation of diegetic guidance in cinematic virtual reality. InIEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality . IEEE, 600–607. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISMAR50242.2020.00087

    2020

  17. [25]

    Ruochen Cao, James Walsh, Andrew Cunningham, Carolin Reichherze, Subrata Dey, and Bruce Thomas. 2019. A preliminary exploration of montage transitions in cinematic virtual reality. In 2019 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality Adjunct (ISMAR-Adjunct) . IE...

    2019

  18. [26]

    Eunhee Chang, Hyun Taek Kim, and Byounghyun Yoo. 2020. Virtual reality sickness: a review of causes and measurements. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction (2020), 1658–1682. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2020.1778351

    2020

  19. [27]

    David Checa and Andres Bustillo. 2020. A review of immersive virtual reality serious games to enhance learning and training. Multimedia Tools and Applications (2020), 5501–5527. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-019-08348-9

    2020 doi

  20. [28]

    Nancy A Cheever, Larry D Rosen, L Mark Carrier, and Amber Chavez. 2014. Out of sight is not out of mind: The impact of restricting wireless mobile device use on anxiety levels among low, moderate and high users. Computers in Human Behavior (2014), 290–297. https://digital- lib...

    2014

  21. [29]

    Lee, Mark Billinghurst, Robert W

    Joshua Chen, Gun A. Lee, Mark Billinghurst, Robert W. Lindeman, and Christoph Bartneck. 2017. The effect of user embodiment in AV cinematic experience. (2017), 55–62. http://hdl.handle.net/10092/15405

    2017

  22. [30]

    Alice Chirico, Pietro Cipresso, David B Yaden, Federica Biassoni, Giuseppe Riva, and Andrea Gaggioli. 2017. Effectiveness of immersive videos in inducing awe: an experimental study. Scientific reports (2017), 1218. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-01242-0

    2017 doi

  23. [31]

    Katheryn R Christy and Jesse Fox. 2016. Transportability and presence as predictors of avatar identification within narrative video games. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking (2016), 283–287. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2015.0474

    2016

  24. [32]

    James J Cummings and Jeremy N Bailenson. 2016. How immersive is enough? A meta-analysis of the effect of immersive technology on user presence. Media psychology (2016), 272–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2015.1015740

    2016

  25. [33]

    Max T Curran, Jeremy Raboff Gordon, Lily Lin, Priyashri Kamlesh Sridhar, and John Chuang. 2019. Understanding digitally-mediated empathy: An exploration of visual, narrative, and biosensory informational cues. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Compu...

    2019

  26. [34]

    Sonya Dal Cin, Bryan Gibson, Mark P Zanna, Roberta Shumate, and Geoffrey T Fong. 2007. Smoking in movies, implicit associations of smoking with the self, and intentions to smoke. Psychological Science (2007), 559–563. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01939.x

    2007

  27. [35]

    Simon Davis, Keith Nesbitt, and Eugene Nalivaiko. 2014. A systematic review of cybersickness. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on interactive entertainment. 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1145/2677758.2677780

    2014

  28. [36]

    Mark S Dennison, A Zachary Wisti, and Michael D’Zmura. 2016. Use of physiological signals to predict cybersickness. Displays (2016), 42–52. https://https://doi.org/10.1016/j.displa.2016.07.002

    2016 doi

  29. [37]

    Ignacio Díaz-Oreiro, Gustavo López, Luis Quesada, and Luis Guerrero. 2019. Standardized questionnaires for user experience evaluation: A systematic literature review. UCAml 2019 (2019), 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/proceedings2019031014

    2019 doi

  30. [38]

    Ignacio Díaz-Oreiro, Gustavo López, Luis Quesada, and Luis A Guerrero. 2021. UX evaluation with standardized questionnaires in ubiquitous computing and ambient intelligence: a systematic literature review. Advances in Human-Computer Interaction (2021). https://doi.org/10.1155/...

    2021 doi

  31. [39]

    Anna Dining. 2017. A user study of story presence in an immersive narrative experience tested with variant levels of immersion. In SMPTE 2017 Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. SMPTE, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.5594/M001755

    2017 doi

  32. [40]

    Kath Dooley. 2017. Storytelling with virtual reality in 360-degrees: a new screen grammar. Studies in Australasian cinema (2017), 161–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/17503175.2017.1387357

    2017

  33. [41]

    Kath Dooley. 2021. Cinematic virtual reality: A critical study of 21st century approaches and practices . Springer. https://link.springer.com/book/10. 1007/978-3-030-72147-3

    2021

  34. [42]

