Kata Szita*
Pierre Gander
David Wallstén
Department of Applied Information
Technologie
University of Gothenburg
Gothenburg, Schweden
The Effects of Cinematic Virtual
Reality on Viewing Experience
and the Recollection of
Narrative Elements
Abstrakt
Cinematic virtual reality offers 360-degree moving image experiences that engage a
viewer’s body as its position defines the momentary perspective over the surrounding
simulated space. While a 360-degree narrative space has been demonstrated to pro-
vide highly immersive experiences, it may also affect information intake and the recol-
lection of narrative events. The present study hypothesizes that the immersive quality
of cinematic VR induces a viewer’s first-person perspective in observing a narrative
in contrast to a camera perspective. A first-person perspective is associated with in-
crease in emotional engagement, sensation of presence, and a more vivid and accurate
recollection of information. To determine these effects, we measured viewing experi-
zen, memory characteristics, and recollection accuracy of participants watching an
animated movie either using a VR headset or a stationary screen. The comparison re-
vealed that VR viewers experience a higher level of presence in the displayed environ-
ment than screen viewers and that their memories of the movie are more vivid, evoke
stronger emotions, and are more likely to be recalled from a first-person perspective.
Noch, VR participants can recall fewer details than screen viewers. Gesamt, diese Ergebnisse
show that while cinematic virtual reality viewing involves more immersive and intense
Erfahrungen, the 360-degree composition can negatively impact comprehension and
recollection.
1
Einführung
Virtual reality (VR) screening platforms have lately grown in immense
popularity for the general public, which is clearly demonstrated by the increas-
ingly accessible screening appliances and the rapidly rising number of cinematic
virtual reality content—some of which are presented at film festivals or feature
well-known Hollywood actors. The term, cinematic virtual reality, encompasses
immersive 360-degree and interactive film-like entertainment (MacQuarrie
& Steed, 2017; Mateer, 2017). In the context of this study, the term refers to
360-degree animated or live-action movies, which allow for changes of viewing
perspective of the fictional space during the screening by an individual viewer’s
head or full-body movements.
Entsprechend, the novelty of cinematic virtual reality lies in the viewer’s access
to a 360-degree simulated space and the fact that spectatorship engages one’s
*Corresponding to kata.szita@gu.se.
Presence, Bd. 27, NEIN. 4, Fallen 2018, 410–425
https://doi.org/10.1162/PRES_a_00338
© 2021 vom Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Veröffentlicht unter einer Creative Commons Namensnennung 4.0
International (CC BY 4.0) Lizenz.
410 PRESENCE: VOLUME 27, NUMBER 4
l
D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D
F
R
Ö
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
ich
R
e
C
T
.
M
ich
T
.
/
e
D
u
P
v
A
R
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
2
7
4
4
1
0
2
0
0
3
7
3
4
P
R
e
S
_
A
_
0
0
3
3
8
P
D
.
/
F
B
j
G
u
e
S
T
T
Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
Szita, Gander, and Wallstén 411
body as its position defines the momentary perspective
over the surrounding simulated space. This also means
Das, unlike watching a screen that delimits and controls
attention over the fictional environment, cinematic vir-
tual reality induces different experiences for each viewer,
where he or she may choose to which areas of the 360-
degree space to pay attention and, consequently, what
will fall out of the view at any moment. These quali-
ties may have implications for viewing experiences. Der
purpose of this study is to explore these implications
and compare cinematic virtual reality with screen-based
viewing in terms of viewing experiences and the recollec-
tion of narrative events. Our objective is to draw conclu-
sions on the differences between individual viewing of
360-degree and two-dimensional content. With this
objective, we aim to provide conclusions for the design
of immersive moving-image narratives and for research
into the mental processes related to virtual reality ex-
periences, such as attention, emotional engagement,
comprehension, and recollection.
1.1 Viewing Experiences and the Sense
of Presence
Engagement with mediated stimuli in virtual re-
ality has been approached through a variety of aspects,
including a medium’s immersive quality and viewers’
sensation of presence and its effects on emotional en-
gagement (Baños et al., 2004; Cummings & Bailenson,
2016). Immersive quality and presence intertwine in the
technology and media industries’ pursuit for enhancing
user effects and the effectiveness of conveying mediated
content. As Slater and Wilbur (1997) defined it, Präs-
ence refers to an individual experience supported by a
medium’s immersive quality and is dependent on audio-
visual fidelity, the correspondence between the physical
body and virtual actions, and the extent to which it dis-
tances a user from a physical environment. Wirth et al.
(2007) note that these qualities lead to a user’s sensation
of presence after perceiving the virtual environment as
logical and plausible and developing the sensation of be-
ing in it. Balakrishnan and Sundar (2011) extend Wirth
and colleagues’ theory by users’ perception of potential
interactions afforded by immersive platforms.
The mentioned definitions intertwining the evolution
of virtual reality experiences correspond with the idea
that a user’s body gains agency by integrating motor ac-
tions with changes in the visual and auditory spectrum,
which are attributed to sensorimotor contingencies that
a virtual reality system supports (Slater, 2009). In rela-
tion to this, previous studies provide extensive results
on the sense of user presence in virtual environments
based on bodily agency (Biocca, 2002; Schienbein & Biocca,
2018; Slater, 2009) and interactivity (Mütterlein, 2018;
Reyes, 2017) as well as measurement methods—even for
narrative audiovisual experiences (Lee, 2004A, 2004B;
Schwind, Knierim, Haas, & Henze, 2019).
In terms of narrative moving images in general, Die
condition of a viewer’s sensation of presence has been
identified in narrative transportation; the sensation of
being transported into a fictional world by establish-
ing an ecological connection to the depicted environ-
ment and empathizing with its characters (Bálint & Bräunen,
2015; Gerrig, 1993). This assumes a viewer’s identifica-
tion of the environment and an emotional connection to
actions and characters.
Research into the specific case of cinematic virtual
reality and 360-degree spectatorship, Jedoch, has yet
to provide comprehensive knowledge regarding the
effects of storytelling and viewers’ presence. Recent
studies on 360-degree storytelling, including Chang’s
(2016), Dooley’s (2017), Nielsen et al.’s (2016), Und
Mateer’s (2017) funktioniert, have analyzed definitions, für-
mats, and existing cinematic virtual reality content. Ma-
teer (2017), zum Beispiel, highlights that 360-degree
storytelling roots in the attention control of Hollywood-
style feature films, while also addresses the challenges
a 360-degree visual field entails. He argues that while
the immersive quality of cinematic virtual reality content
may be compelling, directing must take proprioceptive
characteristics—defined by a viewer’s body, its position,
and motion—into account. Mit anderen Worten, Mateer calls
attention to the limitations of VR storytelling, nämlich
that a viewer’s posture may affect access to narrative in-
Formation, even though it implies increased immersion.
Other recent studies, including those of Bala, Dion-
isio, Nisi, and Nunes (2016), Bala, Nisi, and Nunes
(2017), and Reyes (2018) provide strategies for telling
l
D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D
F
R
Ö
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
ich
R
e
C
T
.
M
ich
T
.
/
e
D
u
P
v
A
R
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
2
7
4
4
1
0
2
0
0
3
7
3
4
P
R
e
S
_
A
_
0
0
3
3
8
P
D
/
.
F
B
j
G
u
e
S
T
T
Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
412 PRESENCE: VOLUME 27, NUMBER 4
and evaluating interactive immersive stories in virtual
Wirklichkeit. Interactivity is assessed based on agency, deci-
sion making, and engagement with the fictional space
and narrative events (Roth & Koenitz, 2016). Corre-
spondingly, Reyes (2018) proposes that cinematic virtual
reality experiences are defined by the combination of
cinematic storytelling, spatial cues, like sound effects, als
well as cognitive and biological effects, such as the sensa-
tion of presence, attention, or even physical discomfort.
