Basic Idea of Final Major Project and Thesis

FMP

Potential Title: “La folie du doute”

What: An interactive VR experience (demo version) that tackles the emerging social issue of touch starvation and fear of touching objects post COVID-19 outbreak by exposing them to an immersive experience of an average night out with friends that includes tactile/haptic feedback and vivid environment design with shaders. 

Exploring and commenting on two theories:

Theory/Argument 1) Touch starvation during lockdown: the argument that people lacked physical contact during the lockdown(s) regardless of whether they had some human company or not which lead them to experience touch starvation symptoms.

Theory/Argument 2) Touch aversion post COVID-19: the argument that people show an increased avoidance of haptic/tactile behavior [both towards humans and objects] than pre-pandemic.

Why: Because: A whole society is headed towards that direction with covid nowadays.

Why is a non-tactile lifestyle negative to us humans?:

When physical contact becomes limited—or, in some cases, eliminated—people can develop a condition called touch starvation or touch deprivation.

The outermost layer of our skin, called the epidermis, is predominantly made up of billions of keratinocyte cells. The keratinocytes release a chemical called adenosine triphosphate (ATP), which activates receptors on the sensory nerve to convey the sensation of touch to the brain. (Center, 2015)

It can be hard for someone to know if they are experiencing touch starvation. Most commonly, people will feel an overwhelming sensation of loneliness.

People may also experience:

  • stress
  • anxiety
  • feelings of depression
  • low satisfaction
  • difficulty sleeping
  • fatigue
  • digestive problems
  • low immune system

Furthermore, people may exhibit behavior trying to simulate touch. This could include taking long baths or showers, wrapping up in blankets, or cuddling a pet or cushion (Moralles Brown, L., 2021).

How: An art experiment / A commentary

Why in VR: Visual + sound + haptic feedback

Video chatting, he said, is about 80 percent as effective as in-person contact. (Center et.al, 2020). 

So VR will be more effective? Maybe? We will see -> that is why art experiment

So what?: TBD

THESIS

In my written thesis I will discuss how multisensory stimuli (haptic, visual, sound) in VR elicit a greater feeling of embodiment and ownership and thus allow the user to expose themselves to a wide range of visual, sound, and haptic triggers/stimuli throughout the experience. 

In virtual reality haptic feedback is available, this will lead me to propose that these triggers/stimuli are enhanced with haptic feedback.

Resources:

Center, T.M. & Pierce, S., 2020. Touch starvation is a consequence of COVID-19’s physical distancing. TMC News. Available at: https://www.tmc.edu/news/2020/05/touch-starvation/ [Accessed June 15, 2021].

Moralles Brown, L., 2021. Touch starved: Definition, symptoms, and coping. [online] Medicalnewstoday.com. Available at: <https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/touch-starved#symptoms> [Accessed 7 July 2021].

Analysis of questionnaire responses


In this questionnaire, I want to test the theory that people went through touch starvation symptoms during lockdown regardless of whether they had some minimal physical contact with some people of their close bubble. I also want to test whether people became more touch averse after the COVID-19 outbreak because the virus is still circulating, even though lockdown is over and vaccinations are in progress. If my theory is correct the more affectionate the participant the more chances they have to have had experienced touch starvation symptoms during lockdown. Additionally, if my second theory is correct, then the questionnaire responses must show an increase of touch aversion level from human to human and from human to objects after the outbreak regardless of how affectionate someone is.

This questionnaire can be divided into four parts. The first part is the demographics part. The second part focuses on understanding the general personal relationship of the respondent with physical contact and touch (before the COVID-19 outbreak). The third part of the questionnaire focuses on the respondent’s personal lockdown experience in terms of touch starvation and its potential symptoms (Touch starvation is a condition that happens when you don’t get as much physical touch as you’re used to — or any at all. You crave contact but can’t interact with others for some reason). And the last part focuses on potential post-COVID 19 outbreak consequences in terms of physical contact and touch aversion.

This analysis is based on 41 responses recorded in the course of 24hrs 6/7/21-7/7/21. 35 of the respondents belong in the age range of 18-30, 4 of them belong in the age range of 31-40, and 2 of them in the 50-60. 25 participants identified as female including transgender female people, 15 males including transgender males, one identified as nonbinary, and one as “gender fluid but most people know me as a CIS woman”. Thirty-two participants are located in Europe, four in North America, one in the UK, one in Russia, and two in Asia. Eighteen participants identify with no religion, four participants preferred not to respond to the question of religion. One is agnostic in terms of religion, sixteen identified as Catholicism/Christianity, one as Judaism, and one as Islam.

The demographics questions are important to understand the cultural diversity of the respondents. Diversity is a fundamental factor in the results of the questionnaire because different cultures have different relationships with touch and physical contact, mannerisms, and the level of comfort in terms of how affectionate or not one can be. The relationship of someone with physical contact can also vary amongst different genders (based on their culture or not), and different ages. Finally, religion is also an important factor in terms of the relationship of someone with physical contact. Consequently, demographics questions are important in order to identify potential biases in the responses, and potential reasons for skewed results if we were to generalize the responses in a universal context.