    Phillip Doyle. 2023. The grammar of immersion: a social semiotic study of nonfiction cinematic virtual reality . Ph. D. Dissertation. Dublin City University. https://doras.dcu.ie/28945/

    2023

  35. [43]

    Jan Drewes, Sascha Feder, and Wolfgang Einhäuser. 2021. Gaze During Locomotion in Virtual Reality and the Real World. Frontiers in Neuroscience (2021). https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnins.2021.656913

    2021

  36. [44]

    Matthias Egger, George Davey Smith, Martin Schneider, and Christoph Minder. 1997. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. bmj (1997), 629–634. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629

    1997 doi

  37. [45]

    Ahmed Elmezeny, Nina Edenhofer, and Jeffrey Wimmer. 2018. Immersive storytelling in 360-degree videos: An analysis of interplay between narrative and technical immersion. Journal For Virtual Worlds Research (2018). https://doi.org/10.4101/jvwr.v11i1.7298

    2018 doi

  38. [46]

    Laura Ermi and Frans Mäyrä. 2005. Fundamental components of the gameplay experience: Analysing immersion.. In DiGRA Conference, Jennifer Jenson (Ed.). Citeseer. https://researchportal.tuni.fi/en/publications/fundamental-components-of-the-gameplay-experience-analysing-immer-2

    2005

  39. [47]

    Jesse Fox, Jeremy Bailenson, and Joseph Binney. 2009. Virtual experiences, physical behaviors: The effect of presence on imitation of an eating avatar. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments (2009), 294–303. https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.18.4.294

    2009 doi

  40. [48]

    Paul François, Jeffrey Leichman, Florent Laroche, and Françoise Rubellin. 2021. Virtual reality as a versatile tool for research, dissemination and mediation in the humanities. Virtual Archaeology Review (2021), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.4995/var.2021.14880

    2021

  41. [49]

    Guo Freeman and Divine Maloney. 2021. Body, Avatar, and Me: The Presentation and Perception of Self in Social Virtual Reality. 4, CSCW3, Article 239 (2021), 27 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3432938

    2021 doi

  42. [50]

    I Am a Mirror Dweller

    Kexue Fu, Yixin Chen, Jiaxun Cao, Xin Tong, and RAY LC. 2023. "I Am a Mirror Dweller": Probing the Unique Strategies Users Take to Communicate in the Context of Mirrors in Social Virtual Reality (CHI ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 19 pages. https...

    2023

  43. [51]

    Orit Furman, Nimrod Dorfman, Uri Hasson, Lila Davachi, and Yadin Dudai. 2007. They saw a movie: long-term memory for an extended audiovisual narrative. Learning & memory (2007), 457–467. https://doi.org/10.1101/lm.550407

    2007 doi

  44. [52]

    Peter J Gianaros, Eric R Muth, J Toby Mordkoff, Max E Levine, and Robert M Stern. 2001. A questionnaire for the assessment of the multiple dimensions of motion sickness. A viation, space, and environmental medicine (2001), 115. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2910410/

    2001

  45. [53]

    Michael Gödde, Frank Gabler, Dirk Siegmund, and Andreas Braun. 2018. Cinematic narration in VR–Rethinking Film conventions for 360 degrees. In Virtual, Augmented and Mixed Reality: Applications in Health, Cultural Heritage, and Industry: 10th International Conference, V AMR 20...

    2018 doi

  46. [54]

    Geoffrey Gorisse, Olivier Christmann, Etienne Armand Amato, and Simon Richir. 2017. First-and third-person perspectives in immersive virtual environments: presence and performance analysis of embodied users.Frontiers in Robotics and AI (2017), 33. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt...

    2017

  47. [55]

    Marta Gospodarek, Andrea Genovese, Dennis Dembeck, Corinne Brenner, Agnieszka Roginska, and Ken Perlin. 2019. Sound design and reproduction techniques for co-located narrative VR experiences. In Audio Engineering Society Convention 147. Audio Engineering Society. http://www.ae...

    2019

  48. [56]

    Simone Grassini and Karin Laumann. 2020. Questionnaire measures and physiological correlates of presence: A systematic review. Frontiers in psychology (2020), 349. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00349

    2020

  49. [57]

    Melanie C Green and Timothy C Brock. 2000. The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of personality and social psychology (2000), 701. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.79.5.701

    2000 doi

  50. [58]

    Jan Gugenheimer, Dennis Wolf, Gabriel Haas, Sebastian Krebs, and Enrico Rukzio. 2016. Swivrchair: A motorized swivel chair to nudge users’ orientation for 360 degree storytelling in virtual reality. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing System...