Extended reality contents’ immersive qualities and
attention control are often assessed through stimulus
Qualität, das ist, the way a sudden noise or intense light
would guide one’s attention in a virtual environment
(Cummings & Bailenson, 2016). Jedoch, in the case
of cinematic VR, it is also important to reflect on social
and narrative elements (z.B., empathizing with fictional
Figuren; Hassan, 2019) as well as how a movie’s vi-
sual presentation and the lack of framing would affect
engagement and comprehension, and that attention can
be guided using visual and sonic diegetic cues (Gödde,
Gabler, Siegmund, & Braun, 2018; Kvisgaard et al.,
2019; Rothe & Hußmann, 2018).
Offering empirical findings on the matters of sto-
rytelling and viewing experiences of 360-degree and
virtual reality content, Syrett, Calvi, and van Gisber-
gen (2016) and Van Damme, Alle, Marez, and Leuven
(2019) measured viewers’ sense of involvement while
watching a short feature film using a virtual reality head-
set and a 360-degree news report, jeweils. Beide
studies concluded that the moving-image stimulus (film
in VR and 360-degree news report) evokes a strong
sense of involvement and empathy with the depicted
subjects of the story.
In the lack of a control group (that would allow for
comparing responses to other types of screening tech-
nology or content), Syrett et al.’s (2016) Experiment
only highlights that the majority of their participants suf-
ficiently comprehended the story and claimed to have
had an immersive experience even though the novelty of
the experience was somewhat distracting to them. Van
Damme et al. (2019) compared four viewing conditions
for the 360-degree news item: participants watched
the same footage on YouTube on a screen either with
a fixed viewpoint or with enabled viewpoint changes
(“drag-and-drop”), using a cardboard viewer, or an
Oculus Rift virtual reality headset. The authors observed
an increase in participants’ sense of presence and fidelity
when watching the footage using the cardboard viewer
and Oculus Rift.
In another study, Fonseca and Kraus (2016) com-
pared the sensation of presence and a video’s emotional
impacts between participants who watched it using ei-
ther a virtual reality headset or on a ten-inch tablet.
They found that VR watching increases emotional im-
pacts and VR viewers rate their sense of presence higher
than those who used the tablet.
1.2 Recollection and the Perspective
of Observation
In addition to the sense of presence and engage-
ment with a cinematic virtual reality narrative, virtual
reality viewing evokes another crucial question, that of
the correlation between engagement and the perspec-
tive of observation. Film scholarship has a history of
treating the camera perspective as a neutral information-
projecting agent and an aesthetic feature (Bordwell &
Thompson, 2001; Eisenstein, 1982; Grodal, 1997).
According to this thesis, the camera perspective defines
the presence/absence, arrangement, and motion of nar-
rative elements (z.B., Figuren, Objekte) in relation to
the screen’s edges. Visual composition in narrative films
can affect cognitive processes and viewers’ responses: A
high level of synchrony has been observed across view-
ers in brain activation (Hasson, Furman, Clark, Von-
dai, & Davachi, 2008; Hasson, Nir, Erheben, Fuhrmann,
& Malach, 2004) and eye movements (Schmied & Hen-
derson, 2008; Schmied & Mital, 2013) when watching
narrative moving-image sequences.
The effects of narrative films notwithstanding, fällig
to the active bodily agency in virtual environments,
viewers may be more likely to adopt a subjective (Erste-
person) point of view instead of a camera (observer)
Perspektive. This is based on the idea that the correspon-
dence between the movement of a physical body (Kopf
Bewegungen, turning around) and the effects it induces
(changes in perspective) would increase the sense of be-
ing in the virtual space (Slater & Wilbur, 1997; Van den
l
D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D
F
R
Ö
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
ich
R
e
C
T
.
M
ich
T
.
/
e
D
u
P
v
A
R
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
2
7
4
4
1
0
2
0
0
3
7
3
4
P
R
e
S
_
A
_
0
0
3
3
8
P
D
/
.
F
B
j
G
u
e
S
T
T
Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
Szita, Gander, and Wallstén 413
Broeck, Kawsar, & Schöning, 2017). Mit anderen Worten,
during virtual reality viewing, bodily involvement and
a viewer’s role in defining the sensory scope can gener-
ate the sensation that the camera’s point of view corre-
sponds with the viewer’s own perspective, thereby evok-
ing a strong sensation of inhabiting the fictional space.
This may influence how narrative events are encoded
and retrieved from memory.
Previous research on autobiographical memories has
investigated phenomenological characteristics (z.B.,
vividness and emotion) and visual perspective of per-
sonal memories—whether memory is observed from
one’s own or from the viewpoint of an outside ob-
server. A first-person perspective is associated with
higher emotional intensity and an increased amount
of perceptual details, while an observer perspective is
associated with lower emotional intensity and less con-
textual information (Nigro & Neisser, 1983; Rice &
Rubin, 2009; Robinson & Swanson, 1993; St. Jacques,
2019). The subjective perspective and bodily control
afforded by cinematic virtual reality can result in experi-
ences encoded in memory using a first-person perspec-
tiv, yielding higher emotional intensity. This may also
lead to a higher sense of presence when recollecting the
Erfahrung.
Research into memory assessment methods highlights
the potentials of immersive moving-image content:
Serino and Repetto (2018) see the advantages of 360
videos for memory studies in, unter anderem, their
capacities of effectuating an egocentric view of the de-
picted environments and presenting a near-natural visual
Erfahrung. According to them and others (z.B., Rubin
& Umanath, 2015), this egocentric view contributes to
the recollection of events through reliving them.
1.3 Research Gap and the
Present Study
Previous research discussed above has provided
findings on viewer responses to 360-degree moving-
image content. But while Syrett et al. (2016) drew
conclusions on VR film viewers’ immersion and com-
prehension, their study design could not put cinematic
virtual reality experiences into the context of other view-
ing platforms. Other studies, such as those by Fonseca
and Kraus (2016) and Van Damme et al. (2019), have
compared 360-degree experiences to other platforms
(portable screens and other screen- and headset-based
360-degree video platforms, jeweils). Noch, we argue,
their contributions must be extended with the aspect of
film storytelling to highlight the capacities of cinematic
virtual reality in comparison with stationary screen view-
ing that provides a frame for the visual content but lacks
the options for customization mid-screening. Story-
telling provides an aspect that was not directly addressed
in previous empirical inquiries of cinematic virtual real-
ität: we find it essential to address how the viewer’s bod-
ily control affects not only access and engagement with
narrative information, but also the mechanisms behind
recollection, attention, and viewing perspective.
The aim of the present study is to fill a gap in under-
standing the immersive power of virtual reality spec-
tatorship and provide novel insights into the effects of
cinematic virtual reality on viewers’ emotional engage-
ment, sense of presence, comprehension, recollection,
and memory characteristics—including the perspective
of recollection. To determine the effects of virtual real-
ity spectatorship on these factors, we recruited volun-
teers for an experiment. Participants in this experiment
watched a short animated movie using either a VR head-
set or a screen, then rated their experiences and com-
pleted a performance test that measured recollection of
the movie narrative.
The present study is based on the hypotheses ex-
plained below. Due to viewers’ bodily and sensorimotor
Beteiligung, cinematic virtual reality screenings likely
evoke the sensation of a first-person perspective, while
screen-based spectatorship induces a third-person (cam-
era) Perspektive. It follows that virtual reality spectator-
ship increases engagement with narrative events com-
pared to screen-based viewing, which we hypothesize to
positively affect event recollection and comprehension.
Due to the sensation of a first-person perspective, Wir
also hypothesize that participants rate their viewing ex-
perience (d.h., emotional engagement and sense of pres-
enz) higher in the virtual reality condition. Das heisst
that they would feel more engaged with the narrative,
the fictional space, and characters while being less aware
l
D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D
F
R
Ö
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
ich
R
e
C
T
.
M
ich
T
.
/
e
D
u
P
v
A
R
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
2
7
4
4
1
0
2
0
0
3
7
3
4
P
R
e
S
_
A
_
0
0
3
3
8
P
D
/
.
