skip to main content
research-article

Designing Digital Vertigo Experiences

Authors Info & Claims
Published:31 May 2020Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Many people enjoy “vertigo” sensations caused by intense playful bodily activities such as spinning in circles, and riding fairground rides. Game scholar Caillois calls such experiences “vertigo play,” elucidating that these enjoyable activities are a result of confusion between sensory channels.

In HCI, designers are often cautious to avoid deliberately causing sensory confusion in players, but we believe there is an opportunity to transition and extend Caillois’ thinking to the digital realm, allowing designers to create novel and intriguing digital bodily experiences inspired by traditional vertigo play activities.

To this end, we present the Digital Vertigo Experience framework. Derived from four case studies and the development of three different digital vertigo experiences, this framework aims to bring the excitement of traditional vertigo play experiences to the digital world, allowing designers to create more engaging and exciting body-based games, and provides players with more possibilities to enjoy novel and exciting play experiences.

References

  1. R. B. Alderman. 1974. Psychological Behavior in Sport. Saunders.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. I. Elaine Allen and Christopher A. Seaman. 2007. Likert scales and data analyses. Quality Progress 40, 7(2007), 64.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. David Altimira, Mark Billinghurst, and Florian Mueller. 2013. Understanding handicapping for balancing exertion games. In Proceedings of the 2013 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA’13). ACM, New York, NY, 1125--1130. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2468356.2468557Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. David Altimira, Florian Floyd Mueller, Jenny Clarke, Gun Lee, Mark Billinghurst, and Christoph Bartneck. 2016. Digitally augmenting sports: An opportunity for exploring and understanding novel balancing techniques. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 1681--1691.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Strauss Anselm and Juliet Corbin. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Alissa N. Antle. 2009. LIFELONG INTERACTIONS Embodied child computer interaction: Why embodiment matters. Interactions 16, 2 (2009), 27--30.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Chris Bateman. 2006. The Joy of Ilinx. Retrieved from http://onlyagame.typepad.com/only_a_game/2006/05/the_joy_of_ilin.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Steve Benford and Gabriella Giannachi. 2008. Temporal trajectories in shared interactive narratives. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 73--82.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Steve Benford, Chris Greenhalgh, Gabriella Giannachi, Brendan Walker, Joe Marshall, and Tom Rodden. 2012. Uncomfortable interactions. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 2005--2014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. In Qualitative Research in Psychology, Vol. 3. Taylor 8 Francis, 77--101.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Alan Bryman and Robert G. Burgess. 1999. Qualitative Research. Vol. 4. Sage.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Richard Byrne, Joe Marshall, and Florian Mueller. 2016b. Balance ninja: Towards the design of digital vertigo games via galvanic vestibular stimulation. In Proceedings of the 2016 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (CHI PLAY’16). ACM, New York, NY, 159--170. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2967934.2968080Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Richard Byrne, Joe Marshall, and Florian Mueller. 2016a. Inner disturbance: Towards understanding the design of vertigo games through a novel balancing game. In Proceedings of the 28th Australian Conference on Computer-Human Interaction (OzCHI‘16). ACM, 551--556. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3010915.3010999Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Richard Byrne, Joe Marshall, and Florian ‘Floyd’ Mueller. 2016c. Designing the vertigo experience: Vertigo as a design resource for digital bodily play. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction. ACM, Eindhoven, Netherlands, 296--303. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2839462.2839465Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Richard Byrne, Joe Marshall, and Florian Floyd Mueller. 2018. AR fighter: Using HMDs to create vertigo play experiences. In Proceedings of the 2018 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (CHI PLAY’18). ACM, New York, NY, 45--57. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3242671.3242689Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Roger Caillois. 1961. Man, Play, and Games. University of Illinois Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. David Coyle, James Moore, Per Ola Kristensson, Paul Fletcher, and Alan Blackwell. 