    2016

  51. [59]

    Tobias Günther, Ingmar S Franke, and Rainer Groh. 2015. Aughanded virtuality-the hands in the virtual environment. In 2015 IEEE Symposium on 3D User Interfaces (3DUI) . IEEE, 157–158. https://doi.org/10.1109/3DUI.2015.7131748

    2015

  52. [60]

    Zichun Guo, Jinghan Zhao, and Zihao Wang. 2020. How to Improve the Immersiveness in VR by Changing the Time Expansion Coefficient: A Study on the Narrative Immersion for VR. In HCI International 2020-Posters: 22nd International Conference, HCII 2020, Copenhagen, Denmark, July ...

    2020 doi

  53. [61]

    Feilin Han, Ying Zhong, and Minxi Zhou. 2022. Evaluating the Effect of Cinematography on the Viewing Experience in Immersive Environment. In 2022 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo (ICME) . IEEE, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICME52920.2022.9859864

    2022

  54. [62]

    Hart and Lowell E

    Sandra G. Hart and Lowell E. Staveland. 1988. Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research. In Human Mental Workload. North-Holland, 139–183. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166411508623869

    1988

  55. [63]

    Carrie Heater. 1992. Being there: The subjective experience of presence. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ. (1992), 262–271. https: //doi.org/10.1162/pres.1992.1.2.262 21 Conference acronym ’XX, June 03–05, 2018, Woodstock, NY Yawen Zhang, Han Zhou, Zhongmingju Jiang, Zil...

    1992 doi

  56. [64]

    Teresa Hirzle, Maurice Cordts, Enrico Rukzio, Jan Gugenheimer, and Andreas Bulling. 2021. A Critical Assessment of the Use of SSQ as a Measure of General Discomfort in VR Head-Mounted Displays (CHI ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 530, 14 p...

    2021

  57. [65]

    Seokjun Hong and Gerard J Kim. 2016. Accelerated viewpoint panning with rotational gain in 360 degree videos. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM Conference on Virtual Reality Software and Technology . 303–304. https://doi.org/10.1145/2993369.2996309

    2016

  58. [66]

    John E Hunter and Frank L Schmidt. 2004. Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings . Sage. https://swbplus.bsz- bw.de/bsz406045089inh.htm

    2004

  59. [67]

    Malte Husung and Eike Langbehn. 2019. Of Portals and Orbs: An Evaluation of Scene Transition Techniques for Virtual Reality. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/3340764.3340779

    2019

  60. [68]

    1995-2016

    igroup project consortium. 1995-2016. IGROUP PRESENCE QUESTIONNAIRE (IPQ) . Retrieved 2016 from https://www.igroup.org/index.php

    1995

  61. [69]

    Horace Ho Shing Ip, Chen Li, Selena Leoni, Yangbin Chen, Ka-Fai Ma, Calvin Hoi-to Wong, and Qing Li. 2018. Design and evaluate immersive learning experience for massive open online courses (MOOCs). IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies (2018), 503–515. https://doi.org/10....

    2018

  62. [70]

    Rifatul Islam, Kevin Desai, and John Quarles. 2021. Cybersickness Prediction from Integrated HMD’s Sensors: A Multimodal Deep Fusion Approach using Eye-tracking and Head-tracking Data. In 2021 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR) . 31–40. https:/...

    2021

  63. [71]

    Charlene Jennett, Anna L Cox, Paul Cairns, Samira Dhoparee, Andrew Epps, Tim Tijs, and Alison Walton. 2008. Measuring and defining the experience of immersion in games. International journal of human-computer studies (2008), 641–661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2008.04.004

    2008 doi

  64. [72]

    Dayoung Jeong, Seungwon Paik, YoungTae Noh, and Kyungsik Han. 2023. MAC: multimodal, attention-based cybersickness prediction modeling in virtual reality. Virtual Reality (2023), 2315–2330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-023-00804-0

    2023 doi

  65. [73]

    Robert S Kennedy, Norman E Lane, Kevin S Berbaum, and Michael G Lilienthal. 1993. Simulator sickness questionnaire: An enhanced method for quantifying simulator sickness. The international journal of aviation psychology (1993), 203–220. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327108ijap0303_3

    1993 doi

  66. [74]

    Behrang Keshavarz and Heiko Hecht. 2011. Validating an Efficient Method to Quantify Motion Sickness. Human Factors (2011), 415–426. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720811403736

    2011 doi

  67. [75]

    DH Kim. 1999. Development of method for quantification and analysis of simulator sickness in a driving simulation environment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Seoul, South Korea: Hanyang University (1999)

    1999

  68. [76]