F
B
j
G
u
e
S
T
T
Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
414 PRESENCE: VOLUME 27, NUMBER 4
Figur 1. Stills from Pearl (Osborne, 2016) in the 360-degree format, where the viewer can define the direction of viewing within the 6 degrees of
freedom (A); and the same scene in the theatrical version of the movie (B). Screenshots made by the authors of the movie available for the public
on Steam (A) and YouTube (B).
of the surrounding physical space or their personal wor-
ries while using virtual reality headsets compared with
those watching the movie on a screen. Correspondingly,
we predict that memories of the movie and viewing
thereof would be experienced more vividly and accom-
panied by bodily manifestations of emotions relative to
screen viewers.
Recollection accuracy reveals information about the
effects of immersive viewing and viewers’ spatial orienta-
tion in the fictional environment. Auf der einen Seite, the in-
creased sense of engagement and presence in the case of
virtual reality viewing as well as VR viewers’ first-person
perspective may positively affect recollection. Das heisst
that VR viewers would be able to remember details of
the movie better. Andererseits, the 360-degree
visual field may hinder VR viewers from paying atten-
tion to all details resulting in poorer performance in the
recollection accuracy test.
Based on these hypotheses, this study targets to an-
swer the following research questions:
Research question 1: How does VR viewing affect emotions,
engagement, and the overall viewing experience compared
with screen-based spectatorship?
Research question 2: How does VR viewing affect mem-
ory characteristics (such as how the memory is experienced
in terms of visual perspective, visual imagery, spatial
arrangement, and emotion) compared with screen-based
spectatorship?
Research question 3: How does VR viewing affect recollection
accuracy compared with screen-based spectatorship?
2 Method
2.1 Design
Aiming to isolate the effects of virtual reality (360-
Grad) spectatorship, in the present study, we followed
a between-subjects design to reveal whether cinematic
virtual reality and screen-based viewing would induce
different experiences in terms of engagement, presence,
emotions, memory characteristics, and recollection ac-
curacy. Viewing condition served as the independent
Variable: either virtual reality viewing or screen viewing.
For the two viewing conditions, we used two versions of
the same film stimulus.
2.2 Film Stimulus
As film stimulus, we used the six-minute animated
movie, Pearl (Osborne, 2016), which is unique in its
distribution format: it is available for the public both in
a cinematic virtual reality and theatrical (regular-screen)
format made by the same filmmakers (siehe Abbildung 1).
The virtual reality version, used for the VR condition,
includes six degrees of freedom, which allows for a full
range of head motions in a three-dimensional space.
The theatrical version, used for the screen condition, Ist
edited in a way that it presents the same narrative with
the difference that it involves multiple camera angles.
The two versions made it possible to use the same movie
to compare viewing experiences between VR and screen
viewing without the need for re-editing that may have
l
D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D
F
R
Ö
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
ich
R
e
C
T
.
M
ich
T
.
/
e
D
u
P
v
A
R
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
2
7
4
4
1
0
2
0
0
3
7
3
4
P
R
e
S
_
A
_
0
0
3
3
8
P
D
/
.
F
B
j
G
u
e
S
T
T
Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
Szita, Gander, and Wallstén 415
biased storytelling, emotional content, and other seman-
tic or sensory elements.
of the comprehension of narrative themes (Grodal,
2018).
The narratological features of Pearl are the same for
the VR and theatrical versions. The point of view is ob-
jective; viewers observe fictional events and characters
from a fixed point of view of the camera rather than
from the perspective of a character. The camera’s posi-
tion (point of observation) is fixed and is predominantly
situated on the front passenger seat of the car in which
the narrative unfolds (siehe Abbildung 1). The viewer has no
direct access to characters’ thoughts or feelings, only to
the verbal and non-verbal manifestation thereof. Fur-
ther, the viewer is an independent observer who cannot
interact with the characters or objects in the fictional
universe. Narrative events unfold without the viewer’s
intervention.
Pearl conforms to the criteria for measuring indices of
emotions, engagement, and memory containing a com-
plex narrative with multiple characters and locations: Es
presents a wide range of emotional elements (z.B., hap-
piness, nostalgia, sadness, Liebe), everyday characters and
Standorte, and a complex but linear storyline. The movie
contains varying shot scales and it is dominated by close-
ups and medium close-ups on characters—depending on
how far they are from the fixed camera position. Close-
ups facilitate mental processes related to the theory of
mind or cognitive empathy in animated movies just as
much as in live-action ones (Bálint & Rooney, 2018).
This makes the movie suitable for measuring empathy
and other emotional effects related to engagement with
fictional characters and narratives.
Perception of animated characters’ agency can de-
pend on representation (Mar, Kelley, Heatherton, &
Macrae, 2007) including facial expressions (Tinwell,
Grimshaw, Nabi, & Williams, 2011). Jedoch, it is ar-
gued that recognition of character roles and actions,
fictional objects, and emotional content in a moving-
image narrative is based on complex schematic and pro-
totypical information and the construction of “mental
models” that contain causal, spatial, and temporal sys-
tems of narrative elements (Busselle & Bilandzic, 2008;
Zwaan, Magliano, & Graesser, 1995). Das bedeutet, dass
animated and live-action movies do not differ in terms
Further criteria when choosing the movie stimulus
included simple and clear storytelling form and causal
structures (Pearl follows a linear narrative with explicit
progression of time), a minimal number of dialogues
that would otherwise affect attention and comprehen-
sion (the movie contains few dialogues and the majority
of verbal elements are embedded into a song), and rel-
atively short duration to avoid the risk of severe cyber-
sickness for VR participants as well as fatigue or loss of
attention that could bias the results. Previous research
studying moving-image experiences across viewing for-
mats and platforms has demonstrated immersion (spatial
and social presence) and comprehension effects using
sequences between five and ten minutes (Syrett et al.,
2016; Szita & Rooney, 2021; Van Damme et al., 2019).
A sequence of approximately six minutes was deemed
suitable for maximizing the effectiveness of measuring
viewing experiences and comprehension and minimizing
negative health effects and biased responses.
2.3 Teilnehmer
One hundred and sixty-five volunteers (109 Männer,
52 females, Und 4 andere), aged 16–62 (M = 30.44,
SD = 9.61) participated in the experiment from a place
of their choice using their own virtual reality headsets
or screens. The criterion for taking part was access to
the respective screening appliance (tethered virtual
reality headset or a stationary screen of minimum 12
inches) and a device with Internet access to complete the
survey.
Participants were recruited through online adver-
tisements on various social media channels and word of
mouth. The virtual reality version was advertised mainly
in online special interest groups for virtual reality users
with the aim to target potential participants who have
access to headsets and are experienced with VR tech-
nology. This was to avoid novelty experiences’ biasing
effects for inexperienced users. The screen version was
advertised on platforms for cinema enthusiasts and gen-
eral audiences. The online advertisements contained the
l
D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D
F
R
Ö
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
ich
R
e
C
T
.
M
ich
T
.
/
e
D
u
P
v
A
R
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
2
7
4
4
1
0
2
0
0
3
7
3
4
P
R
e
S
_
A
_
0
0
3
3
8
P
D
.
/
F
B
j
G
u
e
S
T
T
Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
416 PRESENCE: VOLUME 27, NUMBER 4
links through which volunteers could access the study
(stimulus and survey; siehe unten).
Participants received no compensation. Participation
was in accordance with the ethical guidelines stated in
the Declaration of Helsinki: participation was voluntary,
participants were obliged to provide their written in-
formed consent, and participants had the opportunity
to abort the study at any time and leave comments or
Rückmeldung. The study did not involve direct intervention;
daher, based on national laws, ethical approval was
not required.