In general, most participants are quite affectionate people based on the second part of the questionnaire. More specifically, approximately 60% of respondents strongly agree and 25% agree on the question of, “I often meet my friends and family by giving them hug”. Most participants agree with the phrase “I like to link arms with my friends and family as I walk”, and most participants hug their friends and family goodbye. More than 90% of the participants hug their friends or family goodbye around 50% of the participants kissed their friends and family goodbye.
Moreover, more than 85% of the participants greet their friends with a hug and more than 70% of the participants regularly hug people they’re close to. More than 50% of the participants like to have their skin stroked and a big percentage of the participants often fall asleep holding someone they’re close to. More than 75% of the participants like to snuggle on the sofa with someone they’re close to, a big percentage likes to give shoulder massages and more than 90% likes to receives shoulder massages. More than 65% like to fall asleep in the arms of someone they’re close to, approximately 75% like to stroke the skin of someone they’re close to and around 80% of the participants enjoy cuddling with someone they’re close to. Almost all participants strongly agree that kissing is enjoyable in a romantic relationship. There is general neutrality in the phrase “I feel uncomfortable if someone, I don’t know, well touches me in a friendly manner”. Almost all participants agree on the argument that they have to know someone well to enjoy their hug. There is a balanced variety in the responses when it comes to feeling uncomfortable when someone they do not know well touches their arm in a friendly manner. A big percentage of the participants are not afraid of germs and 40% of the participants agree on the fact that they have experienced fear of contracting illnesses/viruses.
Overall, the participants have a significantly high comfort level with the general concept of physical touch/contact/interaction/affection.
It is reasonable to propose that if my theory of having a link between COVID-19 outbreak and touch starvation is true, then, most of the respondents, since they’re affectionate, will be affected by touch starvation during lockdown, regardless of whether they had some physical contact.

Most participants had both physical contact and engaged in virtual visual communication such as zoom calls during lockdown. Studies have shown that visual virtual communication is about 80% as effective as actual physical contact for avoiding touch starvation (Center et.al, 2020).

More than 75% of the participants argue they missed having physical contact with their close bubbles and about half of the respondents recognize they lacked physical contact during lockdown. Eighteen respondents tried to compensate their lack of physical contact with engaging in activities that allowed them to have tactile experiences such as exploring nature and thrirty participants engaged in non-tactile activities to supplement their lack of physical contact with their close bubble. 93% of the participants noticed a change in moods during lockdown, 60% had changes in their sleep schedule, 47% had trouble sleeping, 64% noticed an increase in their stress levels, 50% noticed an increase in anxiety, and a 43% recognizes a change in their digestive system. All of the sypmtoms above are symptoms that are prevalent to people who suffer from touch starvation. Of course this is not a medical study and by no means I can make such an assumption about the state of a person, however, I can support the fact that most respondents lacked physical contact.

It should be noted that most of the participants who responded neutral or disagreed with the argument of lacking physical contact during lockdown were the same people who are not as affectionate compared to the rest of the respondents as observed in the second part of the questionnaire.

In the last part, I am investigating whether people are noticing changes in their behavior in terms of being more touch averse with people and with objects due to the outbreak. Indeed, 80% of the respondents have noticed they are more aware now of their hygiene habits, of their touching objects in public etc. Additionally, approximately 70% of the participants are more aware when greeting their friends/family and have noticed a change in the way they greet them because the virus is still circulating. 30-50% are afraid they might contract the virus by kidding or hugging their friends/family.
50% has found themselves doubting whether they have washed their hands properly after being outside and more than half has found themselves doubting on whether they have contracted COVID-19 just because they are experiencing a simple symtpom such as tiredenss. Finally, more than 85% of the participants has noticed a change in their hygiene habits e.g. wash their hands more often and the rest 10% who has not changed their hygiene reported past experience with fear of germs which may imply their hygiene habits were already quite polished.

In conclusion, even though our respondents are quite affectionate people they have changed their behavior in terms of physical communication and have found themselves showing signs of fear of contracting germs and viruses without having prior history of germophobia.

The results of this questionnaire are in line with my two initial theories that lockdown is linked to touch starvation and that the outbreak is linked to a general increase in touch aversion in people. This questionnaire provides reasoning to support my final major project idea of an art experiment through a VR experience that acts as a commentary on the effects of COVID-19 in our society in terms of touch starvation and touch aversion.

Visual StoryTelling

Colours

Moodboard on the idea above:

Objects/Props

https://www.nature.com/subjects/soft-materials

what is meant by hard materials and soft materials give two …
https://www.topperlearning.com

Dettol ad:

Imagine this is a doorknob

Trials with mushrooms / Visual Design

Jelly like material

Germs on surfaces

Hands / Visual Design

Particle systems and germ depiction / Visual Design

Animation walking & sneezing droplets / Visual Design

Recreated a real-time simulation of the birth and death of virtual germs based on the Game Of Life

Sound

Microbe sounds: https://www.asoundeffect.com/product-tag/germs/#

UV lights – sound waves: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9oBTSIV8To

Space Design

Moodboard

Preliminary Sketch

How we planned and Conducted the studies

As it is the time of COVID-19, the tests had to be conducted at home with family and friends that fall under our bubble.