    Kim, Jaehyun Park, Yeongcheol Choi, and Mungyeong Choe

    Hyun K. Kim, Jaehyun Park, Yeongcheol Choi, and Mungyeong Choe. 2018. Virtual reality sickness questionnaire (VRSQ): Motion sickness measurement index in a virtual reality environment. Applied Ergonomics (2018), 66–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2017.12.016

    2018 doi

  69. [77]

    Sebastian Knorr, Cagri Ozcinar, Colm O Fearghail, and Aljosa Smolic. 2018. Director’s cut: a combined dataset for visual attention analysis in cinematic VR content. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM SIGGRAPH European Conference on Visual Media Production . 1–10. https://doi.org/1...

    2018

  70. [78]

    Thomas Kohler, Johann Fueller, Daniel Stieger, and Kurt Matzler. 2011. Avatar-based innovation: Consequences of the virtual co-creation experience. Computers in human behavior (2011), 160–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.07.019

    2011 doi

  71. [79]

    Eugenia M Kolasinski. 1995. Simulator sickness in virtual environments. (1995)

    1995

  72. [80]

    MacPherson

    Panagiotis Kourtesis, Josie Linnell, Rayaan Amir, Ferran Argelaguet, and Sarah E. MacPherson. 2023. Cybersickness in Virtual Reality Questionnaire (CSQ-VR): A Validation and Comparison against SSQ and VRSQ. Virtual Worlds 2, 1 (2023), 16–35. https://doi.org/10.3390/virtualworl...

    2023 doi

  73. [81]

    Hannu Kukka, Minna Pakanen, Mahmoud Badri, and Timo Ojala. 2017. Immersive Street-level Social Media in the 3D Virtual City: Anticipated User Experience and Conceptual Development (CSCW ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, 2422–2435. https://doi.org/10.1145/2998181.2998341

    2017

  74. [82]

    Laurent Lescop. 2017. Narrative grammar in 360. In 2017 IEEE International symposium on mixed and augmented reality (Ismar-Adjunct) . IEEE, 254–257. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISMAR-Adjunct.2017.86

    2017 doi

  75. [83]

    Jane Lessiter, Jonathan Freeman, Edmund Keogh, and Jules Davidoff. 2001. A cross-media presence questionnaire: The ITC-Sense of Presence Inventory. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments (2001), 282–297. https://doi.org/10.1162/105474601300343612

    2001 doi

  76. [84]

    Lin, H.B.L

    J.J.-W. Lin, H.B.L. Duh, D.E. Parker, H. Abi-Rached, and T.A. Furness. 2002. Effects of field of view on presence, enjoyment, memory, and simulator sickness in a virtual environment. In Proceedings IEEE Virtual Reality 2002 . 164–171. https://doi.org/10.1109/VR.2002.996519

    2002

  77. [85]

    Yen-Chen Lin, Yung-Ju Chang, Hou-Ning Hu, Hsien-Tzu Cheng, Chi-Wen Huang, and Min Sun. 2017. Tell me where to look: Investigating ways for assisting focus in 360 video. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 2535–2545. https: //doi.or...

    2017

  78. [86]

    Matthew Lombard and Theresa Ditton. 1997. At the heart of it all: The concept of presence. Journal of computer-mediated communication (1997), JCMC321. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.tb00072.x

    1997

  79. [87]

    Tao Long, Swati Pandita, and Andrea Stevenson Won. 2023. Perspectives from Naive Participants and Experienced Social Science Researchers on Addressing Embodiment in a Virtual Cyberball Task (CSCW ’23 Companion). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 358...

    2023

  80. [88]

    Matthew Love, Eric R Williams, and John Bowditch. 2023. Uses and Considerations for Cinematic Virtual Reality in Health Care. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology (2023), 19322968231179730. https://doi.org/10.1177/19322968231179730

    2023 doi

  81. [89]

    Cayley MacArthur, Arielle Grinberg, Daniel Harley, and Mark Hancock. 2021. You’re Making Me Sick: A Systematic Review of How Virtual Reality Research Considers Gender & Cybersickness. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Yokohama, Ja...