2.4 Apparatus and Setup
In the virtual reality condition (n = 85), partici-
pants watched the 360-degree version of the movie that
they accessed through their personal accounts to the
Steam digital video game distribution service. Partici-
pants used their own virtual reality headsets with their
personal settings and reported on the headset type they
gebraucht. Only tethered virtual reality headsets that enable
six degrees of freedom were allowed to be used; headsets
that require an external device (z.B., smartphone) to act
as a display were excluded from this study. While headset
types and settings (z.B., interpupillary distance, display
Auflösung) were not controlled, participants were in-
structed to use the headset and settings they were most
comfortable with and that provided the best possible
sound and visual experience for them personally. All but
one VR participant claimed to be experienced with using
VR headsets and consuming VR content.
In the screen condition (n = 80), participants gained
direct access to the theatrical version of the movie on
YouTube and were instructed to play it in full-screen
mode on a 12-inch or larger fixed computer monitor
or television set. As the study’s objective is to compare
360-degree and regular-screen viewing experiences, NEIN
further restrictions on screen size were made.
2.5 Verfahren
Participants gained access either to the virtual re-
ality or screen version of the movie via Internet browser
links. The links provided direct access to the movie with
predefined (4K) image quality; participants only needed
to start it. After providing informed consent, each par-
ticipant was instructed to click Play and watch the movie
alone once without intermissions.
After watching the respective sequence, Teilnehmer
completed a survey accessed through a separate link.
The survey contained comment sections in which partic-
ipants were instructed to address any issues they experi-
enced during the completion of the study (z.B., Bild
or sound quality). At the end of the study, Teilnehmer
were debriefed and informed that they cannot re-enter
the study and, daher, could not participate in the other
condition. The entire procedure including instructions,
viewing, and completing the survey took approximately
15–20 minutes.
2.6 Measures
Participants in each viewing condition were asked
to assess their memories and experience of the movie
answering questions in a survey hosted on Psytoolkit,
an online survey tool (Stoet, 2010, 2017). The survey
was specifically created for this study combining items
of surveys used in previous research (siehe unten). Der
survey consisted of three sections measuring viewing
Erfahrung, memory characteristics, and recollection
accuracy, and an additional set of questions recorded
demographic data, user habits, and technical details of
participation (z.B., VR headset type).
The first section (consisting of ten items) measured
emotional engagement with and sense of presence in
the fictional space and the narrative, empathy toward
fictional characters, awareness of the physical surround-
ings, and physiological reactions (z.B., nausea, dizzi-
ness) (based on Cho & Kang, 2012; Fonseca & Kraus,
2016; Huang & Hsu Liu, 2014; Qin, Rau, & Salvendy,
2009; Witmer & Singer, 1998; Zhang, 2020). Partici-
pants rated their experience on seven-point Likert scales
stretching from “not at all” (1) to “completely” (7).
The second section, memory characteristics (zehn
Artikel), was designed to measure recollection vividness,
emotional reactions (z.B., feeling sad, moved when re-
calling the movie) and physical reactions (z.B., sweat-
ing, laughter), memory perspective (first-person or
l
D
Ö
w
N
Ö
A
D
e
D
F
R
Ö
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
ich
R
e
C
T
.
M
ich
T
.
/
e
D
u
P
v
A
R
/
A
R
T
ich
C
e
–
P
D
l
F
/
/
/
/
2
7
4
4
1
0
2
0
0
3
7
3
4
P
R
e
S
_
A
_
0
0
3
3
8
P
D
/
.
F
B
j
G
u
e
S
T
T
Ö
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
Szita, Gander, and Wallstén 417
third-person), and the structural comprehension of the
movie narrative (Berntsen & Rubin, 2006; Johnson,
Foley, Suengas, & Raye, 1988; Qin et al., 2009). Für
these ratings too, seven-point Likert scales were used,
where the higher values indicated more intense memo-
ries or reactions with one exception. Rating first- versus
third-person perspectives when recalling the movie was
done using a scale ranging from “inside the story world”
(1) to “as an outside observer looking into the story
world” (7).
The third section measured recollection accuracy
based on previously established methods (Pyrczak,
1972; Syrett et al., 2016; Szita & Rooney, 2021). Hier,
participants were given twelve statements from the
movie narrative and then they had to determine whether
they were true. The statements were based on key events
and themes in the movie narration and the answers to all
these items were equally accessible in the two versions
of the movie. The statements included information that
was explicit even without focusing one’s attention on
a specific area (z.B., “The central element of the movie
is a car.” or “The [protagonists’] car breaks down in an
urban area.”); that was related to sounds (z.B., “The
music featured in the movie is about home.” or “The
band’s song didn’t make it to the radio charts.); that was
presented once in one specific part of the 360 space in
the VR version and viewers’ attention was guided to-
ward it by lighting and other visual cues (z.B., “The
girl catches a firefly from the car.” or “A trash bin was
blown up by a gunshot.”); and that was presented once
in one specific part of the 360 space in the VR version,
but were not accompanied by attention-guiding sen-
sory cues (z.B., “The father exchanges music to an
office job.” or “The girl gets her first instrument for
Christmas.”).
Possible answers were “true,” “false,” and “I don’t
know,” which were analyzed as correct, incorrect, Und
“I don’t know” answers. The “I don’t know” option
was added for cases when participants would miss infor-
mation based on their body posture or attention (d.h.,
when information was presented behind their backs) Zu
avoid guessing the correct answer. Analysis of “I don’t
know” answers served as an additional way to determine
whether viewing conditions would affect recollection.
3
Ergebnisse
The survey measured emotions and engagement,
memory characteristics, and recollection accuracy. A
Shapiro–Wilk’s test (p > .05) (Razali & Wah, 2011;
Shapiro & Wilk, 1965), skewness and kurtosis z-values
(Doane & Seward, 2011), and a visual inspection of
the respective histograms, normal Q-Q plots, and box
plots, determined that the values for each of the depen-
dent variables are not normally distributed in either of
the viewing conditions. daher, we used a Mann–
Whitney U test to compare the two conditions. For the
results of the survey items, siehe Tabelle 1.
3.1 Viewing Experience
Engagement with the movie, including emotional
reactions and the sensation of presence, wurde erwartet
to increase in the case of virtual reality viewing based on
the immersive quality of the VR headset and 360-degree
simulation and their capacity to mask the presence of a
physical environment. Statistically significant differences
were found for items that measure engagement with the
movie and detachment from the physical world.
Participants reported an increased sense of presence
in the story and the fictional environment in the virtual
reality condition in the case of two items. The Mann–
Whitney U test indicated that ratings for feeling like be-
ing inside the story (survey item 2) were significantly
higher in the virtual reality condition (mean rank =
92.68) than the screen condition (mean rank = 72.71),
U = 2577, p = .006. Ähnlich, ratings for feeling like
being at the places in the displayed fictional environ-
ment (item 3) were significantly higher after virtual re-
ality viewing (mean rank = 102.93) than screen viewing
(mean rank = 61.83), U = 1706, P < .00001.
Measuring detachment from an individual’s physi-
cal environment, ratings given to the item “when I was
watching, time seemed to fly quickly” (item 7) showed
significantly higher values in the case of virtual reality
(mean rank = 95.96) than the screen condition (mean
rank = 69.23), U = 2298.5, p = .0003.
Two additional items provided statistically different
results between viewing conditions. Participants felt
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
/
e
d
u
p
v
a
r
/
a
r
t
i
c
e
-
p
d
l
f
/
/
/
/
2
7
4
4
1
0
2
0
0
3
7
3
4
p
r
e
s
_
a
_
0
0
3
3
8
p
d
/
.
