Virtual Reality and Human Behavior

In recent years the concept of Virtual Reality (VR) has become more prominent within the computer field. Experiencing how it could be living in a virtual world was only possible through the movies. However, with the increasing popularity and relatively easy availability, the experience is tangible nowadays. Nevertheless, with a great power, comes a great responsibility, and the reaches and applications are enormous. Scientists, engineers and people involved into the VR carried on with their researches and contributions.

Table of Contents

Virtual Reality and Human Behavior; Understanding participant movements interaction to improve the experience of an immersive virtual environment.

Written by

This post is also available in: English

Table of Contents

Carlos' Opinion
Virtual Reality and Human Behaviour.

The use of Virtual Reality among different countries is increasing. 

Different appliances are being created with some VR tools such as Hololens for healthcare

I also participated in another research study from the Hochschule Heilbronn were I had to use the Hololens and try to practice on assembling a machine. 

The purpose of that study was to test how effective could be the use of Virtual Reality on the training of unskilled labor without the need of spending on machines. 

But certainly Virtual Reality is more than just having some extra glasses to be in a virtual world. 

Jorge research more in depth in his thesis about the implications of Virtual Reality in Human Behaviour. 

I met Jorge at Hochschule Heilbronn. He was studying the Master in Software Engineering and Management at Sontheim Campus, while I was at Europaplatz Campus. 

Personal traits that I could say about Jorge are that he is balanced, hardworking and reliable.

Jorge, as well as me, have been one of the mexicans living in a foreign country. 

Certainly, an international experience that had taken him to work on-site at T-Systems, where his current position is Mainframe Application Developer.

Furthermore, you can continue reading more about Jorge’s master thesis.

Introduction to
Virtual Reality and Human Behaviour.

Movements are an essential function of any living being, they not only represent the way of traveling or shifting the actual geographical position.

Nevertheless, they also transmit tendencies, necessities and emotions.

In this research, the reader would be able to review the research, information, numbers, results, discussion and subjective interpretation about the movements and certain behaviors that users experiment while they are in a Virtual Reality Environment through the conduction of a Virtual Reality experiment.

Additionally, it is presented a set of suggestions to boost the immersion in a Virtual Reality Environment and at the same time to reduce the motion sickness.

The title of this study also invites to think about solving a problem just like in the real life: “it is required to understand the question in order to find out a solution”.

Therefore, it is pretended to observe and understand the behavior of the people when they are using VR in order to improve the user experience in a virtual environment (VE).

Thus, here are 2 important point that should be clarify when it is said that:

Therefore, this study will revolve around four main axes, which will be the guidelines to answer and explain the research question(s):

1. Movements
2. Immersion
3. Motion Sickness
4. Stereotypes

Key Concepts - Virtual Reality and Human Behaviour.

Virtual reality is a new computer field relatively.

Nevertheless, several studies have been conducted in order to understand and explain several phenomena than involve this interesting branch.

From interfaces and HMDs, passing through immersion and movements interaction, until motion sickness and human behavior.

It is just a sample of how wide and prolific this topic could be.

Scientist, engineers and people carried on with their research to know the limits, reaches and applications into this field.

Fortunately, we live in an era where the science and the technological advances are transparent and within reach of our hands.

However, several years have been passed to achieve this knowledge.

Researchers (Slater y Sanchez-Vives 2016) comment how Virtual Reality has been changed and evolved during the decades, because it is shocking to admit that VR started 50 years ago, nonetheless, due to the lack of technology, it was an undeveloped field and unpleasant technology for the users.

Later, in the 80s and 90s, VR emerged again based on a different hardware, the expectation was so high, nevertheless, VR disappeared from public view but not from the privet sector.

Finally, to our days VR return not to leave, in the shape of powerful HMDs and tracking displays capable to create IVE.

On the other hand, it is relevant to raise the question of why movements interactions are important in Virtual Reality (Gillies 2016).

As a matter of fact, the resurgence of VR is accompanied by numerous movement interfaces devices.

