Before the class in the innovation lab, I had tried the Oculus Rift on two separate occasions, and Google Cardboard once. Large amounts of time passed between these experiences, so being able to try one VR device after the other allowed me to start to more fully understand the differences between them. I used the GearVR first, followed by Google Cardboard.

One thing I noticed about the VR experiences that I tried was that they did not need a narrative to tell a story. Simply being in the space simulator in the GearVR filled me emotion. Looking down at the Earth made me feel a sense of shared humanity, looking up at the countless stars made me feel inspired, and seeing the virtual ISS float overhead made me appreciate the fact that this is a place that humans have actually visited. To be able to experience just a shred of what real astronauts see and still feel so moved is why I think virtual reality is such a powerful tool for empathy. To know that another human saw this exact thing in real life makes me feel more connected to their experience than if I had simply read a story or watched a movie about it.

I was the last person in my group to try the space experience. The people before me felt the same way, gasping at how amazing the view was and wildly moving their head to see more. As we watched the first person try the experience, it was comical to see someone so moved just by strapping a device to her head. I think that VR is something that needs to be tried to be fully believed.

My group demoed four experiences: the space exploration, being surrounded by sharks underwater, a roller coaster, and the LSD trip on the Google Cardboard. The following factors caused noticeable differences in these demos:

a)     Resolution: Resolution affected presence more strongly than I thought it would. In the shark simulation, the resolution was extremely blurry. It did not feel like the blurriness was due to being underwater, so the blurry picture made me feel as if I was traveling through some sort of film or bubble. Comparatively, the crisp computer graphics of the space simulator allowed me to observe details that made me feel like I was really there.

b)    Sound: Sound also helped with immersion. In the underwater simulator, the voice of the scuba diver next to me panned across the headphones based on my direction to him. This helped to make it feel like the diver was actually there with me. Additionally, with so much 3D space, sound is a good cue to cause the user to look in a certain direction. For example, during the LSD simulator, I would not have known that a train was behind me if I had not heard the chugging noise, which prompted me to turn around.

c)     Smoothness of head tracking: Head tracking was smooth on all of my experiences, so I do not know how much poor quality head tracking detracts from the experience. I imagine that poor head tracking would severely limit the feeling of presence.

d)    Ability to lean forward: I did not experience this with the devices that I used, but being able to move on this plane would have improved the experience. There were times where I wanted to lean in to get a closer look at something, and not being able to do this inhibited my feeling of presence.

e)     Wired versus wireless: Both of the devices I used were wireless, but I do not think it would have mattered if they were wired. I sat in a chair while using them, so wires would not make me feel tethered, and with the huge device covering my eyes, I would not know whether there were wires running out of it or not.

f)     Quality of 3D graphics: The graphics affected my experience less than I thought they would. While I certainly did not feel as if I was experiencing real life when the graphics of the roller coaster experience were cartoonish, I still felt like I was in a world (albeit with different textures and colors). If attempting to emulate a real world experience, I think the quality of graphics is important, but having non-photorealistic graphics can still create an extremely immersive experience.

g)     Full spherical range of vision: Being able to look up was extremely important. If I was only able to look around me, I think I would feel like I was looking at a wrap-around panorama instead of feeling fully present in the experience.

h)    Content choices: I enjoyed the high detail experiences (space and underwater) more than the experiences with less to observe. Being able to comb over the virtual world and notice tiny things made me feel like I was really there discovering them. I think this is one advantage that VR has over media like television or movies: it allows the viewer to take as much time and attention as they want looking at details.

Any experience with human interaction triggered the most empathy from me. Seeing the fellow diver underwater and the fetus touching my face at the end of the LSD trip made me feel like I was with another person. Even seeing the lights on Earth from space made me feel empathetic to all of the humans living there.

No one in the group felt nauseous, not even from the roller coaster ride. The only time I felt a bit of discomfort was during the underwater demo. The video in this experience was shaky. This caused me to want to constantly move my head around, as I did not notice the jerkiness as much if I was in motion.

This blog post poured out of me, and I think that is a testament to the impact of VR. Its uniqueness in the media landscape is inspiring, and I think that is why I am so eager to note what does and does not work. I look forward to continue learning more about the medium this semester.