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
418 PRESENCE: VOLUME 27, NUMBER 4
Table 1. Mann–Whitney U Test: Mean Rank and Median Values, z-Scores, and Effect Sizes
VR
Screen
Scale (from 1 to 7)
Mean
rank Median
Mean
rank Median z-score
r2
Variable
Viewing experience
1. I felt that I was involved in the
not at
visual world of the movie
2. I felt I was inside the story**
all–completely
not at
all–completely
79.85
92.68
3. I felt I was at the places in the
displayed environment***
not at
102.93
all–completely
4. I empathized with one or more
not at
character(s)
all–completely
5. The story affected me
not at
emotionally
all–completely
6. I became less aware of the real
not at
world and my personal
problems while watching the
movie
all–completely
7. When I was watching, time
seemed to fly quickly***
not at
all–completely
8. This experience was
not at
fascinating***
all–completely
9. I felt nauseous while watching
not at
the movie*
all–completely
10. I felt dizzy while watching the
not at
movie
Memory characteristics
all–completely
1. When I think of the movie, I
can see with my mind’s eye
what took place*
not at all–as clearly
as if I watched it
now
87.65
88.43
83.51
95.96
97.45
88.74
86.06
89.92
2. My memory for the movie
little or none–a lot
84.39
involves sound
3. The relative spatial
arrangement of people and
objects in my memory for the
movie is***
4. At parts, the movie made me
feel moved. This feeling was
5. At parts, the movie made me
feel sad. This feeling was
vague–clear
96.64
weak–strong
88.46
weak–strong
86.69
5
5
5
6
6
6
5
6
1
1
6
7
6
6
4
86.35
5.5
−.90 .005
72.71
61.83
78.06
77.23
82.46
5
4
6
5
5
−2.74 .046
−5.62 .191
−1.35 .011
−1.54 .014
−.14 .00012
69.23
4
−3.65 .081
67.65
4.5
−4.08 .101
76.91
79.75
1
1
−2.12 .027
−1.14 .008
75.65
5.5
1.98 .024
81.53
68.51
77.20
79.08
7
5
5
4
.44 .001
3.93 .094
1.55 .015
1.04 .007
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
/
e
d
u
p
v
a
r
/
a
r
t
i
c
e
-
p
d
l
f
/
/
/
/
2
7
4
4
1
0
2
0
0
3
7
3
4
p
r
e
s
_
a
_
0
0
3
3
8
p
d
/
.
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Szita, Gander, and Wallstén 419
Table 1. Continued.
Variable
Scale (from 1 to 7)
VR
Screen
Mean
rank Median
Mean
rank Median z-score
r2
6. At parts, the movie made me
feel happy. This feeling was*
7. The emotions I have when I
recall the movie are
8. When I recollect the movie, I
have a physical/bodily reaction
(e.g., palpitations, sweating,
tears, laughter)
9. When I now recall the movie, I
primarily see what happened
from a perspective as seen
from**
10. I was able to understand the
structure and content of the
story
Recollection accuracy
1. Percentage of correct answers**
2. Percentage of “I don’t know”
answers
weak–strong
90.54
not at all intense–
87.52
extremely
intense
not at all–very
strongly
88.66
6
4
2
74.99
78.20
76.98
5
4
2
2.13 .027
1.27 .010
1.65 .017
72.43
5
84.23
6
−3.00 .055
inside the story
world–as an
outside observer
looking into the
story world
not at
82.81
6
83.21
7
−.06 .00002
all–completely
—
—
72.06
88.61
66.7
16.67
94.63
77.04
75
16.67
−3.07 .057
1.59 .015
Note. Analyses were performed using a sample size of n = 85 for the virtual reality condition and n = 80 for the screen condi-
tion. Significant at *p < .05, **p < .01, and ***p < .001.
more fascinated (item 8) by the virtual reality experience
(mean rank = 97.45) than screen viewing experience
(mean rank = 67.65), U = 2172, p = .00005; but also
felt more nauseous (item 9) in VR (mean rank = 88.74)
than during screen viewing (mean rank = 76.91), U =
2912.5, p = .034.
Sensation of visual involvement (item 1; U = 3132,
p = .37), empathy toward characters (item 4; U = 3005,
p = .18), emotional effect (item 5; U = 2938.5, p =
.12), awareness of personal problems (item 6; U =
3357, p = .89), and feeling dizzy (item 10; U = 3140,
p = .25) did not show statistically significant differences
between viewing conditions.
3.2 Memory Characteristics
To answer the second research question, we mea-
sured memory characteristics. For this part of the study,
we hypothesized that virtual reality viewers would re-
call narrative events more vividly and more in detail than
screen viewers, and this recollection is accompanied by
stronger emotions. Statistically significant differences
were found supporting these hypotheses. As all the items
with significant differences showed similar distributions
between conditions, the results of the Mann–Whitney U
test can be interpreted as differences in median values.
According to the results of survey item 1, partici-
pants in the virtual reality condition were more likely to
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
/
e
d
u
p
v
a
r
/
a
r
t
i
c
e
-
p
d
l
f
/
/
/
/
2
7
4
4
1
0
2
0
0
3
7
3
4
p
r
e
s
_
a
_
0
0
3
3
8
p
d
.
/
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
420 PRESENCE: VOLUME 27, NUMBER 4
recall narrative events as clearly as if they watched it at
the moment of answering (Mdn = 6) than screen view-
ers (Mdn = 5.5), U = 3988, p = .048. Correspond-
ingly, the relative spatial arrangement of people and
objects in participants’ memory of the movie (item 3)
was rated clearer in the virtual reality condition (Mdn =
6) than in the screen condition (Mdn = 5), U = 4559,
p = .000085.
Virtual reality participants reported a stronger feeling
of happiness when recalling the movie (item 6) (Mdn =
6) than screen participants (Mdn = 5), U = 4040.5,
p = .033.
To measure first- versus third-person perspectives
when recalling the movie (item 9), participants rated
their experience on a scale stretching from “inside the
story world” (1) to “as an outside observer looking into
the story world” (7). Supporting our hypothesis, vir-
tual reality viewers reported recollection more from in-
side the story world through a first-person perspective
(Mdn = 5) than screen viewers (Mdn = 6), U = 2501.5,
p = .003.
The remaining items of the second survey showed
no significant differences. For memory of sound (item
2; U = 3518, p = .66), feeling moved (item 4; U =
3864, p = .12) and sad (item 5; U = 3714, p = .3), the
emotional intensity of recollection (item 7; U = 3784,
p = .2), physical reactions to recollection (item 8; U =
3881.5, p = .1), and understanding of the structure of
the movie narrative (item 10; U = 3383.5, p = .95), no
effects of viewing condition were found.
3.3 Recollection Accuracy
The recollection accuracy test measured partic-
ipants’ attention and memory of key narrative events
and themes. We calculated the amount and percentage
of correct answers for each participant as well as those
of “I don’t know” answers. Correct answers showed
significant differences between viewing conditions. Dis-
tributions for correct answers were similar between the
two conditions; therefore, median values are reported
here. Statistically significant differences showed that par-
ticipants in the screen condition recalled the movie more
accurately with a median percentage of 75% than virtual
reality participants, who reached a median percentage of
66.7% (U = 2470, p = .002). “I don’t know” answers
did not differ significantly between the conditions (U =
3877, p = .11).
4
Discussion
In the present study, we measured the effects of
cinematic virtual reality on viewing experiences and rec-
ollection of narrative elements (memory characteris-
tics and recollection accuracy). Our results revealed the
impact of viewing conditions on viewers’ sensation of
presence in the fictional space, comfort, emotional ex-
periences, as well as the characteristics and accuracy of
memories of the movie.
Our first research question asked whether virtual re-
ality would evoke a stronger sensation of engagement
with the fictional world and detachment from the phys-
ical world than screen viewing. This was partly reflected
in the results. Those of the variables that showed signif-
icant differences between viewing conditions revealed
stronger engagement with the movie and less awareness
of the real world when watching the movie using VR
headsets: virtual reality participants reported a higher
sensation of being part of the story and the fictional en-
vironment than screen participants and time seemed to
fly quicker for them. These findings confirm previous
research that declares the high immersive quality of 360-
degree and virtual reality experiences (Cummings &
Bailenson, 2016; Slater & Wilbur, 1997).
Although VR viewers were found to be more im-
mersed, they were also more likely to experience cyber-
sickness (motion sickness during virtual reality experi-
ences), as we predicted based on previous findings (Van
Damme et al., 2019). Discomfort, such as cybersick-
ness, may draw attention to one’s physical body, thereby
hindering immersion. This might be the reason for the
lack of significant differences between screen and VR
viewers’ emotional engagement with the narrative and
empathy with characters.