2012. I did that! measuring users’ experience of agency in their own actions. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’12). ACM, New York, NY, 2025--2034. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2208350Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. John W. Creswell. 2003. Research Design. Sage Thousand Oaks, CA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Crytek. 2016. The Climb. Retrieved from http://www.theclimbgame.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. 1991. Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. Vol. 41. HarperPerennial, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Anind K. Dey, Gregory D. Abowd, and Daniel Salber. 2001. A Conceptual Framework and A Toolkit for Supporting the Rapid Prototyping of Context-aware Applications. Vol. 16. L. Erlbaum Associates Inc. 97--166 pages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. William Alexander Newman Dorland. 1901. The American Illustrated Medical Dictionary: A New and Completed Dictionary of the Terms Used in Medicine, Surgery, Dentistry, Pharmacy, Chemistry, and the Kindred Branches with Their Pronunciation, Derivation, and Definition. Saunders.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Tristan Dufour, Vincent Pellarrey, Philippe Chagnon, Ahmed Majdoubi, Théo Torregrossa, Vladimir Nachbaur, Cheng Li, Ricardo Ibarra Cortes, Jonathan Clermont, and Florent Dumas. 2014. ASCENT: A first person mountain climbing game on the oculus rift. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI Annual Symposium on Computer-human Interaction in Play. ACM, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 335--338.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Richard C. Fitzpatrick and Brian L. Day. 2004. Probing the Human Vestibular System with Galvanic Stimulation. Vol. 96. American Physiological Society. 2301--2316.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Richard C. Fitzpatrick, Daniel L. Wardman, and Janet L. Taylor. 1999. Effects of Galvanic Vestibular Stimulation During Human Walking. Vol. 517. Wiley Online Library. 931--939.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Gustav Freytag. 1863. Die Technik des Dramas. Leipzig S.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Tracy Fullerton. 2008. THAT’S ENTERTAINMENT-playcentric design. In Interactions. Vol. 15. ACM, 42--45.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Shaun Gallagher. 2000. Philosophical conceptions of the self: Implications for cognitive science. In Trends in Cognitive Sciences. Vol. 4. Elsevier, 14--21. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01417-5Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Eva Hornecker. 2010. Creative idea exploration within the structure of a guiding framework: The card brainstorming game. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction. ACM, 101--108.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Hilary Hutchinson, Wendy Mackay, Bo Westerlund, Benjamin B. Bederson, Allison Druin, Catherine Plaisant, Michel Beaudouin-Lafon, Stéphane Conversy, Helen Evans, Heiko Hansen, Nicolas Roussel, and Björn Eiderbäck. 2003. Technology probes: Inspiring design for and with families. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, 17--24.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Mads Møller Jensen, Majken Kirkegaard Rasmussen, and Kaj Grønbæk. 2014. Design sensitivities for interactive sport-training games. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems. ACM, 685--694.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Robert Johansen. 1988. Groupware: Computer Support for Business Teams. The Free Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Raine Kajastila, Leo Holsti, and Perttu Hämäläinen. 2014. Empowering the exercise: A body-controlled trampoline training game.International Journal of Computer Science in Sport 13, 1 (2014), 6--23.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Gerald S. Kenyon. 1968. A conceptual model for characterizing physical activity. Research Quarterly. American Association for Health, Physical Education and Recreation 39, 1 (1968), 96--105.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Jarrod Knibbe, Paul Strohmeier, Sebastian Boring, and Kasper Hornbæk. 2017. Automatic calibration of high density electric muscle stimulation. In Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3130933Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Astrid Twenebowa Larssen, Lian Loke, Toni Robertson, Jenny Edwards, and A. Sydney. 2004. Understanding movement as input for interaction-A study of two Eyetoy™ games. In Proceedings of the Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference. Vol. 4. ACM.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Pedro Lopes, Alexandra Ion, Willi Mueller, and Patrick Hoffmann, Daniel and Jonell, Patrik and Baudisch. 2015. Proprioceptive interaction. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 939--948.