Differences in presence between healthy users and users with multiple sclerosis

2012 IEEE VR Workshop on Perceptual Illusions in Virtual Environments, PIVE 2012

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 1-6

  Guo, Rongkai ^a   Quarles, John ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT SAN ANTONIO   (United States)

Author keywords

Multiple Sclerosis; Presence; Rehabilitation; User Studies; Virtual Reality

Indexed keywords

HEALTHY PERSONS; INTERACTION FEATURES; MOBILITY-IMPAIRED PERSON; MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS; PRESENCE; RESEARCH STUDIES; USER STUDY;

PATIENT REHABILITATION; VIRTUAL REALITY;

HANDICAPPED PERSONS;

EID: 84864194048     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1109/PIVE.2012.6229792     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (21)

1. (accessed August 31, 2010). National MS Society. Available: http://www.nationalmssociety.org/about-multiple-sclerosis/what-we-know-about-ms/ who-gets-ms/index.aspx
2. (accessed December 10, 2010). American Heart Association. Available: http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4725
3. (accessed December 10, 2010). Parkinson's Disease Foundation. Available: http://www.pdf.org/en/parkinson-statistics
4. H. Jørgensen, et al. Recovery of walking function in stroke patients: the Copenhagen Stroke Study, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation, vol. 76, pp. 27-32, 1995.
5. A. Khasnis and R. Gokula. Romberg's test, Journal of postgraduate medicine, vol. 49, p. 169, 2003.
6. M. K. A. Usoh, et al. Walking > Walking-in-Place > Flying in Virtual Environments, in Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, Los Angeles, USA, August, 1999, pp. 359-364.
7. B. Witmer and M. Singer. Measuring presence in virtual environments: A presence questionnaire, Presence, vol. 7, pp. 225-240, 1998.
8. W. Barfield and S. Weghorst. The sense of presence within virtual environments: A conceptual framework, Advances in Human Factors Ergonomics, vol. 19, pp. 699-699, 1993.
9. D. Cho, et al. The dichotomy of presence elements: The where and what, 2003, pp. 273-274.
10. H. Dinh, et al. Evaluating the importance of multi-sensory input on memory and the sense of presence in virtual environments, 2002, pp. 222-228.
11. D. Delaney, et al. On Consistency and Network Latency in Distributed Interactive Applications: A Survey - Part II: Presence 2005: Eighth International Workshop I, Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, vol. 15 August 2006 2006
12. J. Van Baren and W. IJsselsteijn. Measuring Presence: A Guide to Current Measurement Approaches, Deliverable of the OmniPres project IST-2001-39237, 2004.
13. C. Youngblut and I. F. D. A. A. VA., "What a Decade of Experiments Reveals about Factors that Influence the Sense of Presence: Latest Findings," ed: INSTITUTE FOR DEFENSE ANALYSES ALEXANDRIA VA, 2007.
14. M. Slater, et al. Depth of presence in virtual environments, Presence, 3 (2), pp. 130-144, 1994.
15. B. G. Witmer and P. B. Kline. Judging perceived and traversed distance in virtual environments, Presence, 7 (2), pp. 144-167, 1998.
16. M. Slater, et al. Taking steps: The influence of a walking technique on presence in virtual reality, ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 2 (3), pp. 201-219, 1995.
17. R. Kizony, et al. Adapting an immersive virtual reality system for rehabilitation, The Journal of Visualization and Computer Animation, vol. 14, pp. 261-268, 2003.
18. O. Oda. (2010). GoblinXNA 3.4. Available: http://goblinxna.codeplex.com/
19. I. Russell M. Taylor, et al. VRPN: a device-independent, network-transparent VR peripheral system, in the ACM symposium on Virtual reality software and technology New York, NY, USA, 2001.
20. M. Meehan. An objective surrogate for presence: Physiological response, 3rd Int. Wkshp. on Presence, 2000.
21. L. Krupp, et al. The fatigue severity scale: application to patients with multiple sclerosis and systemic lupus erythematosus, Archives of neurology, vol. 46, p. 1121, 1989.