    2021

  82. [92]

    Daniel Martin, Sandra Malpica, Diego Gutierrez, Belen Masia, and Ana Serrano. 2022. Multimodality in VR: A survey. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) (2022), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1145/3508361

    2022 doi

  83. [93]

    Belen Masia, Javier Camon, Diego Gutierrez, and Ana Serrano. 2021. Influence of Directional Sound Cues on Users’ Exploration Across 360 ° Movie Cuts. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications (2021), 64–75. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCG.2021.3064688

    2021

  84. [94]

    Michael Mateas. 2000. A neo-aristotelian theory of interactive drama. In Working notes of the AI and Interactive Entertainment Symposium . AAAI Press Menlo Park. https://cdn.aaai.org/Symposia/Spring/2000/SS-00-02/SS00-02-011.pdf

    2000

  85. [95]

    John Mateer. 2017. Directing for Cinematic Virtual Reality: how the traditional film director’s craft applies to immersive environments and notions of presence. Journal of media practice (2017), 14–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/14682753.2017.1305838

    2017

  86. [96]

    Alison McMahan. 2013. Immersion, engagement, and presence: A method for analyzing 3-D video games. In The video game theory reader . Routledge, 67–86. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780203700457-4/immersion-engagement-presence-alison-mcmahan

    2013 doi

  87. [97]

    Liang Men, Nick Bryan-Kinns, Amelia Shivani Hassard, and Zixiang Ma. 2017. The impact of transitions on user experience in virtual reality. In 2017 IEEE virtual reality (VR) . IEEE, 285–286. https://doi.org/10.1109/VR.2017.7892288

    2017

  88. [98]

    Daniel Mestre, Philippe Fuchs, A Berthoz, and JL Vercher. 2006. Immersion et présence. Le traité de la réalité virtuelle. Paris: Ecole des Mines de Paris (2006), 309–38. http://www.ism.univmed.fr/mestre/pub/Pres_2005.pdf

    2006

  89. [99]

    Mario Montagud, Jie Li, Gianluca Cernigliaro, Abdallah El Ali, Sergi Fernández, and Pablo Cesar. 2022. Towards socialVR: evaluating a novel technology for watching videos together. Virtual Reality 26, 4 (2022), 1593–1613. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-022-00651-5

    2022 doi

  90. [100]

    Aske Mottelson, Andreea Muresan, Kasper Hornbæk, and Guido Makransky. 2023. A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Effectiveness of Body Ownership Illusions in Virtual Reality. 30, 5 (2023), 42 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3590767

    2023 doi

  91. [101]

    Hendrik Müller, Aaron Sedley, and Elizabeth Ferrall-Nunge. 2014. Survey research in HCI. Ways of Knowing in HCI (2014), 229–266. https: //doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-0378-8_10

    2014 doi

  92. [102]

    Joschka Mütterlein. 2018. The three pillars of virtual reality? Investigating the roles of immersion, presence, and interactivity. (2018). http: //hdl.handle.net/10125/50061

    2018

  93. [103]

    Lasse T Nielsen, Matias B Møller, Sune D Hartmeyer, Troels CM Ljung, Niels C Nilsson, Rolf Nordahl, and Stefania Serafin. 2016. Missing the point: an exploration of how to guide users’ attention during cinematic virtual reality. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM conference on vir...

    2016

  94. [104]

    Niels Chr Nilsson, Rolf Nordahl, and Stefania Serafin. 2016. Immersion revisited: A review of existing definitions of immersion and their relation to different theories of presence. Human technology (2016), 108–134. http://humantechnology.jyu.fi/archive/vol-12/issue-2/immersio...

    2016

  95. [105]

    Nahal Norouzi, Gerd Bruder, Austin Erickson, Kangsoo Kim, Jeremy Bailenson, Pamela Wisniewski, Charlie Hughes, and Greg Welch. 2021. Virtual animals as diegetic attention guidance mechanisms in 360-degree experiences. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (2...

    2021

  96. [106]

    Ortiz and Carolina Cruz-Neira

    Jason A. Ortiz and Carolina Cruz-Neira. 2023. Workspace VR: A Social and Collaborative Telework Virtual Reality Application (CSCW ’23 Companion). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3584931.3607502

    2023

  97. [107]

    Heather L O’Brien, Paul Cairns, and Mark Hall. 2018. A practical approach to measuring user engagement with the refined user engagement scale (UES) and new UES short form. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies (2018), 28–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2018.01.004

    2018 doi

  98. [108]

    Jayesh S Pillai and Manvi Verma. 2019. Grammar of VR storytelling: analysis of perceptual cues in VR cinema. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGGRAPH European Conference on Visual Media Production . 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359998.3369402

    2019

  99. [109]

    James E Pustejovsky and Elizabeth Tipton. 2022. Meta-analysis with robust variance estimation: Expanding the range of working models.Prevention Science 23, 3 (2022), 425–438

    2022

  100. [110]

    Anna Queiroz, Eileen McGivney, Sunny X Liu, Courtney Anderson, Brian Beams, Cyan DeVeaux, Kai Frazier, Eugy Han, Mark Roman Miller, Xander S Peterson, et al. 2023. Collaborative Tasks in Immersive Virtual Reality Increase Learning. InProceedings of the 16th International Confe...