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Samuel M. Lopez and Paul K. Wright. 2002. The role of rapid prototyping in the product development process: A case study on the ergonomic factors of handheld video games. Rapid Prototyping Journal 8, 2 (2002), 116--125. DOI: http://10.0.4.84/13552540210420989Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. T. Maeda, H. Ando, T. Amemiya, N. Nagaya, M. Sugimoto, and M. Inami. 2005. Shaking the world: Galvanic vestibular stimulation as a novel sensation interface. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGGRAPH 2005 Emerging Technologies. ACM, Los Angeles, California.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Joe Marshall, Steve Benford, Richard Byrne, and Paul Tennent. 2019. Sensory alignment in immersive entertainment. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’19). ACM, New York, NY, Article 700, 13 pages. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300930Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Joe Marshall, Alexandru Dancu, and Florian “Floyd” Mueller. 2016. Interaction in motion: Designing truly mobile interaction. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS ’16). ACM, New York, NY, 215--228. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2901790.2901844Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Joe Marshall, Duncan Rowland, Stefan Rennick Egglestone, Steve Benford, Brendan Walker, and Derek McAuley. 2011. Breath control of amusement rides. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 73--82.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. John McCarthy and Peter Wright. 2004. Technology as Experience. Vol. 11. ACM. 42--43 pages.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Jin Moen. 2006. KinAesthetic Movement Interaction: Designing for the Pleasure of Motion. Ph.D. Dissertation.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Florian Mueller, Stefan Agamanolis, and Rosalind Picard. 2003. Exertion interfaces: Sports over a distance for social bonding and fun. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 561--568.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Florian Mueller, Darren Edge, Frank Vetere, Martin R. Gibbs, Stefan Agamanolis, Bert Bongers, and Jennifer G. Sheridan. 2011. Designing sports: A framework for exertion games. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2651--2660. DOI: http://10.0.4.121/1978942.1979330Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Florian Mueller and Katherine Isbister. 2014. Movement-based game guidelines. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 2191--2200.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Florian Mueller, Gunnar Stevens, Alex Thorogood, Shannon O’Brien, and Volker Wulf. 2007. Sports over a distance, In Personal and Ubiquitous Computing. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 11, 8 (2007), 633--645.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Florian Mueller, Cagdas Toprak, Eberhard Graether, Wouter Walmink, Bert Bongers, and Elise van den Hoven. 2012a. Hanging off a bar. In Proceedings of the 2012 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Austin, Texas, 1055--1058.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Florian Mueller, Frank Vetere, Martin Gibbs, Darren Edge, Stefan Agamanolis, Jennifer Sheridan, and Jeffrey Heer. 2012b. Balancing exertion experiences. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 1853--1862.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Florian‘Floyd’ Mueller, Frank Vetere, Martin R. Gibbs, Stefan Agamanolis, and Jennifer Sheridan. 2010. Jogging over a distance: The influence of design in parallel exertion games. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium on Video Games. ACM, 63--68.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. William Lawrence Neuman. 2006. Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Pearson Boston.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Dan R. Olsen Jr. 2007. Evaluating user interface systems research. In Proceedings of the 20th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. ACM, 251--258.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. Michael Quinn Patton. 1990. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. SAGE Publications.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Sebastiaan Pijnappel and Florian Mueller. 2014. Designing interactive technology for skateboarding. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Tangible, Embedded and Embodied Interaction. ACM, New York, New York, 141--148.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. Stuart Reeves, Steve Benford, Claire O’Malley, and Mike Fraser. 2005. Designing the spectator experience. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 741--750.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. Stefan Rennick-Egglestone, Amanda Whitbrook, Caroline Leygue, Julie Greensmith, Brendan Walker, Steve Benford, Holger Schnädelbach, Stuart Reeves, Joe Marshall, David Kirk, and Others. 