Within or Between? Comparing Experimental Designs for Virtual Embodiment Studies
Grégoire Richard, Thomas Pietrzak, Ferran Argelaguet, Anatole Lécuyer, Géry Casiez
Abstract
When designing virtual embodiment studies, one of the key choices is the nature of the experimental factors, either between-subjects or within-subjects. However, it is well known that each design has ad-vantages and disadvantages in terms of statistical power, sample size requirements and confounding factors. This paper reports a within-subjects experiment with 92 participants comparing self-reported embodiment scores under a visuomotor task with two conditions: synchronous motions and asynchronous motions with a latency of 300 ms. With the gathered data, using a Monte-Carlo method, we created numerous simulations of within- and between-subjects experiments by selecting subsets of the data. In particular, we explored the impact of the number of participants on the replicability of the results from the 92 within-subjects experiment. For the between-subjects simulations, only the first condition for each user was considered to create the simulations. The results showed that while the replicability of the results increased as the number of participants increased for the within-subjects simulations, no matter the number of participants, between-subjects simulations were not able to replicate the initial results. We discuss the potential reasons that could have led to this surprising result and potential methodological practices to mitigate them.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 332902ad-e719-46e4-8fb0-04ab9412f967Cited by top-tier papers4
- Statslator: Interactive Translation of NHST and Estimation Statistics Reporting Styles in Scientific DocumentsDamien Masson, Sylvain Malacria, Géry Casiez, Daniel VogelUIST 2023 · 10 citations
- Am I (Not) a Ghost? Leveraging Affordances to Study the Impact of Avatar/Interaction Coherence on Embodiment and Plausibility in Virtual RealityFlorian Dufresne, Charlotte Dubosc, Titouan Lefrou, Geoffrey Gorisse et al.IEEE VR 2025 · 5 citations
- Does Random Movements mean Random Results? Why Asynchrony in Experiments on Body Ownership does not Work as IntendedOlga Iarygina, Kasper Hornbæk, Aske MottelsonCHI 2025 · 4 citations
- Behavioral Measures of Copresence in Co-located Mixed RealityPierrick Uro, Florent Berthaut, Thomas Pietrzak, Marcelo M. WanderleyIEEE VR 2025 · 1 citation
Builds on2
- Evidence of Racial Bias Using Immersive Virtual Reality: Analysis of Head and Hand Motions During Shooting DecisionsTabitha C. Peck, Jessica J. Good, Katharina R. SeitzIEEE VR 2021 · 33 citations
- The Impact of a Self-Avatar, Hand Collocation, and Hand Proximity on Embodiment and Stroop InterferenceTabitha C. Peck, Altan TutarIEEE VR 2020 · 27 citations
Related papers
- In Case of Doubt, One Follows One's Self: The Implicit Guidance of the Embodied Self-AvatarLoën Boban, Ronan Boulic, Bruno HerbelinIEEE VR 2024 · 9 citations
- Self-Similarity Beats Motor Control in Augmented Reality Body Weight PerceptionMarie Luisa Fiedler, Mario Botsch, Carolin Wienrich, Marc Erich LatoschikIEEE VR 2025 · 1 citation
- Out of Control: Effects of Multimodal Self-similarity on Embodiment During Autonomous Avatar Demonstrations in Virtual RealitySiqi Guo, Fengze Zhang, Claudia Krogmeier, Dominic Kao et al.CHI 2026 · 1 citation
- Designing Visuo-Haptic Illusions with Proxies in Virtual Reality: Exploration of Grasp, Movement Trajectory and Object MassMartin Feick, Kora Persephone Regitz, Anthony Tang, Antonio KrügerCHI 2022 · 38 citations
- Engaging Participants during Selection Studies in Virtual RealityDifeng Yu, Qiushi Zhou, Benjamin Tag, Tilman Dingler et al.IEEE VR 2020 · 4 citations
