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.

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. Twentyfive 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 flickeronsets 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.

ObjectivesThe SafeSpace study codesigned and tested a virtual reality (VR) intervention, incorporating relaxation and compassionate mind training to determine acceptability/feasibility in an oncology setting and evaluate impact on physical/psychological well-being and quality of life.DesignA two-phase study. Phase I determined key characteristics using an experienced-based codesign approach. Phase II evaluated the intervention using various measures and qualitative interviews in a mixed methods approach. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse measures data and framework analysis to analyse interviews.SettingA specialist cancer centre, UK.Participants11 in phase I and 21 in phase II. Participants were in cancer treatment, recovery or palliative care.Primary and secondary outcomePrimary outcome: acceptability of the intervention, assessed by >60% uptake of three sessions. Secondary outcomes: impact on psychological well-being using EQ-5D/QLQ-C30, Profile of Mood Scale, Warwick and Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale, Depression and Anxiety Severity Scale 21, Self-Compassion Scale, Acceptance and Action Questionnaire and a locally developed questionnaire to capture self-compassion post use. Physiological impact was assessed by change in heart rate (HR)/HR variability and electrodermal activity (EDA).ResultsTwenty participants (mean age=48.7 years; SD=16.87); 65% (n=13) completed three sessions. Mental well-being improved following each use and from baseline to after session 3 (VR 1—z=2.846, p≤0.01; VR 2—z=2.501, p≤0.01; VR 3—z=2.492, p≤0.01). There was statistically significant difference in mean scores for EDA at mid-session and post session compared with pre session (F (1.658, 4.973)=13.364, p<0.05). There was statistically significant reduction in stress levels from baseline to post session 3. Participants found the intervention acceptable and highlighted areas for development.ConclusionThe intervention is acceptable and feasible and has shown positive effects on mental well-being/stress in the oncology setting. Larger studies are needed to confirm findings.

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 dierence in users' chair type might inuence their viewing experience. A between-subject experiment was conducted with 41 participants. Three chair conditions were used:xed, half-swivel and full-swivel. A variety of measures were explored using eye-tracking, questionnaires, tasks and semistructured interviews. Results suggest that thexed and half-swivel chairs discouraged exploration for certain videos compared with the full-swivel chair. Additionally, participants in thexed chair had worse spatial awareness and greater concern about missing something for certain video than those in the full-swivel chair. No signicant dierences 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, diculty following moving objects, reduced orientation and guided attention. Based on thendings, practical implications, limitations and future work are discussed.

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. Twentyfive 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 flickeronsets 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.