The lack of previous research about the way virtual
reality viewing would affect memory characteristics of
a movie led us to measure how vivid viewers’ memories
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
/
e
d
u
p
v
a
r
/
a
r
t
i
c
e
-
p
d
l
f
/
/
/
/
2
7
4
4
1
0
2
0
0
3
7
3
4
p
r
e
s
_
a
_
0
0
3
3
8
p
d
/
.
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Szita, Gander, and Wallstén 421
would be after watching a movie using a virtual real-
ity headset in comparison to watching it on a station-
ary screen. Following the second research question, we
found that recollection of the narrative is more vivid
after virtual reality viewing: participants rated their rec-
ollection of the spatial arrangements and actions in the
movie clearer. These results correspond to the effects of
immersive viewing explained above. Also, increased im-
mersive quality leads to more intense emotions that af-
fect memory of mediated experiences. This may explain
why the recollection of feeling happy during watching
was rated more intense in the VR condition, although
our results failed to show any differences for feeling sad
or moved.
The relationship between immersive quality and mem-
ory intensity also corresponds with the perspective a
mediated experience evokes. We measured the perspec-
tive from which viewers would recall the fictional events
and found that virtual reality viewing would more likely
induce a first-person point of view while screen view-
ing leads to a third-person (camera) perspective. This
confirms previous findings claiming that a first-person
perspective correlates with increased emotional inten-
sity and more vivid recollection (Nigro & Neisser, 1983;
Robinson & Swanson, 1993).
Although participants rated their memories of the
movie clearer in the virtual reality condition, the accu-
racy of their recollection was poorer. This contradicts
previous research by Nigro and Neisser (1983), Robin-
son and Swanson (1993), and Rice (2010) regarding the
association between immersion, first-person perspective
of recollection, and recollection accuracy. Nevertheless,
these results suggest a causal relationship between the
360-degree field of simulation and attention: VR viewers
need to turn their bodies to access information in the
different parts of the visual field of the movie which may
cause them to miss details that are presented in parts of
the space that are momentarily obscured.
To fully confirm this explanation, further studies are
necessary for investigating the correspondence between
attention and recollection. Yet, these results draw at-
tention to the paradox between control and immersion:
while the 360-degree multisensory film experience can
positively affect the sensation of presence and engage-
ment, momentary changes in the visual field (by turning
one’s head or body) and the 360-degree composition
of the fictional space and narrative events can impact at-
tention and comprehension. This informs two further
directions of future studies. On one hand, it is neces-
sary to establish a VR movie’s capacities for controlling
a viewer’s attention (see Mateer, 2017; Slater & Wilbur,
1997), on the other, we must analyze the relationship
between presence and recollection accuracy further. In
the latter case, we would like to know if lower recol-
lection accuracy is a result of merely turning away and
thereby missing details, or if immersion or fascination
would lead to reduced attention to details.
4.1 Limitations
This study was conducted in natural settings; each
participant watched the movie on their own device and
in an environment of their personal choice. Such a nat-
ural experiment leads to results with high ecological
validity as participants followed their general routines
for movie watching and virtual reality experiences. Our
detailed instructions regarding participation allow for
replicability; however, we were unable to control even-
tual extraneous variables, such as viewing environments
and distractions. In addition, although using one’s own
personal devices and settings would likely lead to a com-
fortable and effective viewing experience, we cannot
rule out the bias of individual devices (e.g., differences
in field of view or resolution). Therefore, a laboratory
study to confirm our results would be an informative
next step. Such a laboratory study could also manipu-
late the independent variable of viewing condition rather
than selecting it, which gives a better opportunity to
make conclusions of the causality of the viewing condi-
tion. It would also allow for using a participant pool of
both experienced and inexperienced users irrespective of
access to virtual reality headsets.
In this study, we used self-reports and performance
tests. This combination of measurements can capture
viewer behavior in different viewing conditions and
compensate for social and cultural biases or mental abil-
ities. Yet, we cannot rule out that some of our results
cannot be generalized beyond the stimuli used here.
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
/
e
d
u
p
v
a
r
/
a
r
t
i
c
e
-
p
d
l
f
/
/
/
/
2
7
4
4
1
0
2
0
0
3
7
3
4
p
r
e
s
_
a
_
0
0
3
3
8
p
d
/
.
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
422 PRESENCE: VOLUME 27, NUMBER 4
Previous research has found correlations between view-
ers’ responses and the types of movie sequences: for in-
stance, suspenseful sequences can affect the sensation of
presence and attention to narrative information (Bezdek
& Gerrig, 2017; Finucane, 2011) and immersion cor-
relates with the perception of genres (Visch, Tan, &
Molenaar, 2010). Little evidence is provided for the
case of animated dramas like the one used in this study,
even though research into animated film experiences has
shown that viewers engage with animated narratives as
they would with live-action ones and comprehend nar-
rative information through similar schematic structures
(Grodal, 2018). It has also been demonstrated that in-
teractions with animated characters in virtual reality are
similar to that with real humans even if their fidelity is
low (Freeman et al., 2008; Slater, Antley, et al., 2006;
Slater, Pertaub, Barker, & Clark, 2006). These conclu-
sions notwithstanding, the used sequence may have af-
fected our results. To determine the effects of film form
and content, additional studies are necessary.
5
Conclusion
The present study measured how experiencing cin-
ematic virtual reality affects emotional engagement, the
sensation of presence, memory characteristics, and recol-
lection accuracy. We compared watching a movie using
virtual reality headsets with viewing it on a stationary
screen by a survey. VR viewers rated their sensation of
presence in the displayed fictional environment higher
than screen viewers and experienced more fascination
and a loss of sense of their physical surroundings. How-
ever, VR viewers were more likely to experience discom-
fort, too. We also found that memories of the movie are
more vivid, evoke stronger emotions, and are more likely
to be recalled from a first-person visual perspective (i.e.,
from a vantage point inside of the fictional space) fol-
lowing virtual reality viewing than after screen viewing.
Yet, VR participants could remember fewer details than
screen viewers. Overall, the comparisons between virtual
reality and screen viewing suggest that cinematic virtual
reality involves more immersive and intense experiences,
but poorer attention to details of a movie.
REFERENCES
Bala, P., Dionisio, M., Nisi, V., & Nunes, N. (2016). IVRUX:
A tool for analyzing immersive narratives in virtual reality.
In F. Nack & A. S. Gordon (Eds.), Interactive storytelling
(3–11). Berlin: Springer.
Bala, P., Nisi, V., & Nunes, N. (2017). Evaluating user experi-
ence in 360º storytelling through analytics. In N. Nunes, I.
Oakley, & V. Nisi (Eds.), Interactive storytelling (270–273).
Berlin: Springer.
Balakrishnan, B., & Sundar, S. S. (2011). Where am I? How
can I get there? Impact of navigability and narrative trans-
portation on spatial presence. Human–Computer Inter-
action, 26(3), 161–204. doi:10.1080/07370024.2011.
601689
Bálint, K., & Rooney, B. (2018). Shot scale and viewers’ re-
sponses to characters in animated films. In M. Uhrig (Ed.),
Emotion in animated films (pp. 162–180). New York:
Routledge.