    2023

  101. [111]

    Filip Raes, Elizabeth Pommier, Kristin D Neff, and Dinska Van Gucht. 2011. Construction and factorial validation of a short form of the self- compassion scale. Clinical psychology & psychotherapy (2011), 250–255. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.702

    2011 doi

  102. [112]

    Eric D Ragan, Ajith Sowndararajan, Regis Kopper, and Doug A Bowman. 2010. The effects of higher levels of immersion on procedure memorization performance and implications for educational virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments (2010), 527–543. ht...

    2010 doi

  103. [113]

    Shannon L Rawski, Joshua R Foster, and Jeremy Bailenson. 2022. Sexual Harassment Bystander Training Effectiveness: Experimentally Comparing 2D Video to Virtual Reality Practice. (2022). https://doi.org/10.1037/tmb0000074 23 Conference acronym ’XX, June 03–05, 2018, Woodstock, ...

    2022 doi

  104. [114]

    Maria Cecilia Reyes. 2018. Measuring user experience on interactive fiction in cinematic virtual reality. In Interactive Storytelling: 11th International Conference on Interactive Digital Storytelling, ICIDS 2018, Dublin, Ireland, December 5–8, 2018, Proceedings 11 . Springer,...

    2018

  105. [115]

    María Cecilia Reyes and Giuliana Dettori. 2020. Combining Interactive Fiction with Cinematic Virtual Reality. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359852.3359888

    2020

  106. [116]

    Henry L Roediger III and Jeffrey D Karpicke. 2006. The power of testing memory: Basic research and implications for educational practice. Perspectives on psychological science (2006), 181–210. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00012.x

    2006

  107. [117]

    Miriam Ross and Alex Munt. 2018. Cinematic virtual reality: Towards the spatialized screenplay. Journal of Screenwriting (2018), 191–209. https://doi.org/10.1386/josc.9.2.191_1

    2018 doi

  108. [118]

    Christian Roth and Hartmut Koenitz. 2016. Evaluating the user experience of interactive digital narrative. In Proceedings of the 1st international workshop on multimedia alternate realities . 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1145/2983298.2983302

    2016

  109. [119]

    Christian Roth, Tom Van Nuenen, and Hartmut Koenitz. 2018. Ludonarrative hermeneutics: a way out and the narrative paradox. In Interactive Storytelling: 11th International Conference on Interactive Digital Storytelling, ICIDS 2018 . 93–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04028-4_7

    2018 doi

  110. [120]

    Sylvia Rothe, Felix Althammer, and Mohamed Khamis. 2018. Gazerecall: Using gaze direction to increase recall of details in cinematic virtual reality. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia . 115–119. https://doi.org/10.1145/3282...

    2018

  111. [121]

    Sylvia Rothe, Daniel Buschek, and Heinrich Hußmann. 2019. Guidance in cinematic virtual reality-taxonomy, research status and challenges. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction (2019), 19. https://www.mdpi.com/2414-4088/3/1/19

    2019

  112. [122]

    Sylvia Rothe and Heinrich Hußmann. 2018. Guiding the viewer in cinematic virtual reality by diegetic cues. In Augmented Reality, Virtual Reality, and Computer Graphics: 5th International Conference, A VR 2018, Otranto, Italy, June 24–27, 2018, Proceedings, Part I 5 . Springer,...

    2018 doi

  113. [123]

    Sylvia Rothe, Heinrich Hußmann, and Mathias Allary. 2017. Diegetic cues for guiding the viewer in cinematic virtual reality. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM symposium on virtual reality software and technology . 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1145/3139131.3143421

    2017

  114. [124]

    Sylvia Rothe, Lang Zhao, Arne Fahrenwalde, and Heinrich Hußmann. 2020. How to reduce the effort: Comfortable watching techniques for cinematic virtual reality. In Augmented Reality, Virtual Reality, and Computer Graphics: 7th International Conference, A VR 2020, Lecce, Italy, ...

    2020 doi

  115. [125]

    Marie-Laure Ryan. 2004. Will New Media Produce New Narratives? Marie-Laure Ryan. Narrative across media: The languages of storytelling (2004), 337

    2004

  116. [126]

    Marie-Laure Ryan. 2015. Narrative as virtual reality 2: Revisiting immersion and interactivity in literature and electronic media . JHU press. https://press.jhu.edu/books/title/11170/narrative-virtual-reality-2

    2015

  117. [127]

    Dimitrios Saredakis, Ancret Szpak, Brandon Birckhead, Hannah A. D. Keage, Albert Rizzo, and Tobias Loetscher. 2020. Factors Associated With Virtual Reality Sickness in Head-Mounted Displays: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 14 (2020). http...