2011. Personalizing the Theme Park: Psychometric Profiling and Physiological Monitoring. Springer. 281--292.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. Jason Rutter and Jo Bryce. 2006. Understanding Digital Games. Sage.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  59. Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman. 2004. Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals. MIT press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  60. Holger Schnädelbach, Stefan Rennick Egglestone, Stuart Reeves, Steve Benford, Brendan Walker, and Michael Wright. 2008. Performing thrill: Designing telemetry systems and spectator interfaces for amusement rides. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Florence, Italy, 1167--1176.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  61. Reinhard Sefelin, Manfred Tscheligi, and Verena Giller. 2003. Paper prototyping - what is it good for?: A comparison of paper- and computer-based low-fidelity prototyping. In Proceedings of the 2003 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, 778--779. DOI: http://10.0.4.121/765891.765986Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  62. Sarah Sharples, Sue Cobb, Amanda Moody, and John R. Wilson. 2008. Virtual reality induced symptoms and effects (VRISE): Comparison of head mounted display (HMD), desktop and projection display systems. Displays 29, 2 (2008), 58--69.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  63. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment. 2016. The Walk VR. Retrieved from https://www.wearvr.com/apps/the-walk-vr.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  64. Quentin Stevens. 2007. The Ludic City: Exploring the Potential of Public Spaces. Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  65. Team Sonic. 1991. Sonic the Hedgehog. Sega Games Co., Ltd.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  66. Paul Tennent, Joe Marshall, Patrick Brundell, Brendan Walker, and Steve Benford. 2019. Abstract machines: Overlaying virtual worlds on physical rides. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’19). ACM, New York, NY, Article 581, 12 pages. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300811Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  67. Paul Tennent, Joe Marshall, Brendan Walker, Patrick Brundell, and Steve Benford. 2017. The challenges of visual-kinaesthetic experience. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems. ACM, 1265--1276.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  68. Manos Tsakiris, Simone Schütz-Bosbach, and Shaun Gallagher. 2007. On agency and body-ownership: Phenomenological and neurocognitive reflections. Consciousness and Cognition 16, 3 (2007), 645--660. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2007.05.012Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  69. Kathrin S. Utz, Violeta Dimova, Karin Oppenländer, and Georg Kerkhoff. 2010. Electrified minds: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and galvanic vestibular stimulation (GVS) as methods of non-invasive brain stimulation in neuropsychology--A review of current data and future implications. Neuropsychologia 48, 10 (2010), 2789--2810.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  70. Brendan Walker. 2005. The Taxonomy of Thrill. AERiAL Pub.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  71. Brendan Walker, Holger Schnädelbach, Stefan Rennick Egglestone, Angus Clark, Tuvi Orbach, Michael Wright, Kher Hui Ng, Andrew French, Tom Rodden, and Steve Benford. 2007. Augmenting amusement rides with telemetry. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology. ACM, Salzburg, Austria, 115--122. DOI: http://10.0.4.121/1255047.1255070Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  72. Tom Wengraf. 2001. Qualitative Research Interviewing: Biographic Narrative and Semi-structured Methods. Sage.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  73. David Wilkinson, Olga Zubko, and Mohamed Sakel. 2009. Safety of repeated sessions of galvanic vestibular stimulation following stroke: A single-case study. Brain Injury 23, 10 (2009), 841--845.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  74. R. W. Wood. 1895. The ‘haunted swing’ illusion.Psychological Review 2, 3 (1895), 277.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Designing Digital Vertigo Experiences

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction
      ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction  Volume 27, Issue 3
      June 2020
      262 pages
      ISSN:1073-0516
      EISSN:1557-7325
      DOI:10.1145/3403634
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2020 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 31 May 2020
      • Online AM: 7 May 2020
      • Accepted: 1 March 2020
      • Revised: 1 February 2020
      • Received: 1 May 2019
      Published in tochi Volume 27, Issue 3

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format