Exploring the Role of Distraction in Weak Flow–Performance Link Based on VR Searching Tasks

Weiying Liu; Haoxiang Hu; Chao Zhou; Yulong Bian; Juan Liu

doi:10.3390/app11135799

Exploring the Role of Distraction in Weak Flow–Performance Link Based on VR Searching Tasks

Liu, Weiying;Hu, Haoxiang;Zhou, Chao;Bian, Yulong;Liu, Juan 2021-06-22 00:00:00 applied sciences Article Exploring the Role of Distraction in Weak Flow–Performance Link Based on VR Searching Tasks Weiying Liu , Haoxiang Hu, Chao Zhou, Yulong Bian and Juan Liu * School of Mechanical, Electrical and Information Engineering, Shandong University, Weihai 264209, China; 201800800585@mail.sdu.edu.cn (W.L.); 201800800582@mail.sdu.edu.cn (H.H.); zhchaouao@gmail.com (C.Z.); bianyulong@sdu.edu.cn (Y.B.) * Correspondence: zzzliujuan@sdu.edu.cn Abstract: The weak association between ﬂow experience and task performance (also known as weak ﬂow-performance link) can reduce the positive effect of virtual reality (VR) applications. Distraction caused by incongruence between the primary task and interactive artifacts may be a direct factor leading to the weak link, but it has still not been tested. To empirically test this assumption and explore approaches to alleviate it, we developed the ‘VR searching paradigm’ and a prototype VR system, based on which three comparative experiments were conducted. Study 1 tested the effect of distraction and proved that high levels of distraction caused by incongruence can lead to the weak link ( = 0.198, p = 0.391). Next, two common design guidelines were proposed to deal with distraction. Study 2 tested the effect of reducing conspicuous but task-irrelevant distractors (guideline 1) on ﬂow-performance link. Study 3 tested the effect of providing visual cues (utilizing distractors to achieve task-oriented selective attention), which is guideline 2, on ﬂow-performance link. The results of studies 2 and 3 revealed that both guidelines helped enhance the task performance without damaging ﬂow experience, alleviating the weak link problem ( = 0.351, p = 0.031; = 0.255, p = 0.041). Our results provide the ﬁrst piece of evidence that directly proves the effect of distraction Citation: Liu, W.; Hu, H.; Zhou, C.; on weak ﬂow-performance link, which helps improve the explanation of the mechanism. Moreover, Bian, Y.; Liu, J. Exploring the Role of this paper is the ﬁrst that proves the effectiveness of two easy approaches to alleviating the weak link Distraction in Weak Flow– Performance Link Based on VR by way of guiding the user ’s task-relevant attention. Searching Tasks. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5799. https://doi.org/10.3390/ Keywords: ﬂow-performance link; virtual reality; distraction app11135799 Academic Editor: Enrico Vezzetti 1. Introduction Received: 16 May 2021 Flow experience (shortened to ‘ﬂow’) represents a highly enjoyable mental state where Accepted: 17 June 2021 an individual is fully immersed and engaged in the process of an activity [1–4]. It is seen Published: 22 June 2021 as a key component of high-quality user experience in virtual reality (VR) activities due to its contribution to the enhancement of task performance. However, the link between Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral ﬂow and task performance was found to be weak in studies conducted in many virtual with regard to jurisdictional claims in environments, showing a weak ﬂow-performance link [2,5,6]. Bian deﬁned it as weak published maps and institutional afﬁl- association at ﬁrst [2] and renamed it weak ﬂow-performance link in a follow-up paper [7]. iations. If the enhancement of user experience cannot directly promote performance effectively, pursuing a good experience would be less meaningful and may even be counter-productive, especially for learning, training, and education [2]. In a previous study, the weak association model (WAM) was proposed to explain the Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. mechanism of weak ﬂow-performance link in virtual environment (VE) [2]. It reveals that Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. the reason leading to the weak link was the disjunction/incongruence between the primary This article is an open access article task and interactive artifacts. It further points out the disjunction/incongruence caused by distributed under the terms and disjointed features distracts the user ’s attention and interest away from the primary task, conditions of the Creative Commons which might be a direct cause of the weak link. However, it has not been tested directly. Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// Games of different genres were used to test the WAM in previous studies [2]. Although creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ diversity of genres can help prove the generalization of the theoretical model in different 4.0/). Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5799. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11135799 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5799 2 of 18 types of VEs, it might lead to extra variables that are difﬁcult to control and may play a role in the results. Therefore, to clarify the mechanism of weak ﬂow-performance link, the VE genre should be controlled. To solve this problem, a VR task paradigm needs to be developed to enhance the comparability of different conclusions on a broad scale. In this paper, we further validate the WAM, and clarify the reason for weak ﬂow- performance link hidden in poor VR design. Moreover, it develops effective approaches to alleviating this problem by guiding attention/distraction in VR activities. Our work provides methodological improvements to exploring ﬂow-performance link. Moreover, it helps to clarify some UE problems and has practical signiﬁcance for promoting optimal VR design. Overall, this paper makes the following contributions: 1. This paper improves the ‘VR searching paradigm’ and develops an experimental VR system, which is the ﬁrst paradigm and experimental prototype system to specially explore ﬂow-performance link in VR. 2. This paper provides the ﬁrst empirical evidence directly proving the effect of dis- traction in weak ﬂow-performance link, i.e., distraction caused by disjunction is an antecedent, which helps improve the explanation of underlying mechanism of weak link. 3. This paper is the ﬁrst to provide design guidelines with a view to guiding task-relevant attention and prove its effectiveness at alleviating the weak ﬂow-performance link and optimizing the VR design. 2. Related Work 2.1. What Is Weak Flow-Performance Link? Although many authors argue for a positive association or even a causal relation between ﬂow and performance, the empirical evidence documenting such an association is meager. For instance, in some previous studies, the inﬂuence of ﬂow on performance in playing computer games was not found after controlling different playing modes [2,8–10]. Engeser and Rheinberg [5] conducted a study in which participants played a computer game at different degrees of difﬁculty. When controlling for the baseline performance, they found that even at an appropriate level of difﬁculty, ﬂow experience only explained a small amount of the variance in performance, and this effect was only marginally signiﬁcant. To our knowledge, there is not a single methodologically adequate study available in the literature documenting the causal effect of ﬂow experience on (subsequent) performance. In two previous studies, Bian et al. [2,7] paid attention to the weak ﬂow-performance link in their recent work and veriﬁed the universality of it. In their study, the weak ﬂow- performance link was found in different activities in a VE, such as virtual Tai Chi learning, VR shooting game, and VR tennis game. Moreover, they discussed the possible causes of the weak ﬂow-performance link in these virtual activities and examined them. Finally, they established the WAM. 2.2. Explanation of the WAM The WAM attempted to explain the reasons for the weak ﬂow-performance link in VEs [2]. Based on the model, ﬂow can be produced in two ways: performing the primary task, and manipulating artifacts. Only the ﬂow produced from performing the primary task can directly improve the task performance, ﬂow from the latter only inﬂuences experience but not performance. Many VEs have disjointed features (i.e., the use of interactive artifacts is incongruent with the primary task). In these VEs, ﬂow might not be produced from performing the primary task (black arrows in Figure 1) but from using interactive artifacts (white arrows in Figure 1). In this case, there may be a strong link between ﬂow and experience, but the ﬂow-performance link will be weak [2]. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5799 3 of 18 Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5799 3 of 18 Figure 1. The weak association model (WAM) developed from [2]. Figure 1. The weak association model (WAM) developed from [2]. It reveals that the incongruence between interactive artifacts and the primary task may It reveals that the incongruence between interactive artifacts and the primary task be the reason for weak ﬂow-performance link. Attention may play the role of an important may be the reason for weak flow-performance link. Attention may play the role of an im- mediator. Irrelevant artifacts may distract users’ attention and interest from the primary portant mediator. Irrelevant artifacts may distract users’ attention and interest from the task [2]. Therefore, the distraction caused by disjointed features may be a direct cause of primary task [2]. Therefore, the distraction caused by disjointed features may be a direct weak ﬂow-performance link in VEs. cause of weak flow-performance link in VEs. 2.3. Distraction and Selective Attention 2.3. Distraction and Selective Attention To pursue the mechanism of weak ﬂow-performance link, we argue that it is essential to draw To upon pursue the thstudy e mech of andistraction ism of weak and flow selective -performa attention. nce link, Selective we argue attention that it is esse cannbe tial to draw upon the study of distraction and selective attention. Selective attention can be broadly deﬁned as the ability to facilitate the processing of one source of environmental information broadly defwhile ined aattenuating s the abilitythe to fpr aci ocessing litate the ofpr others ocessi[n 11 g ]. of one source of envi ronmental infoAccor rmatio ding n wh to illimited e attenua resour ting th cee theory proce ,ss people ing ofhave other as [ limited 11]. capacity system to process visual information. Therefore, an act of selection must occur at some point, after which According to limited resource theory, people have a limited capacity system to pro- only some of the available information can be processed further [12]. cess visual information. Therefore, an act of selection must occur at some point, after There is load in cognitive processing. The LT indicates that the perceptual load which only some of the available information can be processed further [12]. inﬂuences selective attention. The LT framework is well rooted in traditional cognitive There is load in cognitive processing. The LT indicates that the perceptual load influ- models of dual-task information processing, demonstrating behavioral costs when attention ences selective attention. The LT framework is well rooted in traditional cognitive models is divided among relevant stimuli [12–14]. LT is an extension of these ideas into the realm of dual-task information processing, demonstrating behavioral costs when attention is di- of task-irrelevant information processing. vided among relevant stimuli [12–14]. LT is an extension of these ideas into the realm of Usually, there is some physical distinctiveness between the task-relevant and task- task-irrelevant information processing. irrelevant