    2020

  118. [128]

    Lucile Sassatelli, Anne-Marie Pinna-Déry, Marco Winckler, Savino Dambra, Giuseppe Samela, Romaric Pighetti, and Ramon Aparicio-Pardo. 2018. Snap-changes: a dynamic editing strategy for directing viewer’s attention in streaming virtual reality videos. InProceedings of the 2018 ...

    2018

  119. [129]

    Martin Schrepp, Andreas Hinderks, and Jörg Thomaschewski. 2017. Design and evaluation of a short version of the user experience questionnaire (UEQ-S). International Journal of Interactive Multimedia and Artificial Intelligence, 4 (6), 103-108. (2017)

    2017

  120. [130]

    Thomas Schubert, Frank Friedmann, and Holger Regenbrecht. 2001. The experience of presence: Factor analytic insights. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments (2001), 266–281. https://doi.org/10.1162/105474601300343603

    2001 doi

  121. [132]

    Valentin Schwind, Pascal Knierim, Nico Haas, and Niels Henze. 2019. Using presence questionnaires in virtual reality. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300590

    2019

  122. [133]

    Ana Serrano, Vincent Sitzmann, Jaime Ruiz-Borau, Gordon Wetzstein, Diego Gutierrez, and Belen Masia. 2017. Movie editing and cognitive event segmentation in virtual reality video. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) (2017), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3072959.3073668

    2017

  123. [134]

    Syed Hammad Hussain Shah, Kyungjin Han, and Jong Weon Lee. 2020. Real-Time Application for Generating Multiple Experiences from 360° Panoramic Video by Tracking Arbitrary Objects and Viewer’s Orientations. Applied Sciences (2020), 2248. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10072248

    2020 doi

  124. [135]

    Alia Sheikh, Andy Brown, Zillah Watson, and Michael Evans. 2016. Directing attention in 360-degree video. (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb. 2014.05.002

    2016 doi

  125. [136]

    John Scott Siri Jr., Hamna Khalid, Luong Nguyen, and Donghee Yvette Wohn. 2018. Screen-viewing Practices in Social Virtual Reality (CSCW ’18 Companion). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3272973.3274048

    2018

  126. [137]

    Mel Slater. 2003. A note on presence terminology. Presence connect (2003), 1–5

    2003

  127. [138]

    Mel Slater, Martin Usoh, and Anthony Steed. 1994. Depth of presence in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments (1994), 130–144. https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.1994.3.2.130

    1994 doi

  128. [139]

    Marco Speicher, Christoph Rosenberg, Donald Degraen, Florian Daiber, and Antonio Krúger. 2019. Exploring visual guidance in 360-degree videos. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM International Conference on Interactive Experiences for TV and Online Video. 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1...

    2019

  129. [140]

    Travis Stebbins and Eric D Ragan. 2019. Redirecting view rotation in immersive movies with washout filters. In 2019 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR) . IEEE, 377–385. https://doi.org/10.1109/VR.2019.8797994

    2019

  130. [141]

    Hannah Syrett, Licia Calvi, and Marnix van Gisbergen. 2017. The oculus rift film experience: a case study on understanding films in a head mounted display. In Intelligent Technologies for Interactive Entertainment: 8th International Conference, INTETAIN 2016, Utrecht, The Neth...

    2017 doi

  131. [142]

    Kata Szita, Pierre Gander, and David Wallstén. 2018. The effects of cinematic virtual reality on viewing experience and the recollection of narrative elements. PRESENCE: Virtual and Augmented Reality (2018), 410–425. https://doi.org/10.1162/pres_a_00338

    2018 doi

  132. [143]

    Umama Tasnim, Rifatul Islam, Kevin Desai, and John Quarles. 2024. Investigating Personalization Techniques for Improved Cybersickness Prediction in Virtual Reality Environments. (2024)

    2024

  133. [144]

    Lingwei Tong, Robert W Lindeman, and Holger Regenbrecht. 2021. Viewer’s role and viewer interaction in cinematic virtual reality. Computers (2021), 66. https://doi.org/10.3390/computers10050066

    2021 doi

  134. [145]

    Lingwei Tong, Robert W Lindeman, and Holger Regenbrecht. 2022. Adaptive Playback Control: A Framework for Cinematic VR Creators to Embrace Viewer Interaction. Frontiers in Virtual Reality (2022), 798306. https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2021.798306

    2022

  135. [146]

    Michel Treisman. 1977. Motion sickness: an evolutionary hypothesis. Science (1977), 493–495. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.301659

    1977 doi

  136. [147]

    Andrea C Tricco, Erin Lillie, Wasifa Zarin, Kelly K O’Brien, Heather Colquhoun, Danielle Levac, David Moher, Micah DJ Peters, Tanya Horsley, Laura Weeks, et al. 2018. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Annals of internal medicine (201...

