Immersion in Mohi's Valley

Okay, the nerd-ness rating on this post is a bit higher then usual. I have something on my mind, and my guess is that it will either sounds very compelling and you'll want to read through til the end... of you will be bored off your ass very quickly.

Take heart, very soon I will post about piercings, or the allure of young women v. milfs, Dominance/submission ramblings or some other pressing social issue.

: )

One of the things I research is something called "immersion". When you are doing something and eveything else sort of falls away and goes unoticed, you are immersed. In a computer, online sense, immersion can be experienced in different ways. You can certainly be immersed in reading blog entries... though this kind of immersion is almost entirely cognitive; it is acheived simply by a change of focus, and is not amplified by anything except the content your'e reading, and your ability to block other stuff out.

If you're engaged in an intense IM conversation, that could be said to be a bit "more" immersive. More then just your interest is engaged; you have to respond, and you are "creating" part of the experience around you, so to speak.

There is interaction, and interaction is a big hallmark of immersion.There are even greater levels of immersion, of course science fiction gives us ultimate examples like the holodeck or The Matrix.

Some virtual realities that are being developed now tickle at the fringes of these lofty ( though fictional ) creations... some games are -very- well detailed, and can be played or viewed with special eyegear and headphones. These are typically quite a bit more immersive then even the most compelling text-based IM conversation.

So that's immersion.

How far are you in, how can you get out, and what are the factors that describe and accent each?

Something else I'm into is called affective computing ( AC ). In a very tiny nutshell, AC is the study of how computers ( programs, websites, games, whatever ) can manipulate emotional responses in people.

One of the first studies I read in the area of affective computing had to do with a virtual workout partner... an avatar ( a human-like graphical image that could move and seem somewhat human ) or either a young man or woman ( your choice ) would coach and encourage you in your workout. You'd eneter in stats after very workout, and the avatar would ask you questions, give you encouragement, and so on.

The length of time people working with this program spent in their own exercise program was compared to the time people who didn't have such a thing ( or any other workout "parther" ).

The people who worked with the virtual workout partner stayed with their exercise program -much- longer. This is affective computing; the ability of some program ,avatar, or experience to produce -affect- in a person, to provoke an emotional response of some kind that encourages certain kinds of behavior.

So... immersion and affective computing. And yes, I am slowly working towards my point, here. : )

Seen the latest images of vitual people? These are either flat images ( pictures ) or 3 models ( avatars ) of "people" that exist only in cyberspace... and the quality is amazing, sometimes. But as good as we ( as a species, I mean ) are getting at developing -very- realistic looking faces, bodies and whatnot, there seems to be some limits we're bumping up against. One of these limits would be described as the Uncanny Valley.

So... the idea is that our avatars get better and better... but at some point around what might be considered 95% of "perfect" ( indistinguishable from a real human face or body ) something interesting happens. Up to that 95% mark, people's reactions to a given avatar improve. The more realistic it looks, the more favorable reaction.

Until you get to that peak. After 95% ( -ish ) reactions drop sharply, and take a turn for the negative. Impressions past this point ( in what is called the Uncanny Valley, or Mori's Valley ) are decidedly bad. A recent example of this could be seen in the movie Polar Express. Lots of hype, all digital, much money spent.

The digital actors ( yes, avatars ) were said to be "the very est the industry could produce".While this was probably true, many people I've talked to ( now there's a stitistically signifigant, scientifically credible sampling, eh? ) gave a very unfavorable reaction that was indicitive of the quality of the avatars falling into the Valley. "Creepy", "unsettling", and "something not quite right, but erie" are ways that the figures inteh movie were discribed.

This is a common thing seen when gathering reactions to high-quality avatars and facials. Up to a certain point, people are impressed and amazed... up until around that 95% marker... then you start getting reactions like "eeeeeeeew.. somethign about it just looks... I dunno... creepy".

Hard to articulate, but emminently repeatable.

My question, the thing I was thinking about is this: So, studies dealing with the anthropomorphization of faces and bodies show us all this... what about spaces?

Would we find the same reaction to virtual spaces that we do with virtual people? I haven't come across any research along these lines.

Why would this matter?

It has to do with immersion, and affective computing. If the effect of Mori's Valley only has to do with our reactions to human-like faces and avatars, that's one thing. Important, but definitely localized. What if those reactions are just a subset of our total reaction to all things virtual? What if people would react the same way to spaces ( virtual rooms, virtual spaces ) that approached and then crossed that 95% perfect threshold?This might have huge implications for the study of immersion. ~laughs~ fascinating, eh?

Anyway.... that's what is on my mind, at this very moment.