information (e.g., spatial location, color). In the design of ideal tasks, the Usually, there is some physical distinctiveness between the task-relevant and task- allocation of perceptual processing capacity should ﬁrst prioritize task-relevant infor- irrelevant information (e.g., spatial location, color). In the design of ideal tasks, the alloca- mation and then, if capacity remains, task-irrelevant information. In other words, the tion of perceptual processing capacity should first prioritize task-relevant information and allocation of perceptual resources should occur ﬁrst to relevant information and then to then, if capacity remains, task-irrelevant information. In other words, the allocation of irrelevant information. perceptual resources should occur first to relevant information and then to irrelevant in- However, in practice, task-irrelevant information is often allocated much attention formation. in the experimental environment. Distractions in activities are common and often un- However, in practice, task-irrelevant information is often allocated much attention in avoidable [15,16]. For example, in some VR activities, rich virtual scenes often have some the experimental environment. Distractions in activities are common and often unavoid- task-irrelevant visual information. Interactive artifacts provide distracting notiﬁcations able [15,16]. For example, in some VR activities, rich virtual scenes often have some task- while users are performing the primary tasks, competing for the user ’s attention. Irrele- irrelevant visual information. Interactive artifacts provide distracting notifications while vant parts of them (distractors) can be distracting because users have limited cognitive users are performing the primary tasks, competing for the user’s attention. Irrelevant parts resources to allocate to the primary tasks. It results in a reduction in task performance [17]. of them (distractors) can be distracting because users have limited cognitive resources to Therefore, features of disjunction in VEs may lead to distraction, and then weaken the allocate to the primary tasks. It results in a reduction in task performance [17]. Therefore, ﬂow-performance link [2]. However, this viewpoint has not been directly veriﬁed. features of disjunction in VEs may lead to distraction, and then weaken the flow-perfor- To test this viewpoint, we ﬁrst put forward a VR task paradigm to avoid potential mance link [2]. However, this viewpoint has not been directly verified. interference of different task genres in studying weak ﬂow-performance link. To test this viewpoint, we first put forward a VR task paradigm to avoid potential interference of different task genres in studying weak flow-performance link. 3. A VR Task Paradigm for Flow Study In ﬂow studies, experimental manipulations for inducing ﬂow are essentially based 3. A VR Task Paradigm for Flow Study on a variation of the difﬁculty levels of the respective task. The difﬁculty should be ei- In flow studies, experimental manipulations for inducing flow are essentially based ther experienced as too low, too high, or as largely compatible with the individual’s skill on a variation of the difficulty levels of the respective task. The difficulty should be either level [18]. According to this general logic, several previous paradigms were proposed by experienced as too low, too high, or as largely compatible with the individual’s skill level using different types of tasks (i.e., in the math, chess, knowledge quiz, and mental arith- [18]. According to this general logic, several previous paradigms were proposed by using metic paradigms). Flow studies in VEs also induce ﬂow through manipulating difﬁculty different types of tasks (i.e., in the math, chess, knowledge quiz, and mental arithmetic levels of various tasks [19], but there is no relatively ﬁxed task paradigm. There may be paradigms). Flow studies in VEs also induce flow through manipulating difficulty levels two existing problems: Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5799 4 of 18 Level of task difﬁculty is hard to design properly. It should be noted that the speciﬁc operationalization used to vary the difﬁculty levels of the task affects the quality of ﬂow experience during task engagement. Therefore, it is crucial to take into consideration that participants may frequently experience “interruption from ﬂow”, “give up”, or not engage in the task any more after some experiences of failure. The ideal overload experience should reﬂect a continued struggle instead of a sudden change. Although some ﬂow task paradigms have attempted to solve this problem, it still exists (e.g., in the mental arithmetic algorithm, although the algorithm is designed in a way that the difﬁculty level decreases—to a still relatively appropriate level—after a certain number of failures, the individual has experienced these failures and interrupted the ﬂow state). Existing task paradigms are not applicable to study the problem of weak ﬂow- performance link, especially the role of distraction. One reason is that the existing ﬂow task paradigms often avoid the emergence of distraction and therefore do not include the manipulation of distractors. Another reason is that some existing classic paradigms (e.g., in the math, chess, knowledge quizzes, and mental arithmetic paradigms) are not suitable for ﬂow studies in VR activities, and there is still no paradigm sophisticated enough for a VR task. To address these problems, a VR task paradigm for ﬂow study is proposed in this paper. This paradigm should: (1) ensure the overload experience to reﬂect a continued struggle (only in this way can a continuous and ﬂuent ﬂow experience be induced) and (2) be able to manipulate distraction. Inspired by past studies [20,21], we proposed a novel task paradigm that is called the VR searching paradigm. The task paradigm is applicable to VR activities, and especially suitable for ﬂow studies in the VEs. The principle of this paradigm is given as follows: This paradigm is based on the LT and limited resource theory. In the VEs, a primary task with stable challenge level should run throughout the whole process consistently. The primary task here is a visual search and collection task when navigating in VR. Using this task, the difﬁculty is steady and easily matches the individual’s skill level, i.e., if the skill level is high, they will ﬁnd the targets faster, if the skill level is low, they will ﬁnd the targets slower. Therefore, it guarantees the task challenge’s good adaptivity to individuals’ skill during the entire task, and it is universal for people with different levels, unlike the abovementioned paradigms that require individuals to have a certain background of knowledge. When performing the primary task, there are potential distractors that may distract the user ’s attention and interest (see Figure 2). According to the manipulation of distractors (such as manipulating the type, fun, intensity, or number of the distractors), different levels of attention allocation will be induced, and this may lead to different levels of attention when performing the primary task. The more distractors there are, or the more attractive/disruptive they are, the more attention may be transferred, thus the ﬂow from performing the primary task will decrease. By comparison, the less distractors there are, or the less attractive/disruptive they are, the less attention will be transferred, and then the ﬂow from performing the primary task will increase. It should be noted that the distractors here are different from interruptions. Distractors do not suddenly intrude or appear in a VR scene to interrupt the process of engaging in the primary task, but constantly exist in the scene due to poor design. The task paradigms can help the ﬂow study, especially in exploring the role of distraction in weak ﬂow-performance link. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5799 5 of 18 Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5799 5 of 18 Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5799 5 of 18 Figure 2. A task paradigm based on a VR searching task. Figure Ne 2.x A t, ta a s VR k pa ta ra sd k sy igmst bem i aseds d onev a VR elo pe sead r ca hcc ino grd tas in k.g to this task paradigm. Figure 2. A task paradigm based on a VR searching task. Next, a VR task system is developed according to this task paradigm. 4. Construction of Testing System Next, a VR task system is developed according to this task paradigm. We developed a VR system according to one of Bian’s previous studies [7], and de- 4. Construction of Testing System 4. Construction of Testing System signed the primary task and distractors according to the proposed “VR searching para- We developed a VR system according to one of Bian’s previous studies [7], and de- digm W” e. developed a VR system according to one of Bian’s previous studies [7], and de- signed signed the thprimary e primary task tas and k an distractors d distracto accor rs acc ding ordto inthe g topr th oposed e propo “VR sedsear “VR ching searc paradigm”. hing para- d 4.i1 gm . Sto ”. ryline Design 4.1. Storyline Design A VR underwater-treasure-hunting system is constructed for our experiments. To 4.1. Storyline Design A VR underwater-treasure-hunting system is constructed for our experiments. To make it easy for the user to be involved in the VE and the task, we designed a storyline make it easy for the user to be involved in the VE and the task, we designed a storyline [4]. A VR underwater-treasure-hunting system is constructed for our experiments. To [4]. At the beginning of the task, the user falls into a mysterious area under the sea (see make it easy for the user to be involved in the VE and the task, we designed a storyline At the beginning of the task, the user falls into a mysterious area under the sea (see Figure 3). The user is “cursed”, and then turned into a king crab (using avatars helps to [4]. Figure 3). The user is “cursed”, and then turned into a king crab (using avatars helps to enhance immersion, and the degree of immersion increases the body ownership, agency, At the beginning of the task, the user falls into a mysterious area under the sea (see enhance immersion, and the degree of immersion increases the body ownership, agency, as well as the feeling of presence [22]). There are eight treasure chests scattered on an Figure 3). The user is “cursed”, and then turned into a king crab (using avatars helps to as well as the feeling of presence [22]). There are eight treasure chests scattered on an underwater mountain with many curves and slopes. After ﬁnding all the treasure chests enhance immersion, and the degree of immersion increases the body ownership, agency, underwater mountain with many curves and slopes. After finding all the treasure chests successfully within 4 min, the user can escape from the sea and become human again. as well as the feeling of presence [22]). There are eight treasure chests scattered on an successfully within 4 min, the user can escape from the sea and become human again. Otherwise, they will “be a crab forever” and it is “game over”. underwater mountain with many curves and slopes. After finding all the treasure chests Otherwise, they will “be a crab forever” and it is “game over”. successfully within 4 min, the user can escape from the sea and become human again. Otherwise, they will “be a crab forever” and it is “game over”. Figure Figure 3. 3The . Thuser e user plays play as s a asking a kin crab g crin abthe in tVR he VR treasur treaesur hunting e huntsystem ing syst (fr em (fr om the om thir the d tperson hird per view). son view). Figure 3. The user plays as a king crab in the VR treasure hunting system (from the third person view). Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5799 6 of 18 4.2. Natural Interaction Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5799 6 of 18 Our study mainly refers to the role of visual distraction. To avoid unnecessary dis- tractions due to poor interactions, we adopted a first-person perspective and embodied interaction design. 4.2. Natural Interaction To improve the sense of presence, the user navigates in the VE using the first-person Our study mainly refers to the role of visual distraction. To avoid unnecessary dis- Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5799 6 of 18 tractions due to poor interactions, we adopted a ﬁrst-person perspective and embodied view. A near to real underwater exploration experience is simulated with an HTC vive: interaction design. (1) The controllers were embodied into a pair of virtual crab claws in the VE. (2) user’s To improve the sense of presence, the user navigates in the VE using the ﬁrst-person 4.2. Natural Interaction angle of view was controlled by adjusting the head movement and orientation. By simply view. A near to real underwater exploration experience is simulated with an HTC vive: (1) The controllers were embodied into a pair of virtual crab claws in the VE. (2) user ’s Our study mainly refers to the role of visual distraction. To avoid unnecessary dis- using a swivel chair (just for rotation, not actual movement), users can move like a real angle of view was controlled by adjusting the head movement and orientation. By simply tractions due to poor interactions, we adopted a first-person perspective and embodied crab to control the orientation in the VE (Figure 4). (3) In addition, the user can control the using a swivel chair (just for rotation, not actual movement), users can move like a real interaction design. movements and open the treasure chests by using the handle. (4) The player can interact crab to control the orientation in the VE (Figure 4). (3) In addition, the user can control the To improve the sense of presence, the user navigates in the VE using the first-person movements and open the treasure chests by using the handle. (4) The player can interact v wi iew. th A o n th eaer r to m rea ari l un ne der cr wa ea ter ture expl s. ora By tiob nl ex owi peri n ence g o ut is sia m v ulia rtua ted wi l wa th ater n HT co C lv um ive:n , the user can drive with other marine creatures. By blowing out a virtual water column, the user can drive (1) The controllers were embodied into a pair of virtual crab claws in the VE. (2) user’s marine creatures away (Figure 5). (5) The feeling of water resistance under the water is marine creatures away (Figure 5). (5) The feeling of water resistance under the water is angle of view was controlled by adjusting the head movement and orientation. By simply simulated by using a visual motion delay effect [23]. simulated by using a visual motion delay effect [23]. using a swivel chair (just for rotation, not actual movement), users can move like a real crab to control the orientation in the VE (Figure 4). (3) In addition, the user can control the movements and open the treasure chests by using the handle. (4) The player can interact with other marine creatures. By blowing out a virtual water column, the user can drive marine creatures away (Figure 5). (5) The feeling of water resistance under the water is simulated by using a visual motion delay effect [23]. Figure 4. The equipment of our VR testing system. Figure 4. The equipment of our VR testing system. Figure 4. The equipment of our VR testing system. Figure Figure 5. 5. I If f ther there e is is a a marine marine cr creatur eature e in inthe the way way( left (left ),),the the player player can can drive drive the the marine marincr e c eatur reature e away awaby y bblowing y blowin out g ou atjet a jof et water of wat(er right (righ ). t). These interaction designs are integrated with an immersive VE, and they will even- tually make the user feel like exploring the virtual world with their own body [24], which Figure 5. If there is a marine creature in the way (left), the player can drive the marine creature away by blowing out a jet can provide a good, embodied interaction experience. of water (right). 4.3. Practice Scenarios These interaction designs are integrated with an immersive VE, and they will even- A training scenario was developed for the user to practice the necessary operations tually make the user feel like exploring the virtual world with their own body [24], which in advance. The system gives instruction to the user as “Your new body has some new can provide a good, embodied interaction experience. 4.3. Practice Scenarios A training scenario was developed for the user to practice the necessary operations in advance. The system gives instruction to the user as “Your new body has some new Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5799 7 of 18 These interaction designs are integrated with an immersive VE, and they will eventu- ally make the user feel like exploring the virtual world with their own body [24], which can provide a good, embodied interaction experience. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5799 7 of 18 4.3. Practice Scenarios A training scenario was developed for the user to practice the necessary operations in advance. The system gives instruction to the user as “Your new body has some new abilities, so get used to it”. Then, the user follows visual and auditory instructions to prac- abilities, so get used to it”. Then, the user follows visual and auditory instructions to tice. After practice, the system says, “Now that you’re familiar with your new body, practice. After practice, the system says, “Now that you’re familiar with your new body, there’s going to be a formal task”. there’s going to be a formal task”. 4.4. Formal Scenario: Primary Task and Distractors 4.4. Formal Scenario: Primary Task and Distractors The The f formal ormal scena scenario rio iis s a a m mysterious ysterious sea sea a ar re ea a wi with th va various rious ki kinds nds o of f m marine arine cr crea eatur ture es. s. The The pr primary imary t task ask a and nd d distractors istractors were were d designed esigned a accor ccord ding ing to to th the e VR VR sea sear rc ching hing pa paradigm radigm to investigate the player ’s response. to investigate the player’s response. The primary task is to ﬁnd eight targets (i.e., treasure chests) as soon as possible within The primary task is to find eight targets (i.e., treasure chests) as soon as possible wi the thlimited in the litime mited (Figur time e(Fi 6a). gure Distractors 6a). Distra in cto this rs in VE thar is e VE various are vasea rious creatur sea cr es earandomly tures ran- navigating in the virtual scene (Figure 6b). Although the player can interact with them, domly navigating in the virtual scene (Figure 6b). Although the player can interact with they do not play a role in the primary task (incongruence), thus may attract the user, and them, they do not play a role in the primary task (incongruence), thus may attract the user, then interfere with his/her attention on the task. Based on this VR system, we conducted and then interfere with his/her attention on the task. Based on this VR system, we con- three empirical studies in the following sections. ducted three empirical studies in the following sections. Figure 6. The primary task is to find treasure chests (a); some examples of distractors are shown in (b). Figure 6. The primary task is to ﬁnd treasure chests (a); some examples of distractors are shown in (b). 5. Empirical Study 1: Testing the Role of Distraction in Weak Flow-Performance Link 5. Empirical Study 1: Testing the Role of Distraction in Weak Flow-Performance Link Based on the analysis above on WAM and distraction in Section 2, the ﬁrst question Based on the analysis above on WAM and distraction in Section 2, the first question we need to verify is the assertion of WAM. The core assertion is that distraction caused by we need to verify is the assertion of WAM. The core assertion is that distraction caused by disjointed features maybe a reason of weak ﬂow-performance link, which is the Hypothesis disjointed features maybe a reason of weak flow-performance link, which is the hypothe- (H1) in this study. sis (H1) in this study. Hypothesis 1 (H1). In VEs where the artifacts are disjointed with the primary task, distraction Hypothesis 1 (H1). In VEs where the artifacts are disjointed with the primary task, distraction caused by disjointed features is a direct antecedent of weak ﬂow-performance link. caused by disjointed features is a direct antecedent of weak flow-performance link. 5.1. Design 5.1. Design A within-subjects quasi-experimental design was adopted to test the hypothesis. It A within-subjects quasi-experimental design was adopted to test the hypothesis. It is is commonly used in situations occurring in natural settings where full experimental commonly used in situations occurring in natural settings where full experimental control control is lacking, allowing the researcher to introduce something like true experiment is lacking, allowing the researcher to introduce something like true experiment design. design. With this design, both a control group and an experimental group is compared, With this design, both a control group and an experimental group is compared, however, however, the groups are chosen and assigned out of convenience rather than through the groups are chosen and assigned out of convenience rather than through randomiza- randomization [25]. Participants were asked to perform a speciﬁc task, and the frequency tion [25]. Participants were asked to perform a specific task, and the frequency of dis- of distracted interaction during the task was recorded as an independent variable. Two tracted interaction during the task was recorded as an independent variable. Two levels levels of distracted interaction would be distinguished: high level and low level. The of distracted interaction would be distinguished: high level and low level. The operational operational deﬁnition of high level (of distracted interaction) in this study is “having definition of high level (of distracted interaction) in this study is “having more interactions (about the top thirty percent) with irrelevant marine creatures while performing the pri- mary task”. It reflects a strong tendency to shift attention away from the primary task. The low level (of distracted interaction) is operationally defined as “having little interaction (about bottom thirty percent) with irrelevant marine creatures during the primary task”. It reflects a weak tendency to shift attention away from the primary task. This method of dividing high-level and low-level groups is commonly used in psychological experiments. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5799 8 of 18 more interactions (about the top thirty percent) with irrelevant marine creatures while performing the primary task”. It reﬂects a strong tendency to shift attention away from the primary task. The low level (of distracted interaction) is operationally deﬁned as “having little interaction (about bottom thirty percent) with irrelevant marine creatures during the primary task”. It reﬂects a weak tendency to shift attention away from the primary task. This method of dividing high-level and low-level groups is commonly used in psychological experiments. The dependent variable is the ﬂow-performance link. Considering that the participants’ existing familiarity with VR and visual discomfort during the task may affect ﬂow experience and concentration, they were controlled as extra variables. 5.2. Participants In this study, we recruited 32 volunteers (15 males and 17 females) to participate in the study. The age ranged from 14 to 34 years old (M = 24.75 years, SD = 6.49 years). 5.3. Environment and Procedure After practice, all participants performing the task two times (we designed two parallel tasks by changing the location of treasure chests) according to their own intention. When ﬁnished, the participant immediately completed an online questionnaire. 