| 摘要: |
| 文章对2018—2024 年间临场感研究
的相关文献进行了系统的回顾，详细阐述了
临场感概念及理论框架，将临场感量化研究
方法分为主观调查、客观调查、行为测量三
种，分析不同研究方法之间相互补充关系，
总结实证研究的应用方向及发展趋势，为深
入研究该类问题提供理论基础及实验策略。 |
| 关键词: 虚拟环境 数字建成环境 临场
感 沉浸感 测量 |
| DOI：10.13791/j.cnki.hsfwest.20241015006 |
| 分类号: |
| 基金项目: |
|
| A comprehensive review of presence theory and methodologies in the digital builtenvironment |
|
SU Hang,CUI Zhe
|
| Abstract: |
| This study systematically reviews research on presence from 2018 to 2024, aiming to
explore its connotation and quantification in digital built environments. During this period, significant
advancements in virtual reality and related technologies have greatly influenced the evolution of
presence research. Understanding presence in digital built environments is crucial as it directly
impacts user experience and the effectiveness of virtual simulations used in architecture, urban
planning, and environmental design. The concept of presence has evolved from early technical
descriptive definitions to a complex concept encompassing cognitive and emotional, social, and
interactive multidimensional experiences. The field of architecture and environmental design views
presence from the perspective of spatial quality and user interaction with the built environment. This
multidisciplinary nature enriches the understanding of presence but also presents challenges in
creating a unified theoretical framework. Subjective surveys are a primary method for assessing
presence, relying on users’ self-reported experiences through questionnaires and interviews.
Commonly used scales such as the Presence Questionnaire (PQ) and the Immersive Tendency
Questionnaire (ITQ) have been refined over the years. Although subjective methods are the most
widely applicable and flexible in experimental design, adapting to various research needs, their main
advantages are ease of operation, low requirements for equipment and venues, and the ability to
intuitively reflect participants’ perceptual experiences. However, they are susceptible to response
biases and individual differences in self-assessment abilities. Objective surveys focus on measurable
aspects of the environment and technology, with distinct advantages: 1)physiological indicators are
less influenced by participants’ subjectivity, providing more objective data and generally higher
reliability; 2) measurements do not require interrupting participants’ experiences in digital built
environments, allowing for continuous data collection and observation of the temporal characteristics
of presence. However, objective survey methods struggle to eliminate "noise" effects, and individual
differences among participants, as well as their varying abilities to adapt to digital built environments,
pose challenges. Behavioral measurements analyze how users interact within virtual environments.
Behavioral indicators require high pre-experiment training design for participants and cannot
eliminate the influence of participants’ operational skills, making experimental results heavily
affected by individual differences. This study compares the advantages and disadvantages of these
methods, considering factors such as data richness, collection costs, and applicability to different
research questions. Subjective surveys excel in capturing nuanced user experiences but require careful
design to minimize biases. Through a literature review, it is preliminarily determined that factors
influencing presence vary significantly across different disciplines. This study starts with the most
widely used classic scales, using the PQ scale’s classification and description of presence
effectiveness factors as the basis for the Digital Built Environment Presence Effectiveness Influencing
Factor Matrix. By combining existing 湲晥汳略敡湲捣楨渠条??愠捦瑯潬牬??慩瑮牧椠硰??潮晣晩数牬楥湳朠?慵?瑨栠敡潳爠数瑵楲捰慯汳?晦牵慬浮敥睳潳爬權?景潭牰?晥畨瑥畮牳敩?煥畮慥湳瑳椬映楦捥慡瑳楩潢湩?潩晴?瀬爠散獯敯湲捤敩??祴?慯摮搬爠敡獮獤椠湩杮?瑥桧敲獡整?慯獮瀬攠捴瑨獥??瑴桵楤獹?獥瑸畴摲祡?湴潳琬?潩湤汥祮?敩硦灩慥湳搬猠?瑮桤攊?捲畧牡牮敩湺瑥?甠湰摲敥牳獥瑮慣湥搭楩湮杦?潵晥?灣物敮獧攠湦捡散?楯湲?搠楢条楳瑥慤氠?扮甠楴汨瑥?散湨癡楲牡潣湴浥敲湩瑳獴?扣畳琠?慦氠獤潩?捩桴慡牬琠獢?慩?捴漠略牮獶敩?景潮牭?普畴瑳甠牡敮?椊湵湲潢癡慮琠楳潰湡獴??敬渠獦畯牲業渠来?瑥桭慥瑮?瑳攮挠桒湥潦汥潲来楮捣慩汮?愠摴癨慥渠捐救洠敳湣瑡獬?愙汳椠杴湨?睥楥琠桭?桩畮洠慥湦?捥散湴瑩敶牥敮摥?摳攠獦楡杣湴?灲牳椔湳捥楮灳汯敲獹?factors, distraction factors, and realism factors—the study excludes control factors focused on users,operations, and tasks. It further selects four key effectiveness factors: consistency with the real world, multisensory modalities, environmental richness, and
scene realism. Through the identification and organization of these factors, 53 specific factors influencing presence are extracted. The study employs semantic
merging for dimensionality reduction, and after multiple screenings and adjustments, establishes the Digital Built Environment Presence Effectiveness
Influencing Factor Matrix, considering the intrinsic relationships among factors.Reviewing presence research over the past three decades, it is evident that with
technological advancements and device iterations, digital built environments have transitioned from the era of graphics and images to the era of space. In
computer graphics, the ideal “realism” encompasses geometric visual realism, behavioral realism, and lighting realism, while architecture constructs spatial
cognition through dimensions such as scale, material, light, shadow, and time.This study provides scholars and practitioners with a solid theoretical foundation
and diverse experimental strategies. The integration of an architectural perspective will further subdivide and expand the variable matrix of digital built
environments based on existing empirical research, aiding in the exploration of decisive and related factors influencing presence. By combining the cognitive
and interpretive logic of real spaces with presence experience research in digital built environments, the study establishes the Digital Built Environment
Presence Effectiveness I |
| Key words: virtual environment digital built environment presence immersion measure |
