Projects in VR of 100, where=completely dissatisfied with your per formance and 100= completely satisfied. 4 The man on Explanatory variables listening. But In addition to the two main factors (immersion an his friend on the audience response), we collected data on several poten right tial explanatory variables, including the following. Background: age and gender. All subjects were in their 20s or 30s, with only one woman among them. There were seven postgraduate stu aculty members. None of the sub jects came from a computer science discipline, and the experimenters 5 Avatars make knew none of them before the study. ed, happy, and Co-presence. This refers to the ense of being with the virtual audi- ence compared to being with a real audience. Four questions, each on a scale of 1 to 7. elicited information on this response: a In the last presentation, to what extent did you have a sense that there was an audience in front of you? To what extent did you have a sense of giving a talk 6 Amember of to people? the audience a When you think back about your last experience, do walks in front of you remember this as more like talking to a comput- the speaker er or communicating to an audience? a To what extent were you aware of the audience in the room front of you? Interestingly, we found no significant difference in co- presence scores between the immersed and noni Perceived audience interest. Here we attempt laboratory where they were to give their presentation. ed to understand the subject ' s own impressions of After each of their three talks, they were taken back to audience behavior, which might not match the experi- the original room and asked to complete a question- menters'intentions The question"How would you char- naire, which related only to the immediately prior talk. acterize the interest of the audience in what you had to They could, however, see and compare their current say? "was scored on a scale of 1 to 7, with higher value reactions with their own reactions to previous talks. indicating higher interest. After all three talks and questionnaires had been com- Independently of order--whether the"good"or"bad pleted, subjects were asked to complete a final ques- audience reactions came first-we found a significant tionnaire about their confidence in social situations. a difference in perceived audience interest for the two sit short debriefing session then followed, in which they uations: a negative audience(mean 2.5 with standard were encouraged to expand on their responses in the deviation 1. 5)versus a positive audience(mean 4.3 with questionnaire and discuss theirexperience of the virtu- standard deviation 2.0) al speaking environment. We saw little evidence of a"rehearsal effect. "where people s rated performance with each Response variable essive talk. Although we observed an increase, it The main study included three response variables: proved statistically insignificant. This "time"variable self-rating of performance, reported physical symptoms was not statistically significant in any analysis of anxiety, and a standard fear of public speaking ques- tionnaire administered after each talk. We only discuss Results the self-rating set of results here and note that the oth- This section outlines one of the most important ers are consistent with these. The self-rating question results; a subsequent full paper will give further details. was, " How would you rate your own performance in the We assessed the relationship between self-rating and alk you have just given? Assign to yourself a score out the independent and explanatory variables using nor March/April 1999 Authorized licensed use limited to: SHENZHEN UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on March 27, 2010 at 06: 37: 04 EDT from IEEE Xplore.laboratory where they were to give their presentation. After each of their three talks, they were taken back to the original room and asked to complete a question￾naire, which related only to the immediately prior talk. They could, however, see and compare their current reactions with their own reactions to previous talks. After all three talks and questionnaires had been com￾pleted, subjects were asked to complete a final ques￾tionnaire about their confidence in social situations. A short debriefing session then followed, in which they were encouraged to expand on their responses in the questionnaire and discuss their experience of the virtu￾al speaking environment. Response variable The main study included three response variables: self-rating of performance, reported physical symptoms of anxiety, and a standard fear of public speaking ques￾tionnaire administered after each talk. We only discuss the self-rating set of results here and note that the oth￾ers are consistent with these. The self-rating question was, “How would you rate your own performance in the talk you have just given? Assign to yourself a score out of 100, where 0 = completely dissatisfied with your per￾formance and 100 = completely satisfied.” Explanatory variables In addition to the two main factors (immersion and audience response), we collected data on several poten￾tial explanatory variables, including the following. Background: age and gender.All subjects were in their 20s or 30s, with only one woman among them. There were seven postgraduate stu￾dents, one undergraduate, and two faculty members. None of the sub￾jects came from a computer science discipline, and the experimenters knew none of them before the study. Co-presence. This refers to the sense of being with the virtual audi￾ence compared to being with a real audience. Four questions, each on a scale of 1 to 7, elicited information on this response: ■ In the last presentation, to what extent did you have a sense that there was an audience in front of you? ■ To what extent did you have a sense of giving a talk to people? ■ When you think back about your last experience, do you remember this as more like talking to a comput￾er or communicating to an audience? ■ To what extent were you aware of the audience in front of you? Interestingly, we found no significant difference in co￾presence scores between the immersed and nonim￾mersed groups. Perceived audience interest. Here we attempt￾ed to understand the subject’s own impressions of audience behavior, which might not match the experi￾menters’ intentions. The question “How would you char￾acterize the interest of the audience in what you had to say?” was scored on a scale of 1 to 7, with higher values indicating higher interest. Independently of order—whether the “good” or “bad” audience reactions came first—we found a significant difference in perceived audience interest for the two sit￾uations: a negative audience (mean 2.5 with standard deviation 1.5) versus a positive audience (mean 4.3 with standard deviation 2.0). We saw little evidence of a “rehearsal effect,” where people’s rated performance increases with each suc￾cessive talk. Although we observed an increase, it proved statistically insignificant. This “time” variable was not statistically significant in any analysis. Results This section outlines one of the most important results; a subsequent full paper will give further details. We assessed the relationship between self-rating and the independent and explanatory variables using nor￾Projects in VR 8 March/April 1999 4 The man on the left is still listening. But his friend on the right has dozed off. 5 Avatars make faces—disgust￾ed, happy, and sad. 6 A member of the audience walks in front of the speaker on his way out of the room. . Authorized licensed use limited to: SHENZHEN UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on March 27,2010 at 06:37:04 EDT from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply