skip to main content
research-article

Augmented Virtual Reality Meditation: Shared Dyadic Biofeedback Increases Social Presence Via Respiratory Synchrony

Published:21 May 2021Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

In a novel experimental setting, we augmented a variation of traditional compassion meditation with our custom-built VR environment for multiple concurrent users. The presence of another user’s avatar in shared virtual space supports social interactions and provides an active target for evoked compassion. The system incorporates respiration and brainwave-based biofeedback to enable closed-loop interaction of users based on their shared physiological state. Specifically, we enhanced interoception and the deep empathetic processes involved in compassion meditation with real-time visualizations of: breathing rate, level of approach motivation assessed from EEG frontal asymmetry, and dyadic synchrony of those signals between two users. We manipulated these interventions across eight separate conditions (dyadic or solo meditation; brainwave, breathing, both or no biofeedback) in an experiment with 39 dyads (N=8), observing the effect of conditions on self-reported experience and physiological synchrony. We found that each different shared biofeedback type increased users’ self-reported empathy and social presence, compared to no-biofeedback or solo conditions. Our study illustrates how dyadic synchrony biofeedback can expand the possibilities of biofeedback in affective computing and VR solutions for health and wellness.

References

  1. Adobe Systems. 2014. Photoshop CC. Retrieved from https://adobe.com.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. L. I. Aftanas and S. A. Golocheikine. 2001. Human anterior and frontal midline theta and lower alpha reflect emotionally positive state and internalized attention: High-resolution EEG investigation of meditation. Neurosci. Lett. (2001). Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304394001020948.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Lauri Ahonen, Benjamin Cowley, Jari Torniainen, Antti Ukkonen, Arto Vihavainen, and Kai Puolamäki. 2016. Cognitive collaboration found in cardiac physiology: Study in classroom environment. PLoS One (14 July 2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Lauri Ahonen, Benjamin Ultan Cowley, Arto Hellas, and Kai Puolamäki. 2018. Biosignals reflect pair-dynamics in collaborative work: EDA and ECG study of pair-programming in a classroom environment. Nat. Sci. Rep. 8, 1 (2018). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-21518-3.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. M. Alger. 2015. Visual design methods for virtual reality. Retrieved from http://aperturesciencellc.com/vr/VisualDesignMethodsforVR_MikeAlger.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. J. J. B. Allen, J. A. Coan, and M. Nazarian. 2004. Issues and assumptions on the road from raw signals to metrics of frontal EEG asymmetry in emotion. Biol. Psychol. (2004). Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301051104000377.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. C. Daniel Batson, Jim Fultz, and Patricia A. Schoenrade. 1987. Distress and empathy: Two qualitatively distinct vicarious emotions with different motivational consequences. J. Personal. 55, 1 (Mar. 1987), 19–39. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1467-6494.1987.TB00426.X.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Mathias Benedek and Christian Kaernbach. 2010. Decomposition of skin conductance data by means of nonnegative deconvolution. Psychophysiology 47, 4 (2010), 647–658. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2009.00972.x.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Herbert Benson, Helen P. Klemchuk, and John R. Graham. 1974. The usefulness of the relaxation response in the therapy of headache. Headache: J. Head Face Pain 14, 1 (Apr. 1974), 49–52. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1526-4610.1974.HED1401049.X.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Frank Biocca and Chad Harms. 2002. Defining and measuring social presence: Contribution to the networked minds theory and measure. In Proceedings of PRESENCE 2002. 7–36.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Frank Biocca and C. Harms. 2003. Guide to the Networked Minds Social Presence Inventory v. 1.2: Measures of co-presence, social presence, subjective symmetry, and intersubjective symmetry. Retrieved from http://cogprints.org/6743/1/2002_guide_netminds_measure.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Frank Biocca, Chad Harms, and Judee K. Burgoon. 2003. Toward a more robust theory and measure of social presence: Review and suggested criteria. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 12, 5 (Oct. 2003), 456–480. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1162/105474603322761270. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Blender Foundation. 2017. Blender. Retrieved from https://blender.org.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. M. M. Bradley and P. J. Lang. 1994. Measuring emotion: The self-assessment manikin and the semantic differential. J. Behav. Therap. Exper. Psychi. 25, 1 (1994), 49–59.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. J. T. Cacioppo, L. G. Tassinary, and G. G. Berntson. 2007. Handbook of Psychophysiology. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Kristine S. Calderon and Winifred W. Thompson. 2004. Biofeedback relaxation training: A rediscovered mind-body tool in public health. Amer. J. Health Stud. 19, 4 (2004), 185.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Claudia Carissoli, Daniela Villani, and Giuseppe Riva. 2015. Does a meditation protocol supported by a mobile application help people reduce stress? Suggestions from a controlled pragmatic trial. Retrieved from http://www.liebertpub.com/cyber (Jan. 2015).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. A. Chiesa and A. Serretti. 2010. A systematic review of neurobiological and clinical features of mindfulness meditations. Psychol. Medic. 40, 8 (2010), 1239–1252. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291709991747.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. L. Chittaro and A. Vianello. 2014. Computer-supported mindfulness: Evaluation of a mobile thought distancing application on naive meditators. Int. J. Hum.-comput. Stud. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S107158191300195X. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. C. Coelho, J. G. Tichon, T. J. Hine, and G. M. Wallis. 2006. Media presence and inner presence: The sense of presence in virtual reality technologies. In From Communication to Presence: Cognition, Emotions and CultureTtowards the Ultimate Communicative Experience. IOS Press, 25--45.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. J. S. Coke, C. D. Batson, and K. McDavis. 1978. Empathic mediation of helping: A two-stage model.J. Personal. Soc. (1978). Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/36/7/752/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. A. D. Craig. 2002. How do you feel? Interoception: The sense of the physiological condition of the body.Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 3, 8 (Aug. 2002), 655–66. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn894.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Benjamin M. P. Cuff, Sarah J. Brown, Laura Taylor, and Douglas J. Howat. 2016. Empathy: A review of the concept. Emot. Rev. 8, 2 (Apr. 2016), 144–153. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073914558466.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. B. D. Dunn, H. C. Galton, R. Morgan, D. Evans, C. Oliver, M. Meyer, R. Cusack, A. D. Lawrence, and T. Dalgleish. 2010. Listening to your heart–How interoception shapes emotion experience and intuitive decision making. Psychol. Sci. 21, 12 (2010), 1835–1844. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610389191.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Inger Ekman, Guillaume Chanel, Simo Järvelä, J. Matias Kivikangas, Mikko Salminen, and Niklas Ravaja. 2012. Social interaction in games: Measuring physiological linkage and social presence. Simul. Gam. 43, 3 (Oct. 2012), 321–338. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878111422121. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Jennifer Edson Escalas and Barbara B. Stern. 2003. Sympathy and empathy: Emotional responses to advertising dramas. J. Consum. Res. 29, 4 (Mar. 2003), 566–578. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1086/346251.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Tiffany Field and Miguel Diego. 2009. Maternal depression effects on infant frontal eeg asymmetry. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207450701769067 (2009).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Diane Gromala, Xin Tong, Amber Choo, Mehdi Karamnejad, and Chris D. Shaw. 2015. The virtual meditative walk: Virtual reality therapy for chronic pain management. In Proceedings of the 33rd ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 521–524. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702344. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Eddie Harmon-Jones. 2003. Clarifying the emotive functions of asymmetrical frontal cortical activity. Psychophysiology 40, 6 (Nov. 2003), 838–848. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-8986.00121.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. C. Harms and F. Biocca. 2004. Internal consistency and reliability of the networked minds measure of social presence measure. In Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop: Presence 2004, M. Alcaniz and B. Rey (Eds.). Retrieved from http://cogprints.org/7026/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Hinterberger and Thilo. 2011. The sensorium: A multimodal neurofeedback environment. Adv. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 3. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/724204. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Alicia J. Hofelich and Stephanie D. Preston. 2011. The meaning in empathy: Distinguishing conceptual encoding from facial mimicry, trait empathy, and attention to emotion. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2011.559192.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Stefan G. Hofmann, Paul Grossman, and Devon E. Hinton. 2011. Loving-kindness and compassion meditation: Potential for psychological interventions.Clin. Psychol. Rev. 31, 7 (Nov. 2011), 1126–32. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2011.07.003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. C. A. Hutcherson, E. M. Seppala, and J. J. Gross. 2008. Loving-kindness meditation increases social connectedness.Emotion (2008). Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/emo/8/5/720/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Joris H. Janssen. 2012. A three-component framework for empathic technologies to augment human interaction. J. Multimod. User Interf. 6, 3 (Nov. 2012), 143–161. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s12193-012-0097-5.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. N. A. Jones, T. Field, M. Davalos, and S. Hart. 2009. Greater right frontal EEG asymmetry and nonempathic behavior are observed in children prenatally exposed to cocaine. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/00207450490422786.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Simo Järvelä, Jari Kätsyri, Niklas Ravaja, Guillaume Chanel, and Pentti Henttonen. 2016. Intragroup emotions: Physiological linkage and social presence. Front. Psychol. 7 (2016). DOI:https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00105.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. W. Klimesch. 1999. EEG alpha and theta oscillations reflect cognitive and memory performance: A review and analysis. Brain Res. Rev. (1999). Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165017398000563.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. W. Klimesch, M. Doppelmayr, and H. Russegger. 1998. Induced alpha band power changes in the human EEG and attention. Neuroscience (1998). Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304394098001220.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Ilkka Kosunen, Antti Ruonala, Mikko Salminen, Simo Järvelä, Niklas Ravaja, and Giulio Jacucci. 2017. Neuroadaptive meditation in the real world. In Proceedings of the ACM Workshop on An Application-oriented Approach to BCI out of the laboratory (BCIforReal’17). ACM Press, New York, New York, 29–33. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3038439.3038443. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Ilkka Kosunen, Mikko Salminen, Simo Järvelä, Antti Ruonala, Niklas Ravaja, and Giulio Jacucci. 2016. RelaWorld: Neuroadaptive and immersive virtual reality meditation system. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI’16). ACM Press, New York, New York, 208–217. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2856767.2856796. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Joseph J. LaViola, Jr.2000. A discussion of cybersickness in virtual environments. SIGCHI Bull. 32, 1 (Jan. 2000), 47–56. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/333329.333344. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. R. W. Levenson and A. M. Ruef. 1992. Empathy: A physiological substrate.J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 63, 2 (1992), 234. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.2.234.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Antoine Lutz, Heleen A. Slagter, John D. Dunne, and Richard J. Davidson. 2008. Attention regulation and monitoring in meditation.Trends Cog. Sci. 12, 4 (Apr. 2008), 163–9. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.01.005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Marek Malik, J. Thomas Bigger, A. John Camm, Robert E. Kleiger, Alberto Malliani, Arthur J. Moss, and Peter J. Schwartz. 1996. Heart rate variability—Standards of measurement, physiological interpretation, and clinical use. Eur. Heart J. 17, 3 (Mar. 1996), 354–381. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.eurheartj.a014868.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. C. D. Marci, J. Ham, E. Moran, and S. P. Orr. 2007. Physiologic correlates of perceived therapist empathy and social-emotional process during psychotherapy. J. Nerv. 195, 2 (2007), 103--111. Retrieved from http://journals.lww.com/jonmd/Abstract/2007/02000/Physiologic_Correlates_of_Perceived_Therapist.1.aspxGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  47. M. Mori, K. F. MacDorman, and N. Kageki. 2012. The uncanny valley [from the field]. IEEE Robot. Automat. Mag. 19, 2 (June 2012), 98–100. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/MRA.2012.2192811.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. Lindsay M. Oberman, Piotr Winkielman, and Vilayanur S. Ramachandran. 2007. Face to face: Blocking facial mimicry can selectively impair recognition of emotional expressions. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/17470910701391943.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. OpenViBE Developers. 2017. OpenViBE. Retrieved from http://openvibe.inria.fr/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Richard V. Palumbo, Marisa E. Marraccini, Lisa L. Weyandt, Oliver Wilder-Smith, Heather A. McGee, Siwei Liu, and Matthew S. Goodwin. 2016. Interpersonal autonomic physiology: A systematic review of the literature. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. (Feb. 2016). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868316628405.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Mikko Salminen, Simo Järvelä, Ville Harjunen, Antti Ruonala, Giulio Jacucci, Juho Hamari, and Niklas Ravaja. [n.d.]. Evoking physiological synchrony and empathy using social VR with biofeedback. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing. DOI:10.1109/TAFFC.2019.2958657Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Corina Sas and Rohit Chopra. 2015. MeditAid: A wearable adaptive neurofeedback-based system for training mindfulness state. Person. Ubiq. Comput. 19, 7 (2015), 1169–1182. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-015-0870-z Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Martijn J. Schuemie, Peter van der Straaten, Merel Krijn, and Charles A. P. G. van der Mast. 2004. Research on presence in virtual reality: A survey. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1089/109493101300117884.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. C. D. Shaw, D. Gromala, and A. F. Seay. 2007. The meditation chamber: Enacting autonomic senses. In Proceedings of ENACTIVE/07 4th International Conference on Enactive Interfaces Grenoble, France, November 19th-22nd, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. R. Sudsuang, V. Chentanez, and K. Veluvan. 1991. Effect of Buddhist meditation on serum cortisol and total protein levels, blood pressure, pulse rate, lung volume and reaction time. Physiol. Beh. (1991). Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/003193849190543W.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. Unity Technologies. 2017. Unity3D. Retrieved from https://Unity3d.com.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. G. A. Van Kleef. 2010. The emerging view of emotion as social information. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 4, 5 (2010), 331–343.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  58. John Waterworth and Eva Lindh Waterworth. 2004. Relaxation island : A virtual tropical paradise. interactive experience. Retrieved from http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A154544&dswid=4532.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. Robert B. Welch, Theodore T. Blackmon, Andrew Liu, Barbara A. Mellers, and Lawrence W. Stark. 1996. The effects of pictorial realism, delay of visual feedback, and observer interactivity on the subjective sense of presence. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1162/PRES.1996.5.3.263. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  60. R. L. Woolfolk, L . Carr-Kaffashan, T. F. McNulty, and P. M. Lehrer. 1976. Meditation training as a treatment for insomnia. Behav. Therap. (1976). Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005789476800640.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. Xueyan Xu and Stephanie Schuckers. 2001. Automatic detection of artifacts in heart period data. J. Electrocard. 34, 4, Part B (2001), 205–210. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1054/jelc.2001.28876.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Augmented Virtual Reality Meditation: Shared Dyadic Biofeedback Increases Social Presence Via Respiratory Synchrony

      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 Social Computing
        ACM Transactions on Social Computing  Volume 4, Issue 2
        June 2021
        171 pages
        EISSN:2469-7826
        DOI:10.1145/3467472
        Issue’s Table of Contents

        Copyright © 2021 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: 21 May 2021
        • Accepted: 1 February 2021
        • Revised: 1 November 2020
        • Received: 1 February 2019
        Published in tsc Volume 4, Issue 2

        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