The ultimate goal of virtual realty is to create a simulated world around us which is indistinguishable from the physical world as we know it. In such an environment our actions could lead to severe effects on our body. What would happen if one gets hit by a bullet, car or lightning? How would the felt pain change our perception of the virtual environment? It turns out that the influence of nociception (pain) on the human perception in virtual environments is not well covered in the scientific literature besides pain control/management. The goal of this publication is to investigate the influence of pain stimuli on immersion as well as decision making and to foster research and discussion in this direction.

1. Matthias Wölfel & Joey Schubert
EffectsofElectricalPainStimuli
onImmersion
inVirtualReality
Matthias Wölfel & Joey Schubert

2. Visions of Reality
In popular culture simulated reality is envisioned in fiction
such as the Holodeck featured in Star Trek, William
Gibson’s Neuromancer, which defined the concept of
cyberspace, Neal Stephenson’s Snow Crash or Ernest
Cline’s Ready Player One.
In engineering peripherals are under development to
stimulate and manipulate more and more effectively
human perception to provide more realistic virtual reality
experiences.
NeuromancerFirstUSHardcoverEdition1986
CoverbyBarclayShawforPhantasiaPress

3. Goal of Virtual Realty
The ultimate goal of virtual
realty is to create a simulated
world around us which is
indistinguishable from the
physical world as we know it.

4. Is such a
complete
simulation
of reality
indeed
desirable?

5. Is such a
complete
simulation
of reality
indeed
desirable?
We know that a mismatch
between contrary sensory
information can influence
the bodily constitution.
Yes
It is already convincing
enough that phobias can
be cured in the real world
by virtual exposure
therapies.
MaybeWe want to provide
experiences in VR which
are potentially too risky
to undertake in reality.
No

6. Well, but …?
 It is widely assumed that trainings in virtual environments can be
transferred to real life situations.
 In real life pain and pain-related fear lead us to actions that prevent us
from doing things that could harm us.
 But how is pain, or the lack of it in particular when expected, in VR
influencing our perception, our mental attitude, the feeling of being
immersed and our actions?
 And is it indeed possible to learn in a protected VR simulation, how to
behave and subconsciously act respectively in the physical space?

7. Aim of our Empirical Study
The aim of our empirical study is to investigate the influence of
(expected) pain on immersion and whether the consequences of
pain have an impact on decision making.

8. Giving information about potential risks before the test could cause bias.
But due to safety and ethics, we believe this was the best possible choice.
Ethical Aspects
 The safety of everybody involved was paramount throughout the whole
procedure.
 The decision to use an electric current stimulus was made because it did not
have a destructive effect on the tissue and is free of any sanitary aspects.
 Participants were informed ahead of the experiment what they got exposed to
and had to be fully accountable and in possession of their mental faculties.
 The liability deduction addressed all possible risks and persons with heart
diseases or other symptoms were excluded from participation.
 Freedom of will and action were unrestricted throughout the entire test process.

9. 0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
1. Quartal 2. Quartal
17 25
Participants
 acquired through social media
channels
 voluntarily participated without
receiving any form of compensation
 average age 25 years with standard
deviation of 3 year

10. Sketch of the Test Setup
present in physical
and virtual space
physical setup
Testgroup A
electrical stimulus

11. Sketch of the Test Setup
present in physical
and virtual space
physical setup
Testgroup B
no electrical stimulus

12. User Hardware
 Oculus Rift
 LEAP-Motion
 customized box
 non-conductive MDF boards
 a conductive ring wired to the
box
 a conductive rod facing upwards
 a 9 V block battery
 A KEMO M0623 mini electric
fence high voltage generator
(1000 V < 2 mA, 3 ms)

13. To Touch or Not to Touch?
First Scenario Follow up Scenario

14. 0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
A B C
21 21
Groups Before the Experiment
A electrical pain stimulus
B no electrical pain stimulus
The presented values (next slides) refer
to Likert scales from
1 (strongly disagree) to
7 (strongly agree).
A B

15. 0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
A B C
18 17
Groups After the Experiment
A electrical pain stimulus
+ rod touched
B no electrical pain stimulus
+ rod touched
C rod not touched
7
A
B
C

16. Immersion
Group A B C
Immersive Tendency Questionnaire** 4.9 (0.5) 4.3 (0.5) 4.6 (0.7)
system reaction* 6.4 (1.0) 5.4 (0.8) 5.6 (1.3)
naturalness of interaction** 5.9 (1.2) 3.4 (1.6) 6.1 (0.7)
convincingness of stimulation** 6.2 (0.7) 4.7 (1.8) 5.7 (1.0)
consistency of environment** 5.4 (1.1) 3.3 (1.9) 4.6 (1.3)
being there 4.1 (1.7) 2.9 (1.7) 4.3 (2.1)
awareness of external events* 3.0 (1.8) 4.7 (2.1) 3.7 (1.7)
interest in external events* 2.1 (1.6) 3.9 (1.6) 4.1 (2.5)
All differences considered relevant (p<0.05) according to ANOVA are marked with an asterisk *,
those considered highly relevant (p<0.005) are marked with two asterisks **.
touched not touched
stimuli no stimuli

17. Pain
Group A B C
felt intensity of pain 3.6 (1.5) 1.3 (0.5) 1.1 (0.7)
distraction caused by pain* 2.8 (1.7) 1.1 (0.4) 1.1 (1.1)
immersion caused by pain** 5.9 (1.6) 1.3 (1.7) 1.3 (1.7)
All differences considered relevant (p<0.05) according to ANOVA are marked with an asterisk *,
those considered highly relevant (p<0.005) are marked with two asterisks **.
touched not touched
stimuli no stimuli

18. Decision Making
Group A B C
importance of decision* 5.5 (1.9) 3.6 (1.9) 3.1 (2.3)
touch again* 1.8 (1.7) 3.7 (2.2) 2.4 (1.3)
All differences considered relevant (p<0.05) according to ANOVA are marked with an asterisk *,
those considered highly relevant (p<0.005) are marked with two asterisks **.
touched not touched
stimuli no stimuli

19. Control Factors
Group A B C
visual quality 3.5 (2.0) 2.9 (1.4) 3.4 (2.0)
input device 2.7 (1.7) 3.0 (1.5) 3.6 (2.1)
concentration on task 6.1 (1.2) 5.3 (1.1) 5.9 (1.1)
disorientation after experiment 1.6 (1.0) 1.4 (0.5) 2.0 (1.0)
frightening environment** 3.5 (1.7) 1.1 (0.4) 4.9 (1.8)
All differences considered relevant (p<0.05) according to ANOVA are marked with an asterisk *,
those considered highly relevant (p<0.005) are marked with two asterisks **.
touched not touched
stimuli no stimuli

20. Conclusion, Limitations and Future Work
 We could demonstrate that (expected) pain improves immersion and
raises the felt importance of the made decisions.
 This work represents a small first step into a possible future research area.
It raises questions from diverse fields such as philosophy, psychology,
ethics which have been only slightly addressed.
 Further investigations are necessary to get a better understanding of this
matter, be it on cultural background, personal preferences or type of
application (entertainment, training, treatment).
 We are still left with the question “how much immersion is enough”?

21. Thank you!
Questions?