Filmmakers of panoramic videos frequently struggle to guide attention to Regions of Interest (ROIs) due to consumers’ freedom to explore. Some researchers hypothesize that peripheral cues attract reflexive/involuntary attention whereas cues within central vision engage and direct voluntary attention. This mixed-methods study evaluated the effectiveness of using central arrows and peripheral flickers to guide and focus attention in panoramic videos. Twenty-five adults wore a head-mounted display with an eye tracker and were guided to 14 ROIs in two panoramic videos. No significant differences emerged in regard to the number of followed cues, the time taken to reach and observe ROIs, ROI-related memory and user engagement. However, participants’ gaze travelled a significantly greater distance toward ROIs within the first 500 ms after flicker-onsets compared to arrow-onsets. Nevertheless, most users preferred the arrow and perceived it as significantly more rewarding than the flicker. The findings imply that traditional attention paradigms are not entirely applicable to panoramic videos, as peripheral cues appear to engage both involuntary and voluntary attention. Theoretical and practical implications as well as limitations are discussed.

Volumetric capture allows the creation of near-video-quality content that can be explored with six degrees of freedom. Due to limitations in these experiences, such as the content being fixed at the point of filming, an understanding of eye-gaze awareness is critical. A repeated measures experiment was conducted that explored users' ability to evaluate where a volumetrically captured avatar (VCA) was looking. Wearing one of two head-mounted displays (HMDs), 36 participants rotated a VCA to look at a target. The HMD resolution, target position, and VCA's eye-gaze direction were varied. Results did not show a difference in accuracy between HMD resolutions, while the task became significantly harder for target locations further away from the user. In contrast to real-world studies, participants consistently misjudged eye-gaze direction based on target location, but not based on the avatar's head turn direction. Implications are discussed, as results for VCAs viewed in HMDs appear to differ from face-to-face scenarios.

The consumption of 360-degree videos with head-mounted displays (HMDs) is increasing rapidly. A large number of HMD users watch 360-degree videos at home, often on non-swivel seats; however videos are frequently designed to require the user to turn around. This work explores how the difference in users' chair type might influence their viewing experience. A between-subject experiment was conducted with 41 participants. Three chair conditions were used: fixed, half-swivel and full-swivel. A variety of measures were explored using eye-tracking, questionnaires, tasks and semi-structured interviews. Results suggest that the fixed and half-swivel chairs discouraged exploration for certain videos compared with the full-swivel chair. Additionally, participants in the fixed chair had worse spatial awareness and greater concern about missing something for certain video than those in the full-swivel chair. No significant differences were found in terms of incidental memory, general engagement and simulator sickness among the three chair conditions. Furthermore, thematic analysis of post-experiment interviews revealed four themes regarding the restrictive chairs: physical discomfort, difficulty following moving objects, reduced orientation and guided attention. Based on the findings, practical implications, limitations and future work are discussed.

360° images and video have become extremely popular formats for immersive displays, due in large part to the technical ease of content production. While many experiences use a single camera viewpoint, an increasing number of experiences use multiple camera locations. In such multi-view 360° media (MV360M) systems, a visual effect is required when the user transitions from one camera location to another. This effect can take several forms, such as a cut or an image-based warp, and the choice of effect may impact many aspects of the experience, including issues related to enjoyment and scene understanding. To investigate the effect of transition types on immersive MV360M experiences, a repeated-measures experiment was conducted with 31 participants. Wearing a head-mounted display, participants explored four static scenes, for which multiple 360° images and a reconstructed 3D model were available. Three transition types were examined: teleport, a linear move through a 3D model of the scene, and an image-based transition using a Möbius transformation. The metrics investigated included spatial awareness, users' movement profiles, transition preference and the subjective feeling of moving through the space. Results indicate that there was no significant difference between transition types in terms of spatial awareness, while significant differences were found for users' movement profiles, with participants taking 1.6 seconds longer to select their next location following a teleport transition. The model and Möbius transitions were significantly better in terms of creating the feeling of moving through the space. Preference was also significantly different, with model and teleport transitions being preferred over Möbius transitions. Our results indicate that trade-offs between transitions will require content creators to think carefully about what aspects they consider to be most important when producing MV360M experiences.

The proliferation of head-mounted displays (HMD) in the market means that cinematic virtual reality (CVR) is an increasingly popular format. We explore several metrics that may indicate advantages and disadvantages of CVR compared to traditional viewing formats such as TV. We explored the consumption of panoramic videos in three different display systems: a HMD, a SurroundVideo+ (SV+), and a standard 16:9 TV. The SV+ display features a TV with projected peripheral content. A between-groups experiment of 63 participants was conducted, in which participants watched panoramic videos in one of these three display conditions. Aspects examined in the experiment were spatial awareness, narrative engagement, enjoyment, memory, fear, attention, and a viewer's concern about missing something. Our results indicated that the HMD offered a significant benefit in terms of enjoyment and spatial awareness, and our SV+ display offered a significant improvement in enjoyment over traditional TV. We were unable to confirm the work of a previous study that showed incidental memory may be lower in a HMD over a TV. Drawing attention and a viewer's concern about missing something were also not significantly different between display conditions. It is clear that passive media viewing consists of a complex interplay of factors, such as the media itself, the characteristics of the display, as well as human aspects including perception and attention. While passive media viewing presents many challenges for evaluation, identifying a number of broadly applicable metrics will aid our understanding of these experiences, and allow the creation of better, more engaging CVR content and displays.