For instance, the most representative brands: HTC VIVE and OCULUS VR have 2 controllers each one, which are hand trackers.

These releases highlighted the idea that movements interaction is an essential part of VR.

Therefore, without this understanding, we are prone to create not effective interfaces.

But before it is presented the effects and the purposes of movement interaction, it is worth to describe how movements are used in current Virtual Reality interaction:

Head tracking.

The most basic movement interaction.

Represented by the HMDs, devices that are capable to produce the illusion of being in another place and plausible claim to be an IVE.

When there is a rotation of the user’s head, the trackers attached to the HMD or stereoscopic glasses recognizes those movements and reproduces the users view rotation in the VRE, so the user has the sensation to look around.

Additionally, most of the devices support positional head movements.


Related with the previous one due to the positional head tracking.

This movement allows for a limited range area to reach different places in the Virtual Reality Environment.

Moreover, it is also required a large-scale navigation to fully explore it because walking requires a significant physical space.

Hence, most systems use traditional techniques such a joystick.

However, studies (Usoh et al. 1999) indicates that walking create a higher sense of presence than using a joystick.

Further in the text, an intermediate walking technic caller Teleportation is introduce, which overcomes its predecessors.

Object manipulation.

Another key for movement interaction is grapping and manipulate objects in the VRE.

An Investigation about object manipulations at a distance (Bowman y Hodges 1997) showed that users preferred normal size and realistic texture for selecting at distance, rather than unnatural sensations.

Moreover, the sense of ownership increased if the human virtual hand provides a direct synchronization between the degrees of freedom of the real and virtual hand (Argelaguet et al. 2016 – 2016).

Body Language.

The previous examples were relatively simple behaviors involving direct physical interaction with the Virtual Reality Environment.

Nevertheless, there is a high expectation that VR can also support more complex interactions such the body language because movement is a key to simulate realistic gestures with animated virtual human.

For example, recognizing a number and type of behaviors (Marco Gillies and Mel Slater) by the user such as speaking and posture shifting could result in a natural response from the avatar by nodding or moving to keep a comfortable conversation distance.

Something is for sure, body language in VR is a complicated and vast task.

But why software engineers try to adapt all the applications into VRE?

Why an HMD is better than a mouse-click?

Why head tracking, walking, objects manipulation and even body language encourage and increase the sense of presence in a VRE?

In order to answer these questions, it is fundamental to review a theory called Slater’s Sensorimotor Account (Slater 2009).

He explains that a VR is immersive if it reproduces the same sensorimotor5 contingencies6 as the real world.

Additionally, the theory of perception (O’Regan y Noë 2001) suggest that the sensorimotor contingencies are the key factor to perceive the experience of the world through the relationship between the motor actions and the resulting sensations.

Slater (Slater 2009) defines 2 sense of presence:

Summarizing, the sense of presence or “being there” is created when a VRE responds to our behavior (specially movements) as the same way in the real world.

Hence, this required that the VR can feel the behavior and reacts in an appropriated and logical way.

Once we understand slightly the importance of the movements interaction in VR, it is plausible to introduce the core part of this research: Movements.

Movements are definitely the most important, concurred and widely type of interaction in a VRE, specially locomotion which is an important element for the user experience.
Finding ways to navigate through the VRE is a challenge for developers and people involved in the VR field.

Therefore, various locomotion techniques have been evaluated by researchers so far.

In 2016 a research team conducted (Bozgeyikli et al. 2016) the same experiment that we are presenting about locomotion techniques, comparing the 3 possibilities: Point & teleport, walk-in-place and joystick.

Results indicated that Point & Teleport is user friendly and fun

Moreover, Point & Teleport has a less level of motion sickness.

Recently, at the beginning of the year a similar evaluation (Langbehn et al.) was conducted with the only difference of one technique.

The options were: Teleportation, joystick and redirected walking.

The findings are identical, teleportation and redirected walking were preferred over joystick that also increases the motion sickness.

As it is seen, those studies give an idea about the importance of the movements in VR.

In this research not only locomotion is evaluated, also different aspect that can map a better understanding about the behavior of the people.

