EVALUATING THE INFLUENCE OF LOCATION AND

MEDIUM APPLIED TO MOBILE VR STORYTELLING

P. Bala, M. Dionísio, R. Trindade, S. Olim, V. Nisi and N. Nunes
Madeira Interactive Technologies Institute, FCT/UNL

Abstract Findings
Advances in mobile computing have reinvented mobile phones as more than
i) Is the experience of watching a 360º VR narrative affected by the location?
communication devices. From VR to location aware experiences, the mobility, power,
and versatility of smartphones are being used as tools to create new experiences. In
this paper, we investigate how properties supported by mobile computing like Mean values of relevant measures according to the variable Location. N=20.
locality and medium, affect the experience of Interactive Storytelling.
Flow NTS Presence
For this purpose, we conducted a 20-person pilot study on a 360º narrative in a 3D
environment, intended to be used in a location aware multimedia application. On-site 4.60 (SD=1.05) 4.81 (SD=0.62) 5.80 (SD=1.03)
Measuring Presence, Flow and Narrative Transportation, we evaluate four scenarios
resulting from the combination of two variables - location (existence and absence of Off-site 4.30 (SD=1.06) 4.29 (SD=0.60) 4.80 (SD=1.03)
links between the test location and the narrative location) and medium (tablet and
mobile virtual reality with smartphones). Our results show that experiencing a Table 1: Comparisons of mean values of measures according to the variable Location. N=20
narrative in the location linked to said narrative may lead to a significantly increased
flow, presence, and narrative transportation.
Experience is affected by the location (as can be seen by the higher values of
Flow, NT, Presence on the On-site condition in table 1; or in the higher values of NT
and Presence for On-site conditions regardless of medium in table 3). Location
revealed not to have an influence in terms of demands as it presented similar
Methodology values (On-site: M=3.20, SD=1.229; Off-site: M=3.30, SD=1.25).

ii) To which extent does the medium where the narrative is presented affect
the experience?

Mean Values of relevant measures according to the variable Medium. N=20.

Flow NTS Presence

Tablet 4.22 (SD=0.98) 4.54 (SD=0.43) 5.30 (SD=0.949)

MVR 4.69 (SD= 1.09) 4.56 (SD=0.84) 5.30 (SD=1.33)

Table 2: Comparisons of mean values of measures according to the variable Medium. N=20

Medium’s effect is not as expressive as location it is mostly expressed through

higher values of Flow in the MVR condition(table 2). Moreover, the demands of the
experience seemed to be higher when using the tablet (M=3.50, SD=1.17) as mean
values were higher than for the MVR (M=3.00, SD=1.24).

iii) To what extent does medium and location where the 360º VR narrative
is presented, affect the experience?
Flow NTS Presence

Tablet 3.9 (SD=0.94) 4.56 (SD=0.38) 5.40 (SD=1.14)

On-site
MVR 5.26 (SD=0.72) 5.06 (SD=0.76) 6.20 (SD=0.83)

Tablet 4.48 (SD=1.04) 4.52 (SD=0.53) 5.20 (SD=0.84)

Figure 1. Four scenarios resulting from the combination of two variables - location Off-site
(existence and absence of links between the test location and the narrative location) MVR 4.12 (SD=1.16) 4.06 (SD=0.64) 4.40 (SD=1.14)
and medium (tablet and mobile virtual reality with smartphones). These 4
scenarios were tested with 20 participants
Table 3: Comparisons of means of value of relevant measures according to the combinations
Our post experience questionnaire measures: of both variables Location (on-site and off-site) and Medium (Tablet and MVR).

• Flow through a 7-point Flow short scale [2]
• Narrative Transportation through the Narrative Transportation Scale (NTS) [1]
• Presence through ‘‘In the video narrative I had a sense of being there.’’ 7-point
Likert item (from “Not at all” to “Very much”), according to Presence as
experience [3]
• Demands of the Experience through “For me personally the demands of this
experience were”’ 7-point Likert item (from “Too Low” to “Too High”)
• Fantasy Scale, measuring an individual’s tendency to get caught up in fictional
stories [4]. The Internal reliability of the scale was satisfactory (Cronbach’s α =
0.659)
For locations related to the content (on-site), using MVR resulted in higher
values for NT, Flow and Presence (see table 3), due to the immersive nature of the
medium. Participants reported that using the tablet was more demanding (M=3.80,
SD=1.09) than the MVR (M=2.80, SD=1.30). This might be related to human and
social factors such as ease of use and physical requirements.
For locations that are not related to the content (off-site), using a tablet
resulted in higher values for NT, Flow and Presence (see table 3).
References
1.Melanie C. Green and Timothy C. Brock. 2000. The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of
public narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79, 5: 701–721.
2.Falko Rheinberg, Regina Vollmeyer, and Stefan Engeser. 2003. Die erfassung des flow-erlebens.
3.Kwan Min Lee. 2004. Presence, Explicated. Communication Theory 14, 1: 27–50.
4.Mark H. Davis. 1983. Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional
approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 44, 1: 113–126

PD/BD/128330/2017
PD/BD/114142/2015