    2018 doi

  137. [148]

    Martin Usoh, Ernest Catena, Sima Arman, and Mel Slater. 2000. Using presence questionnaires in reality. Presence (2000), 497–503. https: //doi.org/10.1162/105474600566989

    2000 doi

  138. [149]

    Veas, Erick Mendez, Steven K

    Eduardo E. Veas, Erick Mendez, Steven K. Feiner, and Dieter Schmalstieg. 2011. Directing Attention and Influencing Memory with Visual Saliency Modulation. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . Association for Computing Machinery, 1471–...

    2011

  139. [150]

    Wolfgang Viechtbauer. 2010. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of statistical software (2010), 1–48. https: //doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i03

    2010 doi

  140. [151]

    Mirjam Vosmeer, Christian Roth, and Hartmut Koenitz. 2017. Who are you? Voice-over perspective in surround video. In Interactive Storytelling: 10th International Conference on Interactive Digital Storytelling, ICIDS 2017 . 221–232. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71027-3_18

    2017 doi

  141. [152]

    Mirjam Vosmeer and Ben Schouten. 2014. Interactive cinema: engagement and interaction. In Interactive Storytelling: 7th International Conference on Interactive Digital Storytelling, ICIDS 2014, Singapore, Singapore, November 3-6, 2014, Proceedings 7 . 140–147. https://doi.org/...

    2014 doi

  142. [153]

    Jan Oliver Wallgrün, Mahda M Bagher, Pejman Sajjadi, and Alexander Klippel. 2020. A comparison of visual attention guiding approaches for 360 image-based vr tours. In 2020 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR) . 83–91. https://doi.org/10.1109/VR46266.2...

    2020

  143. [154]

    David Wechsler. 1945. Wechsler memory scale. (1945). https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1946-00348-000

    1945

  144. [155]

    Séamas Weech, Sophie Kenny, and Michael Barnett-Cowan. 2019. Presence and cybersickness in virtual reality are negatively related: a review. Frontiers in psychology 10 (2019), 158. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00158

    2019

  145. [156]

    Bob G Witmer and Michael J Singer. 1998. Measuring presence in virtual environments: A presence questionnaire. Presence (1998), 225–240. https://doi.org/10.1162/105474698565686

    1998 doi

  146. [157]

    Qinghong Xu and Eric D Ragan. 2019. Effects of character guide in immersive virtual reality stories. In Virtual, Augmented and Mixed Reality. Multimodal Interaction: 11th International Conference, V AMR 2019. 375–391. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21607-8_29

    2019 doi

  147. [158]

    Zhiyuan Yu and Cheng-Hung Lo. 2023. Mapping the Viewer Experience in Cinematic Virtual Reality: A Systematic Review. PRESENCE: Virtual and Augmented Reality (2023), 205–229. https://doi.org/10.1162/pres_a_00409

    2023 doi

  148. [159]

    The Togetherness that We Crave

    Samaneh Zamanifard and Guo Freeman. 2019. "The Togetherness that We Crave": Experiencing Social VR in Long Distance Relationships (CSCW ’19 Companion). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/3311957.3359453

    2019

  149. [160]

    Lei Zhang, Doug A Bowman, and Caroline N Jones. 2019. Exploring effects of interactivity on learning with interactive storytelling in immersive virtual reality. In2019 11th International Conference on Virtual Worlds and Games for Serious Applications (VS-Games). 1–8. https://d...

    2019

  150. [161]

    Sunny Zhang, Brennan Jones, Sean Rintel, and Carman Neustaedter. 2021. XRmas: Extended Reality Multi-Agency Spaces for a Magical Remote Christmas (CSCW ’21 Companion). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3462204.3481782

    2021

  151. [162]

    presence

    Yu Zhang. 2020. Developing a Cinematic Language for Virtual Reality Filmmaking. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Griffith University (2020). https://doi.org/10.25904/1912/4021 25 Conference acronym ’XX, June 03–05, 2018, Woodstock, NY Yawen Zhang, Han Zhou, Zhongmingju Jiang, Zilu ...

    2020 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.