And attaching other components (immersion, motion sickness and stereotypes) that can improve their experience in VR.

Results of Virtual Reality and Human Behaviour Research.

For this research, it was expected that most of the participant were first-time VR users, condition which was not fulfilled completely.

However, for all the participants it was the first time trying with Nature Treks VR, therefore, the performance did not affect the results.

Moreover, most of the “experienced” participants tried a VR before maximum one or two times. Besides, the most prominent device for the participants is Oculus Rift.

Consequently, HTC VIVE was also unfamiliar for them.


As a reminder of the definition of movements in this experiment, they represent the way how the participants navigate through the VRE and there are 3 types: Trigger, Teleportation and Own legs.

The following points break down each concept already exposed in the previous section:


At least for this experiment, there was a massive preference for Standing with an 88%.

And if we add the 6% who change from Sitting to Standing, at the end we will have a 94% who finished the experiment standing.

That was something expected because this game simulates a person walking through the savannah.

There is not a vehicle or moments where the participant requires to sit.

The posture will depend on the scenario or game.

It might be very obvious and logic, but we already have the reference of the real word (Slater 2009) and it could be complicated to conceive it in a different way certain activities that we already know how to do it.

It means, that if the game requires driving a car, flying a plane, ride a bike or animal, etc., the users expect to do it sitting.

I am sure that if we had to test a driving simulation and the participant has to decide between sitting or standing, the result will show a superior preference for sitting.

First movement.

Most of the participants started with Trigger (33 participants) that means walking automatically.

Followed by Own legs with 18 and Teleportation with 15.

Keeping in mind that left controller is for Trigger and right controller is for Teleportation. We have two theories that could support the reason of starting with Trigger:

It is known that some tasks are controlled by brain activity in the left hemisphere, while the right hemisphere governs others. The archaeologist (Uomini 2009) at the University of Liverpool in the UK expresses that surprisingly , there are some crossing of nerves between the body and the brain, where the left side of the brain has more control over the right side of the body and vice versa. It means, the left hemisphere helps to control the operation of the right hand, eye, leg and so on.”

And taking in consideration the statistics that around 85% of the population in the world are right handed (Jason G Goldman 2014), that could suggest why most of the participants started with Trigger (left controller); just a basic and direct reflect of our evolution.

Here comes again the idea of the real-life experience (Slater 2009), we already know how walking feels and what to expect of, however human being is not able to teleport (at least not yet).

I guess that is also why Teleportation is even in the last position as a first movement.

“Mainly the teleportation was not consistent with the real world but it was a pleasant way to move around”

Unfortunately, participants were not asked about if they are right or left handed. But it could be an interesting experiment if the functions of the controllers were switched, would we get the same results?

On the other hand, there is one initial movement that was not register or measured in the questionnaire, which is interesting and logical when someone is getting familiar with any new environment:

Moving the head from one side to another, just like recognizing observing where you are.

For instance, participant A31 took 2 minutes to start using a movement from the controllers for exploring.

Movements (navigation).

We already saw that the highest ranked first movement was Trigger.

Nevertheless, not always the first movement necessarily has to be the most predominant during the game.

At the end, the number of Teleportation exceeds in 1186 (18%) times the Trigger movements.

It is evident the tendency of the user for Teleportation over the rest.

But why this situation happened.

Well, the answers could be related with motion sickness and effectiveness.

There are several studies where Teleportation is the main research regarding the virtual reality, and even gamers support the idea of motion sickness reduction sharing their experiences in blogs (Statt 2016) or software company forums (Kidwell 2018) .

Since the introduction of Teleportation or also known as Point & Teleport (Bozgeyikli et al. 2016).

It was compared with other locomotion techniques, such as walk-in-place and joystick.

Results indicated that Point & Teleport is easy to use and fun.

As a major advantage, it did not introduce motion sickness.

Furthermore, this year an evaluation of locomotion techniques was carried out (Langbehn et al.) and the results are quite similar, teleportation was subjectively preferred over joystick.