Bálint, K., & Tan, E. S. (2015). “It feels like there are hooks
inside my chest”’: The construction of narrative absorption
experiences using image schemata. Projections, 9(2), 63–88.
doi:10.3167/proj.2015.090205
Baños, R. M., Botella, C., Alcañiz, M., Liaño, V., Guerrero,
B., & Rey, B. (2004). Immersion and emotion: Their im-
pact on the sense of presence. CyberPsychology & Behavior,
7(6), 734–741. doi:10.1089/cpb.2004.7.734
Berntsen, D., & Rubin, D. C. (2006). Emotion and vantage
point in autobiographical memory. Cognition and Emotion,
20(8), 1193–1215. doi:10.1080/02699930500371190
Bezdek, M. A., & Gerrig, R. J. (2017). When narrative trans-
portation narrows attention: Changes in attentional focus
during suspenseful film viewing. Media Psychology, 20(1),
60–89. doi:10.1080/15213269.2015.1121830
Biocca, F. (2002). The evolution of interactive media: Toward
“being there” in nonlinear narrative worlds. In M. C. Green,
J. J. Strange, & T. C. Brock (Eds.), Narrative impact: So-
cial and cognitive foundations (pp. 97–130). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bordwell, D., & Thompson, K. (2001). Film art: An introduc-
tion (6th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
Busselle, R., & Bilandzic, H. (2008). Fictionality and per-
ceived realism in experiencing stories: A model of narrative
comprehension and engagement. Communication Theory,
18, 255–280. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.00322.x
Chang, W. (2016). Virtual reality filmmaking methodol-
ogy (animation producing). TechArt: Journal of Arts and
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
/
e
d
u
p
v
a
r
/
a
r
t
i
c
e
-
p
d
l
f
/
/
/
/
2
7
4
4
1
0
2
0
0
3
7
3
4
p
r
e
s
_
a
_
0
0
3
3
8
p
d
/
.
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Szita, Gander, and Wallstén 423
Imaging Science, 3(3), 23–26. doi:10.15323/techart.2016.
08.3.3.23
Cho, S.-H., & Kang, H.-B. (2012). An assessment of visual
discomfort caused by motion-in-depth in stereoscopic 3D
video. Proceedings of the British Machine Vision Conference
(1–10). The British Machine Vision Association. doi:10.
5244/C.26.65
Cummings, J. J., & Bailenson, J. N. (2016). How immersive
is enough? A meta-analysis of the effect of immersive tech-
nology on user presence. Media Psychology, 19(2), 272–309.
doi:10.1080/15213269.2015.1015740
Doane, D. P., & Seward, L. E. (2011). Measuring skewness:
A forgotten statistic? Journal of Statistics Education, 19(2).
doi:10.1080/10691898.2011.11889611
Dooley, K. (2017). Storytelling with virtual reality in 360-
degrees: A new screen grammar. Studies in Australasian
Cinema, 11(3), 161–171. doi:10.1080/17503175.2017.
1387357
Eisenstein, S. (1982). Film essays and a lecture (J. Leyda,
Trans.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Finucane, A. M. (2011). The effect of fear and anger on se-
lective attention. Emotion, 11(4), 970–974. doi:10.1037/
a0022574
Fonseca, D., & Kraus, M. (2016). A comparison of head-
mounted and hand-held displays for 360° videos with focus
on attitude and behavior change. Proceedings of the 20th In-
ternational Academic Mindtrek Conference (pp. 287–296).
doi:10.1145/2994310.2994334
Freeman, D., Pugh, K., Antley, A., Slater, M., Bebbington, P.,
Gittins, M., et al. (2008). Virtual reality study of paranoid
thinking in the general population. British Journal of Psychi-
atry, 192(4), 258–263. doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.107.044677
Gerrig, R. J. (1993). Experiencing narrative worlds: On the psy-
chological activities of reading. New Haven: Yale University
Press.
Gödde, M., Gabler, F., Siegmund, D., & Braun, A. (2018).
Cinematic narration in VR: Rethinking film conventions
for 360 degrees. In J. Chen & G. Fragomeni (Eds.), Vir-
tual, augmented and mixed reality: Applications in health,
cultural heritage, and industry. VAMR 2018. Lecture
Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 10910. Berlin: Springer.
doi:10.1007/978-3-319-91584-5_15
Grodal, T. (1997). Moving pictures: A new theory of film genres,
feelings and cognition. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Grodal, T. (2018). Aesthetics and psychology of animated
films. In M. Uhrig (Ed.), Emotion in animated films (pp.
107–121). New York: Routledge.
Hassan, R. (2019). Digitality, virtual reality and the ‘empa-
thy machine’. Digital Journalism, 1–18. doi:10.1080/
21670811.2018.1517604
Hasson, U., Furman, O., Clark, D., Dudai, Y., & Davachi, L.
(2008). Enhanced intersubject correlations during movie
viewing correlate with successful episodic encoding. Neuron,
57(3), 452–462. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2007.12.009
Hasson, U., Nir, Y., Levy, I., Fuhrmann, G., & Malach, R.
(2004). Intersubject synchronization of cortical activity
during natural vision. Science, 303(5664), 1634–1640.
doi:10.1126/science.1089506
Huang, T.-L., & Hsu Liu, F. (2014). Formation of
augmented-reality interactive technology’s persuasive effects
from the perspective of experiential value. Internet Research,
24(1), 82–109. doi:10.1108/IntR-07-2012-0133
Johnson, M. K., Foley, M. A., Suengas, A. G., & Raye, C.
L. (1988). Phenomenal characteristics of memories for
perceived and imagined autobiographical events. Jour-
nal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117(4), 371–376.
doi:10.1037/0096-3445.117.4.371
Kvisgaard, A., Klem, S. Ø., Nielsen, T. L., Rafferty, E. I., Nils-
son, N. C., Høeg, E. R., et al. (2019). Frames to zones:
Applying mise-en-scène techniques in cinematic virtual re-
ality. 2019 IEEE 5th Workshop on Everyday Virtual Reality
(1–5). doi:10.1109/WEVR.2019.8809592
Lee, K. M. (2004a). Presence, explicated. Communication
Theory, 14(1), 27–50. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2004.
tb00302.x
Lee, K. M. (2004b). Why presence occurs: Evolutionary
psychology, media equation, and presence. Presence: Tele-
operators and Virtual Environments, 13(4), 494–505.
doi:10.1162/1054746041944830
MacQuarrie, A., & Steed, A. (2017). Cinematic virtual re-
ality: Evaluating the effect of display type on the view-
ing experience for panoramic video. Proceedings of the
2017 IEEE Virtual Reality (VR) Conference (45–54).
doi:10.1109/VR.2017.7892230
Mar, R. A., Kelley, W. M., Heatherton, T. F., & Macrae, C.
N. (2007). Detecting agency from the biological motion of
veridical vs animated agents. Social Cognitive and Affective
Neuroscience, 2(3), 199–205. doi:10.1093/scan/nsm011
Mateer, J. (2017). Directing for cinematic virtual reality: How
the traditional film director’s craft applies to immersive en-
vironments and notions of presence. Journal of Media Prac-
tice, 18(1), 14–25. doi:10.1080/14682753.2017.1305838
Mütterlein, J. (2018). The three pillars of virtual reality? Inves-
tigating the roles of immersion, presence, and interactivity.
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
/
e
d
u
p
v
a
r
/
a
r
t
i
c
e
-
p
d
l
f
/
/
/
/
2
7
4
4
1
0
2
0
0
3
7
3
4
p
r
e
s
_
a
_
0
0
3
3
8
p
d
/
.
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
424 PRESENCE: VOLUME 27, NUMBER 4
Proceedings of the 51st Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences. doi:10.24251/HICSS.2018.174
International Workshop on Multimedia Alternate Realities
(31–36). doi:10.1145/2983298.2983302
Nielsen, L. T., Møller, M. B., Hartmeyer, S. D., Ljung, T. C.
M., Nilsson, N. C., Nordahl, R., et al. (2016). Missing the
point: An exploration of how to guide users’ attention dur-
ing cinematic virtual reality. Proceedings of the 22nd ACM
Conference on Virtual Reality Software and Technology (229–
232). doi:10.1145/2993369.2993405
Rothe, S., & Hußmann, H. (2018). Guiding the viewer in
cinematic virtual reality by diegetic cues. In L. T. De Paolis
& P. Bourdot (Eds.), Proceedings of Augmented Reality,
Virtual Reality, and Computer Graphics. Lecture Notes in
Computer Science, Vol. 10850 (101–117). Berlin: Springer.
doi:10.1007/978-3-319-95270-3_7
Nigro, G., & Neisser, U. (1983). Point of view in personal
memories. Cognitive Psychology, 15(4), 467–482. doi:10.