We did have a look at the prospect of how it can be done in a university environment and had done an induction that went through the right way of doing it with the right safety in place. Already when doing this test, the users would have to be given the general introduction on how a VR headset would work.

What the particular controls would be (in our case, the controls of an Oculus headset along with the Oculus controller), but for the university set up, there were many other aspects to go through for safety, eg: Not being able to share headsets one by one because of the need to quarantine them and not being able to wipe down electronic devices (so individual headsets to be provided for each participants) to keeping right distance between all.

In the end, we ended up not doing the experiments in the university space but stuck to doing it at home within our bubbles. Nonetheless, the users were given consent forms to sign before each iteration and COVID-19 protection measures were taken.

Iteration 1 had the form of an A-B-C testing.

The participants were given instructions on how the interaction of teleportation and of grabbing objects worked. 

The galleries were given to the participants in random order each time. 

In the end the users were emailed a questionnaire to fill in. 

There were 11 participants for this test.

The overall duration of the study was 30’.

The questionnaire focused on the user friendliness of the experience, on navigating & interacting in the experience, and  on their opinions and preferences for each different layout. 

The study gathered 11 participants. 

It should be noted that gallery C could not be played in VR for technical reasons and the participants navigated through the gallery on the PC via keyboard. Of course this factor skewed the results of the questionnaire and we took that into account.

Additionally, one of the participants was tested over media platforms and not directly due to COVID rules in that time (eg: UK did not allow anyone outside of the household to visit for the duration of Iteration 1 testing). 

Iteration 2 consisted of three parts.

 In the first part the participant is given a VR headset where they were introduced to the  experience. They then  proceed to the AR application where they pick up trash virtually, and finally swap to VR and place artefacts into a gallery. 

For the second part of the study the participants are emailed and are called to complete a questionnaire.

There were 4 participants for this test.

The overall duration of the study was 45’. 

To make sure that the study was conducted impartially we set up the testing space so that the participants had enough space to pick up trash in the AR part. 

The testing space was the same for each participant.

The questionnaire focused on the user friendliness of the AR application, on the interruption of focus of the participant and of the narrative of the experience due to the switches from VR to AR to VR, and on their general opinion of this cross platform experience.

Summary of results in Iteration 2

In the second iteration the common questions throughout the experience were: 

Part A) – VR – Inside the Hangar

  • Where do I have to go?  (they had to go interact with the neon capsule tot rigger the intro briefing video)
  • Can I not go outside the hangar?
  • Do I have to take the headset off now ? 

Part B) – AR – Trash Picking

  • Do I move the phone or the image? 
  • How can I go closer to the trash?
  • Why does the virtual hand get stuck?
  • Why is it not following me ?!

Part C) – VR – gallery curation

[no extra questions]

Glitches/ technological challenges:

  • With one participant the lighting in the room was not natural light [it was dark outside] and so image tracking was not working properly. The camera was not identifying the image the majority of times. Of course it should be noted that the lighting in the room was not very potent.

Summary of results from questionnaire:

  • The AR application interface was easy to understand and to use
  • Not all participants managed to pick their choice of trash in the AR application due to technological glitches
  • Participants responded that there was no interruption in their focus when switching from VR to AR
  • 50% of the participants were neutral towards the claim that the narrative of the story was interrupted with the switches – the other 50% claimed little to not at all interruption.
  • Participants were neutral towards the notion of coherence interruption because of the switches
  • Participants commented they would rather have the experience in VR impartially.

Future Considerations:

Based on the feedback of the questionnaire, in the second iteration,  participants would prefer to have the experience in VR as a whole. This negates the purpose of having a cross platform experience. Of course, this specific experience was not properly performed due to Covid restrictions which means the experience was not put in proper context. A good example of contextualising our project is putting it in an outdoor digital art festival. In this scenario the VR aspect could be the main attraction of the stand and the AR part could be a past-time activity for participants waiting in the Q that could be done through their phones. The outdoors aspect of this experience is rudimental since virtual trash-picking outdoors is a more realistic simulation of trash-picking. Furthermore, natural lighting will be used and image tracking as well as object detection would work better than with indoor lighting (participant 3 “The app inevitably relies heavily on the quality of the camera and the light source, which, of course, is not always perfect.” – participant 3 was not able to generate the net in multiple phases of the AR part, and trash was not generated properly). Finally, a further addition to the digital art festival context is to make the experience multiplayer. In this case, one player could be doing the VR part and the other the AR. This way the player in VR would not anticipate trash picking, instead they would rely on the other player to go do their duty in AR. This way the participants would not be bothered by them having to take off and put back on the headset (participant 2 “takes some time to adjust in real life when taking the headset off.”).