Besides, it was found a significant increase of motion sickness for joystick.

So, coming back to our experiment, the users started using trigger, nevertheless, by interacting and over time, the participants preferred using teleportation to move around the VRE because they can cover more space, quickly, precisely, it is user friendly and reduce the motions sickness effects.

Finally, in some occasions, participants apply 2 movements at the same time. Where the most recurrent combination was Trigger + Teleportation; the users usually Teleports but without releasing the button of Trigger.

It might happen due to encompassing a major distance in the VRE.

“Wow, teleportation is very useful and fast”

Interaction time (minutes) and time extension.

It was expected that each participant lasts at least 10 minutes.

However, different circumstances reduced slightly the time: lack of time, another appointment, low interest in the experiment or presence of motion sickness.

However, the average of 9.19 minutes is a reasonable time for exploring and interaction in the VRE.

On the other hand, something that makes uncertainty is the time extension because only 14 out of 67 participants accepted to keep playing but if we take a look at a couple of questions in the immersion section, we can see that the answers are really positive (figure 35; N=67).

“I enjoyed myself during the VR experience” (figure 35a; N=67, M=6.06, SD=1.02) got 27 points (41%) in the level Agree (7). And “I would like to repeat the experience I just had” (figure 35b; N=67, M=5.48, SD=1.47) got 24 points (36%) in the level Agree (7) too. It means that the majority enjoyed and had the willing to do it again.

virtual reality study
Figure 35: Level of enjoyability and willing to repeat the experiment

Therefore, we might suggest that the rush of the time, the place/location (a little bit far from Sontheim and their classes) and the busy agenda of the students complicated the time extension.

First minute vs last minute.

In any environment, not only in VR, human being is able to adapt themselves to different circumstances and habitats.

As minutes go by, the participant is getting used to the VR.

Therefore, they increase the number of interactions in the last minute of the experiment.

In the first minutes, participant was learning how to navigate and began with the sensations that VR could cause.

Those conjectures we did it base on the experience and observation of this experiment because there is not a theory or research that suggest when is the moment when the user interact and have more movements in the VR.


How deep and you can feel when you are inside in the VRE. In order to understand better this idea, it was decided to divide the component in the following subcomponents:

Detailed Immersion.

Based on our results, we can say in general that the perception of immersion was positive.

Genuinely, there is a direct question asking: “The Virtual Reality experience was immersive.” 9 persons says Agree (7), 20 Agree (6), 14 Agree (5) and 17 Neutral (4), the rest is not even meaningful. (Figure 36; N=67, M=5.03, SD=1.48).

Figure 36: Level of immersion in the VR experience

We set up the scale (1-7) to have a better detailed level of immersion.

However, in some of the questions, the ranges are spread out in the different levels and it is even complicated to describe if the experience was really immersive.

Therefore, we also would like to present a “binary” chart (table 8) with a basic summation of positive or negative.

It means: Agree (7) + Agree (6) + Agree (5) = Positive and Disagree (3) + Disagree (2) + Disagree (1) = Negative.

Focus on the “negative” (which are already marked in green) characteristics, some participants “complain” about the visualization and projection of their hands/arms, the embodiment, the realism of the VR and the consistency with the real world.

Table 8: Positive and negative immersion aspects in the VR experience

Firstly, the both questions “I felt like my real hand was inside of the virtual environment” and “I felt like my real arm was projected into the virtual environment through my virtual embodiment” are quite similar in the context.

But why they were not graded positively?

Nature Treks VR does not present an avatar itself. Therefore, you cannot see a direct body of yourself. However, it is available to see only hands (figure 37). Instead of seeing the controllers, those are shown as your hands (left and right).

Figure 37: Hands in the VRE

Moreover, they are kind of transparent and just the contour is drawn in white.

It might be the reason, why users did not feel the hands so real at all.

Furthermore, the participants were not allowed to use the bubbles, consequently, they could not see the action or graphical movement of the hands when they are grapping a bubble and then throw it. It could have helped to feel more the body sensation.

And here comes an extensive topic called “embodiment”.