5.4. Measures Flow Experience. The ﬂow of participants during the task was measured with Flow Short-Scale. The scale has been proven to be an effective instrument to measure ﬂow in VR activities [19,26]. The participants answered these items on a seven-point Likert scale from 1 (I don’t agree) to 7 (I agree). The reliability of the scale was good in this study. Task Performance. The task performance of participants was measured by the number of treasure chests found during the task. Most participants could not ﬁnd all eight chests in 4 min, thus there was no ceiling effect. Distraction. Distraction was evaluated with the frequency of distracted interaction, which is the time spent shooting irrelevant marine creatures during the primary task. This indicator is not extremely sensitive and so does not reﬂect the state of distraction, but it can be used as an external indicator of distraction. The data were recorded in the system. Visual Comfort The Visual Comfort Questionnaire was used to assess the participants’ visual comfort during the task. The questionnaire was developed by Zhou et al. [27] from referencing Lambooij et al.’s questionnaire [28]. The questionnaire evaluates the overall visual experi- ence in VR activities from four aspects: 3D experience, naturalness, viewing experience in interaction (including three indicators: comfort in stability, ﬂuency and viewpoint), image quality, and avoidance of discomfort (including two indicators: avoidance of dizziness and avoidance of fatigue). The participants answered these items on a scale with the adjectives [bad]-[poor]-[fair]-[good]-[excellent]. 5.5. Results A total of 64 valid data were collected. We ﬁrstly performed a pre-test to ensure that the weak ﬂow-performance link occurred in our constructed VR environment. According to Bian et al. [2,7], the weak link was tested with the regression analysis. A signiﬁcant prediction from ﬂow to performance means strong ﬂow-performance link, while an in- signiﬁcant prediction from ﬂow to performance means weak ﬂow-performance link. Then, correlation analysis and regression analysis were performed. Results showed that the correlation between ﬂow (M = 61.13, SD = 7.94) and task performance (M = 4.45, SD = 1.59) was low and the prediction from ﬂow to performance was marginally signiﬁcant ( = 0.215, p = 0.086). These results showed that the designed distractors could be used as disjointed features to induce weak association to some extent. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5799 9 of 18 Next, to examine the role of distraction in weak link, 44 data (half in high distraction condition, half in low distraction condition) were ﬁnally selected for analysis according to the operational deﬁnition of high distraction and low distraction. The visual comfort and familiarity with VR during the task were measured, and there was no difference between the two groups (ps > 0.05). After performing correlation analysis and regression analysis, results showed that there was no signiﬁcant correlation between ﬂow and task performance in high distraction condition, and ﬂow did not signiﬁcantly predict task performance ( = 0.198, p = 0.391). In comparison, data from low distraction condition showed that there was signiﬁcant corre- lation between ﬂow and performance, and ﬂow signiﬁcantly predicted task performance ( = 0.437, p = 0.042). These results support H1 and demonstrate that in VEs where the artifacts are disjointed with the primary task, distraction level caused by disjointed features is a direct antecedent of weak ﬂow-performance link. When obvious distractions occur, this problem will arise. If the results of this study support that distraction is an antecedent of weak ﬂow- performance link, how can we alleviate this problem by dealing with distractions? WAM suggested a basic design guideline [2], which is to improve the congruence between interactive artifacts and primary tasks (or reduce the disjointed features on the other side). Based on the basic guideline, two more speciﬁc design guidelines can be proposed to deal with distractions in VR activities: (1) Reducing conspicuous but irrelevant distractors directly; (2) Increasing the congruence between distractors and primary task by guiding attention. As to the latter, we got inspiration to utilize visual cues to guiding attention from some previous work. Grogorick et al. proposed an adaptation of different existing gaze guidance stimuli to immersive environments and investigated the efﬁciency of ﬁve different gaze guidance techniques [29]. In augmented reality-based assistance system, guiding attention towards the relevant targets will reduce the time needed for visual search and reduce errors, based on the several attention-guiding techniques developed in [30]. We think it is a constructive way to guide attention and transfer distracted behavioral consequences to task-relevant cues through appropriate visual or interaction design. The effectiveness of the two guidelines was tested in the following studies 2 and 3. 6. Empirical Study 2: Effect of Reducing Distractors on the Weak Flow-Performance Link The purpose of this study is to test the effectiveness of guideline 1. According to this guideline, we proposed Hypothesis 2 (H2). Hypothesis 2 (H2). Reducing task-irrelevant distractors can help alleviate the problem of weak ﬂow-performance link. 6.1. Experimental Design We adopted a single factor between-subject design with distractor conditions (reducing distractors/control condition) as the independent variable. Using between-subject design can control the potential learning effect/ordering effect. Dependent variables are ﬂow, task performance and the ﬂow-performance link. The visual discomfort and familiarity with VR game were still controlled as extra variables. 6.2. Participants A total of 38 volunteers (17 males and 21 females) were recruited to participate in the study. The age of the sample ranged from 14 to 31 years old (M = 22.93 years, SD = 3.02 years). Participants were randomly divided into two equal groups, one group was assigned to the condition of reducing distractors, and the other group was assigned to the control condition. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5799 10 of 18 6.3. Environment In contrast to study 1, two versions (version 0 and 1) of the VR system were developed in this study to test H2. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5799 10 of 18 Version 0 is the control condition. It is the same VR system (with distractors) as that in study 1 (Figure 7a). Figure 7. Differences between version 0 (a) and version 1 (b) on distractors. (a): Many kinds of marine creatures navigating Figure 7. Differences between version 0 (a) and version 1 (b) on distractors. (a): Many kinds of marine creatures navigating in the scene as distractors. (b): Very few distractors appear. in the scene as distractors. (b): Very few distractors appear. Version 1 is developed based on design guideline 1. Speciﬁcally, we remove the Version 1 is developed based on design guideline 1. Specifically, we remove the con- conspicuous marine creatures that wander around in the virtual scene (see Figure 7b). spicuous marine creatures that wander around in the virtual scene (see Figure 7b). Since Since there is no change in the primary task, it will not affect the difﬁculty of the task. there is no change in the primary task, it will not affect the difficulty of the task. 6.4. Procedure 6.4. Procedure Before the study, we ﬁrst explained the VR tasks to the participants in advance. After that, each participant played one of the two versions. When they ﬁnished (or the time is Before the study, we first explained the VR tasks to the participants in advance. After out), task performance was recorded by the system. Then, the participant immediately that, each participant played one of the two versions. When they finished (or the time is completed a questionnaire. out), task performance was recorded by the system. Then, the participant immediately completed a questionnaire. 6.5. Measures The measures of ﬂow, performance, and visual comfort were the same as study 1. 6.5. Measures 6.6. Results The measures of flow, performance, and visual comfort were the same as study 1. We ﬁrstly conducted two independent-sample t tests to investigate the difference in visual comfort and familiarity with VR between the two versions. Results showed that 6.6. Results there was no signiﬁcant difference (ps > 0.05). Thus, these extra variables were controlled We firstly conducted two independent-sample T tests to investigate the difference in without affecting the subsequent analysis. visual comfort and familiarity with VR between the two versions. Results showed that Additional independent-sample t tests were performed to investigate the difference there was no significant difference (ps > 0.05). Thus, these extra variables were controlled in ﬂow and performance between the two conditions. Results showed that there was a without affecting the subsequent analysis. signiﬁcant difference in ﬂow [t (37) = 2.906, p = 0.005], and participants in version 0 had higher Addi ﬂow tiona than l ind those epende in version nt-sampl 1 (Figur e T tests e 8 a). were The pe dif rffo er rme ence d in totask investi performance gate the dwas ifference also signiﬁcant [t (37) = 5.302, p < 0.001]. Contrary to the results of ﬂow, participants in in flow and performance between the two conditions. Results showed that there was a version 1 achieved better task performance than those in version 0 (Figure 8b). significant difference in flow [t (37) = 2.906, p = 0.005], and participants in version 0 had Correlation analysis and regression analysis were conducted un-der each condition. higher flow than those in version 1 (Figure 8a). The difference in task performance was Results showed that the correlation between ﬂow and performance was not signiﬁcant in also significant [t (37) = 5.302, p < 0.001]. Contrary to the results of flow, participants in high distraction conditions, and ﬂow did not signiﬁcantly predict performance ( = 0.110, version 1 achieved better task performance than those in version 0 (Figure 8b). p = 0.509). In comparison, data from low distraction condition showed that the correlation between ﬂow and performance was signiﬁcant, and ﬂow signiﬁcantly and positively predicted task performance ( = 0.351, p = 0.031). Figure 8. Differences between the effects of these two versions on flow (a), and task performance (b). In (a), flow in version 1 is significantly lower than version 0. In (b), performance in version 1 is significantly better than version 0 (p < 0.01). ** means p < 0.01; *** means p < 0.001. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5799 10 of 18 Figure 7. Differences between version 0 (a) and version 1 (b) on distractors. (a): Many kinds of marine creatures navigating in the scene as distractors. (b): Very few distractors appear. Version 1 is developed based on design guideline 1. Specifically, we remove the con- spicuous marine creatures that wander around in the virtual scene (see Figure 7b). Since there is no change in the primary task, it will not affect the difficulty of the task. 6.4. Procedure Before the study, we first explained the VR tasks to the participants in advance. After that, each participant played one of the two versions. When they finished (or the time is out), task performance was recorded by the system. Then, the participant immediately completed a questionnaire. 6.5. Measures The measures of flow, performance, and visual comfort were the same as study 1. 