Sean Hinkle¹, Mark Neider¹; ¹University of Central Florida

Though long a hallmark of virtual reality (VR) research, spatial presence has been challenging to operationally define and even harder to objectively measure. The process model of presence claims that a more accurate and rich mental representation of virtual space leads to presence. The configuration error (CE) paradigm is a well-established test of egocentric and allocentric theories of spatial representation and has provided evidence that representation degrades for individual objects after disorientation, supporting an egocentric updating account. We recreated the CE paradigm in VR using simple stimuli and added a set size manipulation to test the process model’s claim that a richer representation increases presence. We developed a virtual environment where participants were tasked with learning the location of 4 or 8 colored blocks and pointing to them in several phases (eyes-open, eyes-closed, post-disorientation). In a 2 (set size) x 3 (phase) within-participants design, we evaluated presence, accuracy, and changes in CE (standard deviation of mean error to blocks) after disorientation to test predictions of the process model, and to replicate and extend the CE paradigm in VR. We expected increased self-reported presence, CE, and average error with increased set size. We replicated key findings of the CE paradigm; increased CE following disorientation in both 4 and 8 block conditions (p < .001). However, there were no observed differences in self-reported presence (p = .336), CE (p = .709), or accuracy (p = .275) with changes in set size, though RT increased as expected (p < .001). The lack of change in accuracy may be explained by a constrained error space (360-degrees). Presence did not correlate with accuracy (ps > .074) as the process model predicts. Our results support the classical findings of the CE paradigm, and provide evidence against several claims of the process model of presence.