Avatars are an important key in the VR, beside they are the representation of ourselves in the VRE; the more looks like us, the more comfortable and immerse we would feel.

Base on the findings, embodied avatars increases the immersion feeling.

The most representative example is from (Ahn et al. 2016) .

They conducted a study with 2 experiments, testing and comparing the effects of embodies avatars (animal and plant) through IVEs versus the experience on a video.

In the experiment 1, the user inhabits the body of a cow, living in a farm just before going to the slaughterhouse; eating, walking (crawling in 4 feet), drinking water and so on.

In the experiment 2, the user inhabits the body of a coral, receiving simultaneous physical stimulation and seeing the effects of ocean acidification in acceleration.

Evidently, part of the research was created for environmental awareness.

At the end, the results show that the user perceive a greater immersion, sensation of being there, connection between the self and the nature, compared with only watching a video about the environment.

Secondly, “The virtual environment seemed real to me”.

This part honestly, I think that we can no reach the 100% because at the end, the VE will never look like the real world, it is missing the looking, the smell, the taste, the sound, the touch, etc, basically, the 5 senses.

Moreover, in your mind you are already predisposed that is a game.

However, this statement is a little bit contradictory because in the other answers of this subsection, participants had the feeling of “being there”, acting in the VE and correspondence/reciprocation between the avatar and the real body became one.

Lastly, “My experience in the virtual environment seemed consistent with my experiences in the real world” is mainly because everybody knows that if you try to approach or touch an animal, they will do something.

Participant were expecting a reaction from the animals, but it never came.

Virtual Reality & Virtual Reality Environment.

Relatively, by default the topic of VR is exciting and interesting by itself.

It is not needed too much promotion to catch the attention of the people (although they are not “gamers”).

And this VR experience was not the exception, the VR/VRE acceptance and the interest was without any doubt an expected experience by the participants.

For instance, “The Virtual Reality experience was interesting” (figure 38a; N=67, M=6.28, SD=1.11) and “The Virtual Reality experience was exciting” (figure 38b; N=67, M=5.90, SD=1.24) illustrate the high interest and exciting, where level Agree (7) got the major points by far.

Moreover, all the adjectives contained in the questions about this VR and VRE were graded in a positive way: peaceful, comfortable, pleasant, beautiful and captivating. Indeed, one of the slogans of the game is “Relax and immerse yourself into the Nature Treks VR experience” and they achieved it, because participants never got anxious or tense.


Indisputably, the technology has been improving by the years. It is not the same a VR simulator from 10 years (I can warranty not even 5 years ago) that the ones nowadays. And this includes to the interfaces, the graphics, the sounds, the speed and acceleration of the renders.

Therefore, technology, science and the capability of the devices will help to create more real VRE over time.


How easy is to use this type of devices and interact in the VRE, how friendly is this kind of technology.

Based on the results, the 3 questions expose in a high-rise response the easiness of how participants adapt and interact in an ordinary and transparent way into the IVR.

Participants did not face any relevant complexity while doing the experiment.

Moreover, we have to recognize that Nature Treks VR is very intuitive and it does not require a lot of controller’s memorization.

As a matter of fact, participants are given the instructions and a brief buttons-controller explanation before starting the experiment, that is why they found out that it was easy to know what to do and how everything works in the virtual environment.

And even though those explanation were not given, they would have assessed in the procedures.

Regarding the easiness for moving around, having the 3 types of movements make more accessible to explore around the VE.

In fact, we can see this adaptability with the comparison between the first minute vs last minute.

It is visible that the participants have more movements and interaction at the end of the game than at the beginning.

The user got used to the environment, to the controllers and to the VR sensation.

When you think about usability, I guess, I am not the only one who thinks: “the simpler, the better”.

Enjoyability & disposition.

Already exposed in the previous section regarding the Interaction time (minutes) and time extension.

Solely, one additional comment, for the experiment we avoided the use of the bubbles in the VRE.

However, I think that if participants had used the bubbles, they would have enjoyed more the experience.