6.6. Results We firstly conducted two independent-sample T tests to investigate the difference in visual comfort and familiarity with VR between the two versions. Results showed that there was no significant difference (ps > 0.05). Thus, these extra variables were controlled without affecting the subsequent analysis. Additional independent-sample T tests were performed to investigate the difference in flow and performance between the two conditions. Results showed that there was a significant difference in flow [t (37) = 2.906, p = 0.005], and participants in version 0 had higher flow than those in version 1 (Figure 8a). The difference in task performance was Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5799 11 of 18 also significant [t (37) = 5.302, p < 0.001]. Contrary to the results of flow, participants in version 1 achieved better task performance than those in version 0 (Figure 8b). Figure 8. Differences between the effects of these two versions on ﬂow (a), and task performance Figure 8. Differences between the effects of these two versions on flow (a), and task performance (b). In (a), ﬂow in version 1 is signiﬁcantly lower than version 0. In (b), performance in version 1 is (b). In (a), flow in version 1 is significantly lower than version 0. In (b), performance in version 1 is signiﬁcantly better than version 0 (p < 0.01). ** means p < 0.01; *** means p < 0.001. significantly better than version 0 (p < 0.01). ** means p < 0.01; *** means p < 0.001. The results showed that reducing conspicuous distractors not only strengthened the ﬂow-performance link but also improved the task performance. However, this approach impaired the quality of ﬂow experience to some extent. It meant that although distractions reduced task performance, they helped achieve better experience during the task. Anyway, these results supported H2, suggesting that guideline 1 was an effective way to alleviate the weak link. Next, experiment 3 tested the effectiveness of guideline 2. 7. Empirical Study 3: Effect of a Congruence Design Approach on the Weak Flow-Performance Link The purpose of this study is to test the effectiveness of guideline 2. According to this guideline, we proposed Hypothesis 3 (H3). Hypothesis 3 (H3). Promoting the congruence of distractors and primary task can help alleviate the problem of weak ﬂow-performance link. 7.1. Design We conducted another comparative experiment. In contrast to study 2, we adopted a within-subject design with the congruence conditions (congruent/control condition) as the independent variable. Dependent variables are the same as study 2. The reason for changing the study design is as follows: although we try to control individual differences (such as familiarity with VR game and visual comfort), there might be others that may affect the results. Within-subject design can avoid the problem. However, it brings the risk of rising learning effect or order effect. To avoid this effect, the positions of the treasure chests are different in the two conditions without changing the task difﬁculty (the perceived difﬁculty was controlled as an extra variable). Moreover, we counterbalanced the order of experiencing the two conditions. 7.2. Participants A total of 65 volunteers (35 males and 30 females) were recruited to participate in the study. The age of the sample ranged from 14 to 45 years old (M = 23.05, SD = 5.11). 7.3. Environment We set two versions (version 0 and 2) in this study to test H3. Version 0 is the control condition. It is the same VR system (with distractors) as that in study 1 (Figure 7a). Version 2 is a VR system developed according to a design guideline. In this version, the number of distractors were not reduced. To improve the congruence between distracted interactions and the primary task, visual cues were designed to utilize Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5799 12 of 18 distractors to provide attention guidance [31], and then achieve more task-oriented selective attention. When the participants actively attack task-irrelevant creatures due to distraction, different from version 0, the attacked creatures will move towards the nearby treasure chest. In this way, the participants’ attention is probably unconsciously shifted back from the distractors to the primary task. The rest of the conditions (including the perceived Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5799 12 of 18 difﬁculty of the task) in the two versions remain the same. The differences between the two versions are shown in Figure 9. Figure 9. After frequently interacting with the marine creatures, version 0 (a) and version 2 (b) show differences in outcomes. Figure 9. After frequently interacting with the marine creatures, version 0 (a) and version 2 (b) show differences in out- (a): The creatures still move randomly after being attacked. (b): The creatures move towards the location of the nearby comes. (a): The creatures still move randomly after being attacked. (b): The creatures move towards the location of the treasure chest more frequently after being attacked. nearby treasure chest more frequently after being attacked. 7.4. Procedure 7.4. Procedure Before the study, we ﬁrst explained the VR tasks to the participants in advance. Before the study, we first explained the VR tasks to the participants in advance. After After that, each participant experienced the two versions of the tasks, and the order of that, each participant experienced the two versions of the tasks, and the order of experi- experiencing the two versions was counterbalanced. When they ﬁnished (or the time enci isnout) g the each twotime, versitask ons w performance as counterb was alan rce ecor d.ded Whe by n t the hey system. finished Then, (or th the e ti participant me is out) each immediately completed a questionnaire. time, task performance was recorded by the system. Then, the participant immediately completed a questionnaire. 7.5. Measures The measurements of ﬂow, performance, and visual comfort were the same as those in 7.5. Measures studies 1 and 2. The perceived difﬁculty was assessed on a scale with the adjectives [very The measurements of flow, performance, and visual comfort were the same as those easy]-[easy]-[moderate]-[difﬁcult]-[very difﬁcult]. in studies 1 and 2. The perceived difficulty was assessed on a scale with the adjectives 7.6. Results [very easy]-[easy]-[moderate]-[difficult]-[very difficult]. We ﬁrstly performed a paired-sample t test to investigate the difference in perceived difﬁculty between the two conditions. Results showed that the perceived difﬁculty of 7.6. Results participants was moderate (M = 3.46, SD = 0.47) and that there was no signiﬁcant difference We firstly performed a paired-sample T test to investigate the difference in perceived [t (64) = 0.659, p = 0.512]. Thus, this extra variable was controlled well. difficulty between the two conditions. Results showed that the perceived difficulty of par- tici7.6.1. pantsEf wa fects s m on od Flow erate (M = 3.46, SD = 0.47) and that there was no significant difference [t (64) = 0.659, p = 0.512]. Thus, this extra variable was controlled well. A paired-sample t test was conducted to test the difference of ﬂow experience between the two conditions. It was found that the difference in ﬂow between version 0 (61.13 7.94) and version 2 was not signiﬁcant (see Figure 10a). 7.6.1. Effects on Flow A paired-sample T test was conducted to test the difference of flow experience be- tween the two conditions. It was found that the difference in flow between version 0 (61.13 ± 7.94) and version 2 was not significant (see Figure 10a). Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5799 13 of 18 Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5799 13 of 18 Figure 10. Differences between the effects of these two versions on flow (a), and performance in the primary task (b). In Figure 10. Differences between the effects of these two versions on ﬂow (a), and performance in the (a), there are no significant differences between version 0 and version 2. In (b), performance in version 2 is significantly primary task (b). In (a), there are no signiﬁcant differences between version 0 and version 2. In (b), better than version 0 (p < 0.01). ** means p < 0.01. performance in version 2 is signiﬁcantly better than version 0 (p < 0.01). ** means p < 0.01. 7.6.2. Effects on Performance 7.6.2. Effects on Performance We conducted another paired-sample T test to test the difference in performance (see We conducted another paired-sample t test to test the difference in performance (see Figure 10b), and a significant difference was found [t (64) = 3.313, p = 0.002]. Specifically, Figure 10b), and a signiﬁcant difference was found [t (64) = 3.313, p = 0.002]. Speciﬁcally, the participants in version 2 (5.18 ± 1.74) had better task performance than those in version the participants in version 2 (5.18 1.74) had better task performance than those in version 0 (4.45 ± 1.59). It indicated that the approach of providing attention guidance did help 0 (4.45 1.59). It indicated that the approach of providing attention guidance did help participants improve their task-relevant behavior and performance. participants improve their task-relevant behavior and performance. 7.6.3. Effects on the Flow-Performance Link 7.6.3. Effects on the Flow-Performance Link Correlation analysis and regression analysis were conducted under each of the two Correlation analysis and regression analysis were conducted under each of the two conditions. Results showed that the correlation between flow and performance was not conditions. Results showed that the correlation between ﬂow and performance was not significant in version 0, and flow did not significantly predict task performance (β = 0.215, signiﬁcant in version 0, and ﬂow did not signiﬁcantly predict task performance ( = 0.215, p = 0.086). In comparison, data from version 2 showed that the correlation between flow p = 0.086). In comparison, data from version 2 showed that the correlation between ﬂow and task performance was significant, and flow significantly predicted task performance and task performance was signiﬁcant, and ﬂow signiﬁcantly predicted task performance (β = 0.255, p = 0.041). It could be seen that the correlation between flow and performance ( = 0.255, p = 0.041). It could be seen that the correlation between ﬂow and performance did increase to some extent after promoting congruence design. did increase to some extent after promoting congruence design. These results basically support H3 and demonstrate that distraction behavior can be These results basically support H3 and demonstrate that distraction behavior can transformed into task-relevant behavior by adding visual cues to provide attention guid- be transformed into task-relevant behavior by adding visual cues to provide attention ance. When attention shifts from distractors to the task, the weak link will be alleviated. guidance. When attention shifts from distractors to the task, the weak link will be alleviated. 8. Discussion 8. Discussion Our studies further verified the WAM. Some meaningful results were found through Our studies further veriﬁed the WAM. Some meaningful results were found through three empirical studies. three empirical studies. 