1016/0010-0285(83)90016-6
Osborne, P. (Director), D. Eisenmann (Producer) (2016).
Pearl [cinematic VR and film]. Google Spotlight Stories.
Pyrczak, F. (1972). Objective evaluation of the quality of
multiple-choice test items designed to measure compre-
hension of reading passages. Reading Research Quarterly,
8(1), 62–71. doi:10.2307/746981
Qin, H., Rau, P.-L. P., & Salvendy, G. (2009). Measuring
player immersion in the computer game narrative. Inter-
national Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 25(2),
107–133. doi:10.1080/10447310802546732
Razali, N. M., & Wah, Y. B. (2011). Power comparisons
of Shapiro-Wilk, Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Lilliefors and
Anderson-Darling tests. Journal of Statistical Model-
ing and Analytics, 2(1), 21–33. Retrieved from https:
//www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1714/ML17143A100.pdf
Reyes, M. C. (2017). Screenwriting framework for an interac-
tive virtual reality film. Paper presented at the 3rd Immer-
sive Research Network Conference.
Reyes, M. C. (2018). Measuring user experience on inter-
active fiction in cinematic virtual reality. In R. Rouse, H.
Koenitz, & M. Haahr (Eds.), Interactive storytelling (295–
307). Berlin: Springer.
Rice, H. J. (2010). Seeing where we’re at: A review of vi-
sual perspective and memory retrieval. In J. H. Mace
(Ed.), The act of remembering: Toward an understand-
ing of how we recall the past (pp. 228–258). Chichester:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Rice, H. J., & Rubin, D. C. (2009). I can see it both ways:
First- and third-person visual perspectives at retrieval. Con-
sciousness and Cognition, 18(4), 877–890. doi:10.1016/j.
concog.2009.07.004
Robinson, J. A., & Swanson, K. L. (1993). Field and observer
modes of remembering. Memory, 1(3), 169–184. doi:10.
1080/09658219308258230
Roth, C., & Koenitz, H. (2016). Evaluating the user expe-
rience of interactive digital narrative. Proceedings of the 1st
Rubin, D. C., & Umanath, S. (2015). Event memory:
A theory of memory for laboratory, autobiographical,
and fictional events. Psychological Review, 122(1), 1–23.
doi:10.1037/a0037907
Schwind, V., Knierim, P., Haas, N., & Henze, N. (2019). Us-
ing presence questionnaires in virtual reality. Proceedings of
the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems (paper 360). doi:10.1145/3290605.3300590
Serino, S., & Repetto, C. (2018). New trends in episodic
memory assessment: Immersive 360° ecological videos.
Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1878. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.
01878
Shapiro, S. S., & Wilk, M. B. (1965). An analysis of variance
test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika, 52(3–4),
591–611. doi:10.2307/2333709
Shin, D., & Biocca, F. (2018). Exploring immersive experience
in journalism. New Media & Society, 20(8), 2800–2823.
doi:10.1177/1461444817733133
Slater, M. (2009). Place illusion and plausibility can lead
to realistic behaviour in immersive virtual environments.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of Lon-
don. Series B, Biological Sciences, 364(1535), 3549–3557.
doi:10.1098/rstb.2009.0138
Slater, M., Antley, A., Davison, A., Swapp, D., Guger, C.,
Barker, C., et al. (2006). A virtual reprise of the Stanley
Milgram obedience experiments. PLOS ONE, 1(1), e39.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000039
Slater, M., Pertaub, D.-P., Barker, C., & Clark, D. M. (2006).
An experimental study on fear of public speaking using a
virtual environment. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 9(5), 627–
633. doi:10.1089/cpb.2006.9.627
Slater, M., & Wilbur, S. (1997). A framework for immersive
virtual environments (FIVE): Speculations on the role of
presence in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and
Virtual Environments, 6(6), 603–616. doi:10.1162/pres.
1997.6.6.603
Smith, T. J., & Henderson, J. (2008). Attentional synchrony
in static and dynamic scenes. Journal of Vision, 8(6), 773.
doi:10.1167/8.6.773
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
/
e
d
u
p
v
a
r
/
a
r
t
i
c
e
-
p
d
l
f
/
/
/
/
2
7
4
4
1
0
2
0
0
3
7
3
4
p
r
e
s
_
a
_
0
0
3
3
8
p
d
/
.
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Szita, Gander, and Wallstén 425
Smith, T. J., & Mital, P. K. (2013). Attentional synchrony and
the influence of viewing task on gaze behavior in static and
dynamic scenes. Journal of Vision, 13(8), 1–24. Retrieved
from http://dx.doi.org/10.1167/13.8.16
St. Jacques, P. L. (2019). A new perspective on visual perspec-
tive in memory. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
28(5), 450–455. doi:10.1177/0963721419850158
Stoet, G. (2010). PsyToolkit: A software package for program-
ming psychological experiments using Linux. Behavior Re-
search Methods, 42(4), 1096–1104. doi:10.3758/BRM.42.
4.1096
Stoet, G. (2017). PsyToolkit: A novel web-based method for
running online questionnaires and reaction-time experi-
ments. Teaching of Psychology, 44(1), 24–31. doi:10.1177/
0098628316677643
Syrett, H., Calvi, L., & van Gisbergen, M. (2016). The Ocu-
lus Rift film experience: A case study on understanding
films in a head mounted display. In R. Poppe, J.-J. Meyer,
R. Veltkamp, & M. Dastani (Eds.), Proceedings of the In-
ternational Conference on Intelligent Technologies for In-
teractive Entertainment (197–208). Berlin: Springer.
doi:10.1007/978-3-319-49616-0_19
Szita, K., & Rooney, B. (2021). The effects of smartphone
spectatorship on attention, arousal, engagement, and
comprehension. i-Perception, 12(1), 1–20. doi:10.1177/
2041669521993140
Tinwell, A., Grimshaw, M., Nabi, D. A., & Williams, A.
(2011). Facial expression of emotion and perception of the
Uncanny Valley in virtual characters. Computers in Human
Behavior, 27(2), 741–749. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.10.018
Van Damme, K., All, A., Marez, L., & Leuven, S. (2019). 360°
video journalism: Experimental study on the effect of im-
mersion on news experience and distant suffering. Journal-
ism Studies, 20(14), 2053–2076. doi:10.1080/1461670X.
2018.1561208
Van den Broeck, M., Kawsar, F., & Schöning, J. (2017).
It’s all around you: Exploring 360° video viewing expe-
riences on mobile devices. Proceedings of the 25th ACM
International Conference on Multimedia (762–768).
doi:10.1145/3123266.3123347
Visch, V. T., Tan, E. S., & Molenaar, D. (2010). The emo-
tional and cognitive effect of immersion in film viewing.
Cognition and Emotion, 24(8), 1439–1445.
Wirth, W., Hartmann, T., Böcking, S., Vorderer, P., Klimmt,
C., Schramm, H., et al. (2007). A process model of the for-
mation of spatial presence experiences. Media Psychology,
9(3), 493–525. doi:10.1080/15213260701283079
Witmer, B. G., & Singer, M. J. (1998). Measuring presence
in virtual environments: A presence questionnaire. Presence:
Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 7(3), 225–240.
doi:10.1162/105474698565686
Zhang, C. (2020). The why, what, and how of immersive
experience. IEEE Access, 8, 90878–90888. doi:10.1109/
ACCESS.2020.2993646
Zwaan, R. A., Magliano, J. P., & Graesser, A. C. (1995).
Dimensions of situation model construction in narra-
tive comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychol-
ogy: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(2), 386–397.
doi:10.1037/0278-7393.21.2.386
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
/
e
d
u
p
v
a
r
/
a
r
t
i
c
e
-
p
d
l
f
/
/
/
/
2
7
4
4
1
0
2
0
0
3
7
3
4
p
r
e
s
_
a
_
0
0
3
3
8
p
d
/
.
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3