Because the bubbles increase the level of immersion, enjoyability and other factors that are described in the Conclusions section of this document.

Motion sickness.

This head by itself could be a thesis topic doubtless.

Nevertheless, it was included in this thesis research because it is a key in the improvement of the user experience in VR or gaming.

We already know that motions sickness is a disagreement between the visual perception of the movement and the vestibular system’s sense of movement.

Then, it comes the Virtual Reality Sickness, which occurs when exposure to a VR causes symptoms similar to motion sickness.

And those symptoms commonly are discomfort, headache, stomach awareness, nausea, vomiting, pallor, sweating, fatigue, drowsiness, disorientation, and apathy (LaViola 2000).

Now, based on the results of our experiment, from 67 participant, only 9 (5 males and 4 females) got motion sickness directly, which is a diminutive portion (13%).

Actually, there is a slight relationship between the previous experience and the predisposition of motion sickness because from those 9 participants, 4 (A18, A21, A33 and A43) had not used any VR device before.

In addition, later on some others physiologic factors that could be consider for the MS susceptibility will be exposed.

Regarding to the direct symptoms caused by the experiment, they were presented and ordered by slight, moderate, severe and none, from highest to lowest, because anybody even in a minor level will experiment a symptom.

Therefore, from highest to lowest, starting with Slight, we have (in that order): Eye strain, General discomfort, Sweating, Blurred vision, Dizziness with eyes closed, “Fullness of the Head”, Headache, Difficulty concentrating, Dizziness with eyes open, Difficulty focusing, Nausea, Salivation increasing, Fatigue and Stomach awareness.

The 2 left Vertigo and Burping do not have a significant number.

In a Moderate level, we can highlight (in that order): Eye strain, “Fullness of the Head”, Dizziness with eyes open, Difficulty focusing.

The rest do not have a significant number.
Finally, in a Severe level, it is notable the Blurred vision.

The rest do not have a significant number.

As a matter of fact, our study did not differ at all from the one conducted by LaViola. The symptoms are quite similar in both studies.

On the other hand, there are physiological aspects that intervene in the presence of motion sickness:

Women are more responsive to MS. It could be due to hormones (Park et al. 2006). Furthermore, sickness increases during ovulation (Clemes y Howarth 2005). Women have a wider FOV than men (Czerwinski et al. 2002). Finally, the gender differences in depth cue recognition (Danah Boyd 2001).

The susceptibility to MS is higher between the ages of 2 and 12.

Then there is a decrease sharply until 21 years old and keeps on decreasing slightly (Reason y Brand 1975).

Moreover, people from 50 years old are more susceptible than younglings (Brooks et al. 2010).

So, the ideal age for VR is from 13 to 50.

In fact, the minimum age written in the instructions and recommendation for using Oculus device is 13 years old.

Studies (Stern et al. 1996) showed that Asian woman are more sensitive to MS than European-American and African-American. Besides, Tibetans and northeast Indians are not that comfortable with VR.

The capability of the body to stand erect, to react to various stimuli and continuing remaining still.

It means that if you good keeping the balance, you will be more immune to MS (Smart et al. 2002).

People who are not in a frequent level of health are more sensitive to MS.

It includes people who are fatigued, have not enough sleep, nauseated, upper respiration illness, ear trouble and even influenza.

People who are more sensitive to MS in real life tend to be more affected.

For example, people who get sickness in a car or an airplane may feel bad in VR (Groen y Bos 2008).

This may be very obvious but the more you use and develop familiarity with VR, the more your brain and body become used to this new weird stimulus (skarredghost 2016).

Either motion sickness or another symptom, this a really complex and deep paradigm in the VR field.

Because, even though the technology has improved significantly in the recent years, the physiological human being capabilities are limited, therefore, this factor will be always latent.

Furthermore, it is important to mention that based on the experience there are 2 moments when the motion sickness is presented; the first one is during the experiment and the other one before it (just exactly when the participants take off the HMD).