8.1. The VR Task Paradigm 8.1. The VR Task Paradigm In this paper, we developed a VR task paradigm. Based on this paradigm, we con- In this paper, we developed a VR task paradigm. Based on this paradigm, we con- structed a VR system and conducted a series of studies. From the research results, it is structed a VR system and conducted a series of studies. From the research results, it is concluded that this paradigm can be well used to investigate flow experience and flow- concluded that this paradigm can be well used to investigate ﬂow experience and ﬂow- performance link in VR activities. performance link in VR activities. This paradigm was proposed based on the LT and limited resource theory. From the This paradigm was proposed based on the LT and limited resource theory. From the perspective of cognitive resources allocation, it can be used to investigate how VR users’ perspective of cognitive resources allocation, it can be used to investigate how VR users’ attention resources are allocated in the process of completing tasks with distractors. attention resources are allocated in the process of completing tasks with distractors. Different from the interruption diagram [32], in which the primary task was inter- Different from the interruption diagram [32], in which the primary task was inter- rupted in special phases, the primary task is not interrupted in our paradigm, and the rupted in special phases, the primary task is not interrupted in our paradigm, and the distractors are constantly existing in the primary task. Moreover, it is different from the distractors are constantly existing in the primary task. Moreover, it is different from the visual search paradigm in traditional cognitive experiments, which denotes the task of visual search paradigm in traditional cognitive experiments, which denotes the task of finding a target amongst a set of distractors. This is typically done by moving the eye gaze ﬁnding a target amongst a set of distractors. This is typically done by moving the eye gaze to potential target locations through an active scan of static graphics or images presented to potential target locations through an active scan of static graphics or images presented Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5799 14 of 18 by ﬁxed-position screens [20]. By contrast, the visual task in our paradigm is set in a more natural and interesting VR navigation scene, and it is interactive. According to the paradigm, various experimental VR systems can be designed. Since this paper is a basic study, the task designed in this paper is relatively simple. Both the task design and indicators of performance can be further developed and expanded in more extensive research. We expect that this paradigm can be increasingly used in VR learning and training systems to further examine the relation between distraction and ﬂow-performance link. 8.2. Role of Distraction in Weak Flow-Performance Link According to WAM, the main reason leading to weak ﬂow-performance link in VE is the incongruence between interactive artifacts and the primary task. Weak ﬂow might be caused by irrelevant VE contents or using interaction artifacts (they can induce ﬂow experience that is independent of the primary task) instead of performing the primary task [2]. In fact, distraction is a key mediator, mediating the effect from the disjunction features to ﬂow-performance link. The problem of weak ﬂow-performance link arises when charac- teristics of disjunction cause a certain level of distraction. Although the role of distractions was brieﬂy mentioned in WAM, previous studies did not directly examine it. The results of study 1 veriﬁed this point: By designing task-irrelevant distractors to accompany the primary task, we constructed a VR activity with disjointed features that cause a wide range and degree of distraction. Moreover, distraction levels directly predicted the weak link problem. Higher levels of distraction were followed by weaker ﬂow-performance link, while lower levels of distraction were followed by stronger link. Therefore, these results revealed the direct effect of distractions on ﬂow-performance link. Therefore, further paying attention to distraction and clarifying the effect of distractors on the user could be a breakthrough to avoid the problem of ﬂow-performance link and optimize VR designs. 8.3. Design Guideline and Its Practical Implication Based on the principle proposed in WAM [2], we proposed two more speciﬁc design guidelines to deal with distractions in VR: (1) Reducing conspicuous but irrelevant distrac- tors directly; and (2) increasing the congruence between distractors and primary task. When conspicuous but irrelevant distractors induce distractions during the primary task, directly reducing the number of them is an easy and practical approach. This approach can effectively reduce distraction, improve task-relevant behaviors, and the performance of primary task. Not only that, but it can also strengthen the ﬂow-performance link to a certain extent. However, this approach impairs the quality of ﬂow experience to some extent. Some distractors can improve the vividness and interactivity of the virtual environment. Researchers have agreed that interactivity and vividness are two key variables affecting presence [33–36], and more vivid and interactive virtual environments are associated with higher levels of telepresence [37–40]. Therefore, distractors are not totally useless and they may have the potential to enhance the user ’s feeling of presence and motivation of automatic exploration (autotelic experience) in VR, which helps achieve better ﬂow experience. It may be better to take advantage of these distractors than to remove them entirely. Guideline 2 was proposed in this direction. Guideline 2 gives another approach to dealing with distractions during the primary task. It is a constructive way to transfer the consequences of distraction into task-relevant ones through providing appropriate visual cues. In addition to the previous several studies that gave us inspiration, there are also some existing studies that are in line with this direction of design. Beck and Hollingworth [31] used a gaze-contingent search paradigm to manipulate selection history directly and examine the competition between multiple cue-matching saccade target objects. Quiros’ et al. conducted A meta-analysis to explore a concurrent working memory load task that does not impair visual selective attention [41]. These works can also provide inspiration to adjust visual information. Finally, we optimized Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5799 15 of 18 the disjointed VR system to a more congruent one and proved the second guideline is effective and practical too. This approach can help transfer the participants’ attention back to the primary task without reducing the number of distractors, and it does help participants improve task-related behavior and performance without damaging the quality of ﬂow. In this way, much ﬂow may be produced from performing the primary task and task-relevant behavior, and a stronger ﬂow-performance link can be built. These ﬁndings can provide reference for designers to ﬁnd ways to optimize VR systems. As to how to make the best use of these guidelines, the speciﬁc features of each VR system and the type of the primary task need to be fully considered. 8.4. Discussion about the Applicability of the Findings In fact, the ﬁndings discussed in this paper are more applicable to the VR systems for the purpose of learning, training, and education rather than pure entertainment. For the latter systems, the key points of the system design are vividness, interest, and richness, so they merely need to provide users with a good experience, not necessarily to transfer these experiences into better task performance. In this case, any spontaneous exploratory behavior is acceptable, even if it is irrelevant to the primary task. Therefore, the weak ﬂow-performance link is not a real problem for these systems. For example, the VR system in this paper is more like an example of entertainment-oriented systems. A variety of distractors (marine creatures) can enrich the scene, bring interest and fun to the users, and then produce a good experience. For entertainment, there is no need to transfer the good experiences into task relevant performance, the enhancement of attention on distractors or task-irrelevant interactive behaviors are also acceptable. Although this may not be a real problem for entertainment-oriented systems, it could be a serious and usually imperceptible problem for learning- oriented systems (or education-oriented systems) [2]. As stated in the introduction, if the enhancement of experience quality cannot promote performance effectively, pursuing good experience would be meaningless or may even be counterproductive. Still, if take the system in this paper as an example, if the primary task is not simply ﬁnding things, but to ﬁnd and learn some knowledge hidden in the chests (such as biological knowledge of marine creatures), then even if distractors make the VR environment lively and interesting, they distract users’ attention resource away from the primary task. Thus, it will break the further transferring from good experience into task-relevant performance and outcome. 8.5. Limitations and Future Work There are still some shortcomings in this paper. First, the VR systems designed in this paper are more game-like. Although we believe that the fundamental conclusions are applicable to other learning systems, they need to be further tested in various virtual learning environments. Moreover, we will further perfect the VR task paradigm and enrich the statistical test methods of weak ﬂow-performance link in the future. Second, this paper provides two design guidelines, but there must be others. Since distraction is a key predictor, all factors affecting distraction may affect ﬂow-performance link. For instance, task demand is a key factor affecting the selective processing of target-related information [42,43]; increasing the demands on lessons would reduce distractions (i.e., increase selectivity) in the classroom [4]; the perceptual load of a task inﬂuenced the spatial selectivity of attention [44]. Lavie and Tsal have developed a framework that explains the early and late selection conditions based on difﬁculty of tasks [43]. Design guidelines can be further explored and extended from these aspects. Third, tracking users’ eye movements is an effective method for revealing distractions and visual information processing [45]. However, due to the limitation of equipment, this paper did not evaluate distraction directly by measuring eye movements. Hence, it is necessary to adopt effective ways to measure distracted eye movements in VR activities to further verify these ﬁndings in the future. Last, people with some different characteristics (such as cognition style, executive Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5799 16 of 18 control resources, etc.) handle distractions differently [7,46,47], Thus, understanding their role in the weak ﬂow-performance link could also be a research direction. 9. Conclusions Through a series of empirical studies, we draw the following conclusions: (1) the VR task paradigm and prototype experimental system introduced in this paper can be used to investigate ﬂow experience and the problem of weak ﬂow-performance link in VR activities. (2) Based on the views of WAM, this paper directly proves that in VEs where the artifacts are disjointed with the primary task, distraction caused by disjointed features is the antecedent of weak ﬂow-performance link. (3) This paper proposes two design guidelines of guiding selective attention to deal with distraction and prove their effectiveness in alleviating the weak ﬂow-performance link in VR activities. One is directly reducing conspicuous but task-irrelevant distractors, and the other is increasing the congruence between distractors and primary tasks, i.e., adding visual cues to transfer distracted behavioral consequences to task-relevant behavior, and then contribute to task-oriented selective attention. In future work, the speciﬁc features of VR systems and the types of primary task need to be fully explored to make the best use of these guidelines. Author Contributions: Conceptualization, J.L. and C.Z.; methodology, W.L.; software, W.L. and H.H.; validation, Y.B. and C.Z.; formal analysis, Y.B. and H.H.; investigation, H.H.; resources, J.L.; data curation, Y.B.; writing—original draft preparation, W.L.; writing—review and editing, Y.B.; visualization, J.L.; supervision, J.L.; project administration, Y.B.; funding acquisition, Y.