Correlations between vocal input and visual response apparently enhance presence in a virtual environment

This work investigates novel alternative means of interaction in a virtual environment (VE).We analyze whether humans can remap established body functions to learn to interact with digital information in an environment that is cross-sensory by nature and uses vocal utterances in order to influence (abstract) virtual objects. We thus establish a correlation among learning, control of the interface, and the perceived sense of presence in the VE. The application enables intuitive interaction by mapping actions (the prosodic aspects of the human voice) to a certain response (i.e., visualization). A series of single-user and multiuser studies shows that users can gain control of the intuitive interface and learn to adapt to new and previously unseen tasks in VEs. Despite the abstract nature of the presented environment, presence scores were generally very high.

The effect of virtual reality on visual vertigo symptoms in patients with peripheral vestibular dysfunction: a pilot study

Individuals with vestibular dysfunction may experience visual vertigo (VV), in which symptoms are provoked or exacerbated by excessive or disorientating visual stimuli (e.g. supermarkets). VV can significantly improve when customized vestibular rehabilitation exercises are combined with exposure to optokinetic stimuli. Virtual reality (VR), which immerses patients in realistic, visually challenging environments, has also been suggested as an adjunct to VR to improve VV symptoms. This pilot study compared the responses of sixteen patients with unilateral peripheral vestibular disorder randomly allocated to a VR regime incorporating exposure to a static (Group S) or dynamic (Group D) VR environment. Participants practiced vestibular exercises, twice weekly for four weeks, inside a static (Group S) or dynamic (Group D) virtual crowded square environment, presented in an immersive projection theatre (IPT), and received a vestibular exercise program to practice on days not attending clinic. A third Group D1 completed both the static and dynamic VR training. Treatment response was assessed with the Dynamic Gait Index and questionnaires concerning symptom triggers and psychological state. At final assessment, significant betweengroup differences were noted between Groups D (p = 0.001) and D1 (p = 0.03) compared to Group S for VV symptoms with the former two showing a significant 59.2% and 25.8% improvement respectively compared to 1.6% for the latter. Depression scores improved only for Group S (p = 0.01) while a trend towards significance was noted for Group D regarding anxiety scores (p = 0.07). Conclusion: Exposure to dynamic VR environments should be considered as a useful adjunct to vestibular rehabilitation programs for patients with peripheral vestibular disorders and VV symptoms.