Personally, the second moment could not remove clearly, because it is part of our human biologic structure related with the changes of states; it is just when you wake up or when you are in the dark and suddenly the light is turned on. However, the first moment could be decreased in certain level that the user lower some symptoms.


It is noticeable, that in all the aspects of the life, stereotypes and impression exist.

However, we wanted to include this component to tackle the paradigm that VR, gaming or technology is focus on a specific target group.

The first stereotype more highlighted habitually is the gender, and based on the observation of the experiments, we did not notice a notable difference in the performance.

Both genders played, enjoyed and react to the VR almost in the same way.

Maybe, except for the 6 girls that did not extent their arms completely during the game, nevertheless, they achieved the goal.

On the other hands, are there still stereotypes in video games? Well, it depends of the point of view.

Games like football or any sport, war and shooting, strategy and territory invite to think that they are made for men.

However, that gap has been reduced in the last years. For instance, EAS14, released FIFA 2016 ®15, which included women’s teams for the first time. Also, titles as Call of Duty ®16 added female soldiers in 2013.

But, is it true that men enjoy more gaming than women? Or why men are more likely to enjoy the games?

The answer is yes but not necessarily, and the reason comes again from the nature, biology and neurology.

In 2007, Stanford University Medical Center (Hoeft et al. 2008) discovered that the part of the brain that generates the rewarding feeling is more activated in men than woman playing video games.

The game was developed by the team and the purpose was to gain territory.

Measured and monitored by a FMRI, they discover that the mesocorticolimbic center17 has a greater activation in men, which is correlated with how much territory they gained.

So, the study suggests that men are more likely to enjoy the competitive games than women.

Nevertheless, the love for games or technology could become from education, experiences, background and external factors around you.

That is the case of female participant A37 (figure 43 in appendix), who was the person who lasted more time in the VRE and personally I think that she was the person who enjoy more the VR experience.

Finally, we have the graphic (figure 39) with all the groups together, where CSM illustrates the impression that the participants have about them.

Figure 39: General impression about all the groups

Conclusion - Virtual Reality and Human Behaviour.

It is important to mention that this research is not a “recipe” or a framework to create VRE, programs or games.

Nevertheless, through the results of an experiment, research and experience, we can give a subjective opinion about the expectation and behavior of the people in the VR based on the 4 components of our study.

With the user attention already catch, then, it is necessary to keep that attention.

How to do it?

To begin with, the following points could increase the connection and enjoyability with the VE:

It is “important” to consider that all these factors could change depending on the purpose of the software. Each necessity has its own requirements and the solutions could be different.

Which factors increase the immersion?

How to reduce the motion sickness?

As it can be inferred, there is a strong codependence between the immersion and the motion sickness.

Therefore, if you solve the immersion paradigm, automatically the motion sickness will be reduced.

Finally, for developers, I would like to recommend you to take a look at the article of a blogger called Tony (skarredghost 2018). He is an AR/VR developer and he wrote how to reduce MS in VR games with arguments so detailed and direct into the point.

A Personal Idea.

I am not a scientist to set up a theory but the game of words that we are presenting describe the idea of this thesis perfectly, we call it: “Don’t MISS it!” (Figure 37).

The idea is to keep in mind the concepts and the components presented in this research at the moment of designing/creating/developing/implementing a VR game or software:

Figure 40: The "Don't miss it" idea

Some References.

Kidwell, Essa (2018): How to avoid motion sickness caused by VR headsets while gaming. How do I not get motion sickness when playing VR games? Windows Central. Available online

Langbehn, Eike; Lubos, Paul; Steinicke, Frank: Evaluation of Locomotion Techniques for Room-Scale VR: Joystick, Teleportation, and Redirected Walking. 2018. En: Proceedings of the Virtual Reality International Conference (VRIC) – 2018. Available Online

Marco Gillies and Mel Slater: Non-verbal Communication for Correlational Characters. University College London 21-23 September 2005. En: International Conference on Presence (Eighth). Available online

More About Jorge's
Master Thesis

If you want to read more about Jorge’s master thesis, you can contact him through Linkedin.

More about Thought Leaders