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant, grant number 61802232, “the Young Scholars Program of Shandong University, Weihai grant number 20820211005” and “China Postdoctoral Science Foundation 2021TQ0178”. Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of The First Afﬁliated Hospital of Jinan University, China (No. KY-2020-037). Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. Conﬂicts of Interest: The authors declare no conﬂict of interest. Nomenclature Symbol Description VR Virtual Reality VE Virtual Environment WAM Weak Association Model UE User Experience LT Load Theory M Means Standardized Regression Coefﬁcient p p-value, expressing the level of statistical signiﬁcance t t-score, a ratio between the difference between two groups and the difference within the groups References 1. Bian, Y.; Yang, C.; Gao, F.; Li, H.; Zhou, S.; Li, H.; Sun, X.; Meng, X. A framework for physiological indicators of ﬂow in VR games: Construction and preliminary evaluation. Pers. Ubiquitous Comput. 2016, 20, 821–832. [CrossRef] 2. Bian, Y.; Yang, C.; Zhou, C.; Liu, J.; Gai, W.; Meng, X.; Tian, F.; Shen, C. Exploring the weak association between ﬂow experience and performance in virtual environments. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Montreal, QC, Canada, 21–26 April 2018; pp. 1–12. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5799 17 of 18 3. Csikszentmihalyi, M.; Csikzentmihaly, M. Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience; Harper & Row: New York, NY, USA, 1990; Volume 1990. 4. Sweetser, P.; Wyeth, P. GameFlow: A model for evaluating player enjoyment in games. Comput. Entertain. 2005, 3, 3. [CrossRef] 5. Engeser, S.; Rheinberg, F. Flow, moderators of challenge-skill-balance and performance. Motiv. Emot. 2008, 32, 158–172. [CrossRef] 6. Engeser, S.E. Advances in Flow Research; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012. 7. Bian, Y.; Zhou, C.; Chen, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Liu, J.; Yang, C. The Role of the Field Dependence-independence Construct on the Flow- performance Link in Virtual Reality. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Interactive 3D Graphics and Games, San Francisco, CA, USA, 5–7 May 2020; pp. 1–9. 8. Keller, J.; Bless, H. Flow and regulatory compatibility: An experimental approach to the ﬂow model of intrinsic motivation. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2008, 34, 196–209. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 9. Keller, J.; Blomann, F. Locus of control and the ﬂow experience: An experimental analysis. Eur. J. Personal. 2008, 22, 589–607. [CrossRef] 10. Schiefele, U.; Roussakis, E. Experimental conditions for experiencing ﬂow in computer games. Z. Psychol. 2006, 214, 207–219. [CrossRef] 11. Huang-Pollock, C.L.; Nigg, J.T.; Carr, T.H. Deﬁcient attention is hard to ﬁnd: Applying the perceptual load model of selective attention to attention deﬁcit hyperactivity disorder subtypes. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 2005, 46, 1211–1218. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 12. Giesbrecht, B.; Sy, J.; Bundesen, C.; Kyllingsbæk, S. A new perspective on the perceptual selectivity of attention under load. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2014, 1316, 71–86. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 13. Norman, D.A.; Bobrow, D.G. On data-limited and resource-limited processes. Cogn. Psychol. 1975, 7, 44–64. [CrossRef] 14. Wickens, C.D. The structure of attentional resources. Atten. Perform. 1980, 8, 239–257. 15. Flynn, E.A.; Barker, K.N.; Gibson, J.T.; Pearson, R.E.; Berger, B.A.; Smith, L.A. Impact of interruptions and distractions on dispensing errors in an ambulatory care pharmacy. Am. J. Health-Syst. Pharm. 1999, 56, 1319–1325. [CrossRef] 16. McKenna, F.P.; Dun-can, J.; Brown, I.D. Cognitive abilities and safety on the road: A re-examination of individual differences in dichotic listening and search for embedded ﬁgures. Ergonomics 1986, 29, 649–663. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 17. Baran, M.; Chignell, M. Differences in cognitive ability and preference mediate effects of interruptions on simulated driving performance. Proc. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. Annu. Meet. 2006, 50, 2008–2011. [CrossRef] 18. Harmat, L.; Andersen, F.Ø.; Ullén, F.; Wright, J.; Sadlo, G. Flow Experience: Empirical Research and Applications; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016. 19. Berta, R.; Bellotti, F.; De Gloria, A.; Pranantha, D.; Schatten, C. Electroencephalogram and physiological signal analysis for assessing ﬂow in games. IEEE Trans. Comput. Intell. AI Games 2013, 5, 164–175. [CrossRef] 20. Engelke, U.; Duenser, A.; Zeater, A. Covert Visual Search: Revisiting the Guided Search Paradigm. Int. J. Cogn. Inform. Nat. Intell. 2014, 8, 13–28. [CrossRef] 21. Tuch, A.N.; Bargas-Avila, J.A.; Opwis, K.; Wilhelm, F.H. Visual complexity of websites: Effects on users’ experience, physiology, performance, and memory. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 2009, 67, 703–715. [CrossRef] 22. Waltemate, T.; Gall, D.; Roth, D.; Botsch, M.; Latoschik, M.E. The impact of avatar personalization and immersion on virtual body ownership, presence, and emotional response. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 2018, 24, 1643–1652. [CrossRef] 23. Lee, E.C.; Cho, Y.H.; Lee, I.K. Simulating Water Resistance in a Virtual Underwater Experience Using a Visual Motion Delay Effect. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR), Osaka, Japan, 23–27 March 2019; pp. 259–266. 24. Kilteni, K.; Groten, R.; Slater, M. The sense of embodiment in virtual reality. Presence Teleoper. Virtual Environ. 2012, 21, 373–387. [CrossRef] 25. Cottrell, E.B. Experimental and quasi-experimental design. Educ. Exp. 1969, 107, 12. 26. Gai, W.; Yang, C.; Bian, Y.; Shen, C.; Meng, X.; Wang, L.; Liu, J.; Dong, M.; Niu, C.; Lin, C. Supporting easy physical-to-virtual creation of mobile VR maze games: A new genre. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Denver, CO, USA, 6–11 May 2017; pp. 5016–5028. 27. Zhou, C.; Li, H.; Bian, Y. Identifying the Optimal 3D Display Technology for Hands-On Virtual Experiential Learning: A Compar- ison Study. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 73791–73803. [CrossRef] 28. Lambooij, M.; IJsselsteijn, W.A.; Heynderickx, I. Visual discomfort of 3D TV: Assessment methods and modeling. Displays 2011, 32, 209–218. [CrossRef] 29. Grogorick, S.; Albuquerque, G.; Maqnor, M. Gaze guidance in immersive environments. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR), Tuebingen/Reutlingen, Germany, 18–22 March 2018; pp. 563–564. 30. Renner, P.; Pfeiffer, T. Attention Guiding Using Augmented Reality in Complex Environments. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR), Tuebingen/Reutlingen, Germany, 18–22 March 2018; pp. 771–772. 31. Beck, V.M.; Hollingworth, A. Competition in saccade target selection reveals attentional guidance by simultaneously active working memory representations. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 2017, 43, 225. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 32. Meys, H.L.; Sanderson, P.M. The effect of individual differences on how people handle interruptions. Proc. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. Annu. Meet. 2013, 57, 868–872. [CrossRef] 33. Coyle, J.R.; Thorson, E. The effects of progressive levels of interactivity and vividness in web marketing sites. J. Advert. 2001, 30, 65–77. [CrossRef] Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5799 18 of 18 34. Huang, L.T.; Chiu, C.A.; Sung, K.; Farn, C.K. A comparative study on the ﬂow experience in web-based and text-based interaction environments. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 2011, 14, 3–11. [CrossRef] 35. Kim, T.; Biocca, F. Telepresence via television: Two dimensions of telepresence may have different connections to memory and persuasion. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 1997, 3, JCMC325. [CrossRef] 36. Klein, L.R. Creating virtual product experiences: The role of telepresence. J. Interact. Mark. 2003, 17, 41–55. [CrossRef] 37. Cheng, L.K.; Chieng, M.H.; Chieng, W.H. Measuring virtual experience in a three-dimensional virtual reality interactive simulator environment: A structural equation modeling approach. Virtual Real. 2014, 18, 173–188. [CrossRef] 38. Fortin, D.R.; Dholakia, R.R. Interactivity and vividness effects on social presence and involvement with a web-based advertisement. J. Bus. Res. 2005, 58, 387–396. [CrossRef] 39. Li, H.; Daugherty, T.; Biocca, F. Characteristics of virtual experience in electronic commerce: A protocol analysis. J. Interact. Mark. 2001, 15, 13–30. [CrossRef] 40. Welch, R.B.; Blackmon, T.T.; Liu, A.; Mellers, B.A.; Stark, L.W. The effects of pictorial realism, delay of visual feedback, and observer interactivity on the subjective sense of presence. Presence Teleoper. Virtual Environ. 1996, 5, 263–273. [CrossRef] 41. Quirós-Godoy, M.; Botella, J.; de Liaño, B.G.G. A concurrent working memory load task does not impair visual selective attention: A meta-analysis. J. Vis. 2017, 17, 967. [CrossRef] 42. Lavie, N.; De Fockert, J.W. Contrasting effects of sensory limits and capacity limits in visual selective attention. Percept. Psychophys. 2003, 65, 202–212. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 43. Lavie, N.; Tsal, Y. Perceptual load as a major determinant of the locus of selection in visual attention. Percept. Psychophys. 1994, 56, 183–197. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 44. Yantis, S.; Johnston, J.C. On the locus of visual selection: Evidence from focused attention tasks. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 1990, 16, 135. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 45. Raptis, G.E.; Fidas, C.; Avouris, N. Effects of mixed-reality on players’ behaviour and immersion in a cultural tourism game: A cognitive processing perspective. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 2018, 114, 69–79. [CrossRef] 46. Allen, R.J.; Baddeley, A.D.; Hitch, G.J. Executive and perceptual distraction in visual working memory. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 2017, 43, 1677. [CrossRef] 47. Vellage, A.K.; Müller, N.G. Individual differences in working memory precision based on selective attention. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 2016, 100, 111–112. [CrossRef] http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Applied Sciences Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/multidisciplinary-digital-publishing-institute/exploring-the-role-of-distraction-in-weak-flow-performance-link-based-xJDPA0rx90

Loading next page...

References (49)

Konstantina Kilteni, R. Groten, M. Slater (2012)
The Sense of Embodiment in Virtual Reality
PRESENCE: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 21
D. Norman, D. Bobrow (1975)
On data-limited and resource-limited processes
Cognitive Psychology, 7
S. Yantis, J. Johnston (1990)
On the locus of visual selection: evidence from focused attention tasks.
Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance, 16 1
(2006)
Experimental conditions for experiencing flow in computer games
Alexandre Tuch, Javier Bargas-Avila, K. Opwis, F. Wilhelm (2009)
Visual complexity of websites: Effects on users' experience, physiology, performance, and memory
Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud., 67
Yulong Bian, Chenglei Yang, Chao Zhou, Juan Liu, Wei Gai, Xiangxu Meng, Feng Tian, Chia Shen (2018)
Exploring the Weak Association between Flow Experience and Performance in Virtual Environments
Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Elizabeth Flynn, Kenneth Barker, JT Gibson, Robert Pearson, Bruce Berger, LA Smith (1999)
Impact of interruptions and distractions on dispensing errors in an ambulatory care pharmacy.
American journal of health-system pharmacy : AJHP : official journal of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, 56 13
S. Grogorick, Georgia Albuquerque, M. Magnor (2018)
Gaze Guidance in Immersive Environments
2018 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR)
Li-Keng Cheng, M. Chieng, W. Chieng (2014)
Measuring virtual experience in a three-dimensional virtual reality interactive simulator environment: a structural equation modeling approach
Virtual Reality, 18
T. Waltemate, Dominik Gall, D. Roth, M. Botsch, Marc Latoschik (2018)
The Impact of Avatar Personalization and Immersion on Virtual Body Ownership, Presence, and Emotional Response
IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 24
Melanie Baran, M. Chignell (2006)
Differences in Cognitive Ability and Preference Mediate Effects of Interruptions on Simulated Driving Performance
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 50
María Quirós-Godoy, J. Botella, Beatriz Liaño (2017)
A concurrent working memory load task does not impair visual selective attention: A meta-analysis
Journal of Vision, 17
G. Raptis, C. Fidas, N. Avouris (2018)
Effects of mixed-reality on players' behaviour and immersion in a cultural tourism game: A cognitive processing perspective
Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud., 114
U. Engelke, Andreas Duenser, A. Zeater (2014)
Covert Visual Search: Revisiting the Guided Search Paradigm
Int. J. Cogn. Informatics Nat. Intell., 8
J. Keller, Herbert Bless
Bulletin Personality and Social Psychology Flow and Regulatory Compatibility: an Experimental Approach to the Flow Model of Intrinsic Motivation on Behalf Of: Society for Personality and Social Psychology
F. McKenna, J. Duncan, I. Brown (1986)
Cognitive abilities and safety on the road: a re-examination of individual differences in dichotic listening and search for embedded figures.
Ergonomics, 29 5
J. Keller, Frederik Blomann (2008)
Locus of control and the flow experience: An experimental analysis
European Journal of Personality, 22
Yulong Bian, Chenglei Yang, Fengqiang Gao, Huiyu Li, Shisheng Zhou, Hanchao Li, Xiaowen Sun, Xiangxu Meng (2016)
A framework for physiological indicators of flow in VR games: construction and preliminary evaluation
Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 20
C. Huang-Pollock, J. Nigg, T. Carr (2005)
Deficient attention is hard to find: applying the perceptual load model of selective attention to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder subtypes.
Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines, 46 11
R. Allen, A. Baddeley, G. Hitch (2017)
Executive and Perceptual Distraction in Visual Working Memory
Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 43
Ulrich Schiefele, Emmanouil Roussakis (2006)
Die Bedingungen des Flow-Erlebens in einer experimentellen Spielsituation
Zeitschrift Fur Psychologie-journal of Psychology, 214
M. Lambooij, W. Ijsselsteijn, I. Heynderickx (2011)
Visual discomfort of 3D TV: Assessment methods and modeling
Displays, 32
Riccardo Berta, F. Bellotti, A. Gloria, D. Pranantha, Carlotta Schatten (2013)
Electroencephalogram and Physiological Signal Analysis for Assessing Flow in Games
IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence and AI in Games, 5
(2008)
Flow, moderators of challenge-skill-balance and performance
Valerie Beck, A. Hollingworth (2017)
Competition in Saccade Target Selection Reveals Attentional Guidance by Simultaneously Active Working Memory Representations
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43
P. Sweetser, Peta Wyeth (2005)
GameFlow: a model for evaluating player enjoyment in games
Comput. Entertain., 3
D. Fortin, R. Dholakia (2005)
Interactivity and vividness effects on social presence and involvement with a web-based advertisement
Journal of Business Research, 58
L. Harmat, Franz Anderssen, F. Ullén, Jon Wright, G. Sadlo (2016)
Flow Experience : Empirical Research and Applications
C. Wickens (1980)
The Structure of Attentional Resources
Hairong Li, T. Daugherty, F. Biocca (2001)
Characteristics of virtual experience in electronic commerce: A protocol analysis
Journal of Interactive Marketing, 15
Taeyong Kim, F. Biocca (2006)
Telepresence via Television: Two Dimensions of Telepresence May Have Different Connections to Memory and Persuasion
J. Comput. Mediat. Commun., 3
Chao Zhou, Hong Li, Yulong Bian (2020)
Identifying the Optimal 3D Display Technology for Hands-On Virtual Experiential Learning: A Comparison Study
IEEE Access, 8
A. Vellage, N. Müller (2016)
Individual differences in working memory precision based on selective attention
International Journal of Psychophysiology, 108
Wei Gai, Chenglei Yang, Yulong Bian, Chia Shen, Xiangxu Meng, Lu Wang, Juan Liu, Mingda Dong, Chengjie Niu, Cheng Lin (2017)
Supporting Easy Physical-to-Virtual Creation of Mobile VR Maze Games: A New Genre
Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Nasw, 김만두, 김융일, 박종삼 (2011)
실험설계와 유사실험설계(Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Design)
J. Coyle, E. Thorson (2001)
The Effects of Progressive Levels of Interactivity and Vividness in Web Marketing Sites
Journal of Advertising, 30
Li-Ting Huang, C. Chiu, Kai Sung, C. Farn (2011)
A Comparative Study on the Flow Experience in Web-Based and Text-Based Interaction Environments
Cyberpsychology, behavior and social networking, 14 1-2
H. Meys, P. Sanderson (2013)
The Effect of Individual Differences on How People Handle Interruptions
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 57
Patrick Renner, Thies Pfeiffer (2018)
Attention Guiding Using Augmented Reality in Complex Environments
2018 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR)
S. Engeser (2012)
Advances in Flow Research
N. Lavie, J. Fockert (2003)
Contrasting effects of sensory limits and capacity limits in visual selective attention
Perception & Psychophysics, 65
N. Lavie, Y. Tsal (1994)
Perceptual load as a major determinant of the locus of selection in visual attention
Perception & Psychophysics, 56
A. Acad, Sci, B. Giesbrecht, Jocelyn Sy, C. Bundesen, S. Kyllingsbaek
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences a New Perspective on the Perceptual Selectivity of Attention under Load
Yulong Bian, Chao Zhou, Yeqing Chen, Yanshuai Zhao, Juan Liu, Chenglei Yang (2020)
The Role of the Field Dependence-independence Construct on the Flow-performance Link in Virtual Reality
Symposium on Interactive 3D Graphics and Games
R. Welch, T. Blackmon, Andrew Liu, B. Mellers, L. Stark (1996)
The Effects of Pictorial Realism, Delay of Visual Feedback, and Observer Interactivity on the Subjective Sense of Presence
Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 5
S. Engeser, F. Rheinberg (2008)
Flow, performance and moderators of challenge-skill balance
Motivation and Emotion, 32
D. Hoang (2018)
FLOW: The Psychology of Optimal Experience
E. Lee, Yong-Hun Cho, In-Kwon Lee (2019)
Simulating Water Resistance in a Virtual Underwater Experience Using a Visual Motion Delay Effect
2019 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR)
Lisa Klein (2003)
Creating virtual product experiences: The role of telepresence
Journal of Interactive Marketing, 17

Publisher: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
Copyright: © 1996-2021 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated Disclaimer The statements, opinions and data contained in the journals are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy
ISSN: 2076-3417
DOI: 10.3390/app11135799
Publisher site: See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

applied sciences Article Exploring the Role of Distraction in Weak Flow–Performance Link Based on VR Searching Tasks Weiying Liu , Haoxiang Hu, Chao Zhou, Yulong Bian and Juan Liu * School of Mechanical, Electrical and Information Engineering, Shandong University, Weihai 264209, China; 201800800585@mail.sdu.edu.cn (W.L.); 201800800582@mail.sdu.edu.cn (H.H.); zhchaouao@gmail.com (C.Z.); bianyulong@sdu.edu.cn (Y.B.) * Correspondence: zzzliujuan@sdu.edu.cn Abstract: The weak association between ﬂow experience and task performance (also known as weak ﬂow-performance link) can reduce the positive effect of virtual reality (VR) applications. Distraction caused by incongruence between the primary task and interactive artifacts may be a direct factor leading to the weak link, but it has still not been tested. To empirically test this assumption and explore approaches to alleviate it, we developed the ‘VR searching paradigm’ and a prototype VR system, based on which three comparative experiments were conducted. Study 1 tested the effect of distraction and proved that high levels of distraction caused by incongruence can lead to the weak link ( = 0.198, p = 0.391). Next, two common design guidelines were proposed to deal with distraction. Study 2 tested the effect of reducing conspicuous but task-irrelevant distractors (guideline 1) on ﬂow-performance link. Study 3 tested the effect of providing visual cues (utilizing distractors to achieve task-oriented selective attention), which is guideline 2, on ﬂow-performance link. The results of studies 2 and 3 revealed that both guidelines helped enhance the task performance without damaging ﬂow experience, alleviating the weak link problem ( = 0.351, p = 0.031; = 0.255, p = 0.041). Our results provide the ﬁrst piece of evidence that directly proves the effect of distraction Citation: Liu, W.; Hu, H.; Zhou, C.; on weak ﬂow-performance link, which helps improve the explanation of the mechanism. Moreover, Bian, Y.; Liu, J. Exploring the Role of this paper is the ﬁrst that proves the effectiveness of two easy approaches to alleviating the weak link Distraction in Weak Flow– Performance Link Based on VR by way of guiding the user ’s task-relevant attention. Searching Tasks. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5799. https://doi.org/10.3390/ Keywords: ﬂow-performance link; virtual reality; distraction app11135799 Academic Editor: Enrico Vezzetti 1. Introduction Received: 16 May 2021 Flow experience (shortened to ‘ﬂow’) represents a highly enjoyable mental state where Accepted: 17 June 2021 an individual is fully immersed and engaged in the process of an activity [1–4]. It is seen Published: 22 June 2021 as a key component of high-quality user experience in virtual reality (VR) activities due to its contribution to the enhancement of task performance. However, the link between Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral ﬂow and task performance was found to be weak in studies conducted in many virtual with regard to jurisdictional claims in environments, showing a weak ﬂow-performance link [2,5,6]. Bian deﬁned it as weak published maps and institutional afﬁl- association at ﬁrst [2] and renamed it weak ﬂow-performance link in a follow-up paper [7]. iations. If the enhancement of user experience cannot directly promote performance effectively, pursuing a good experience would be less meaningful and may even be counter-productive, especially for learning, training, and education [2]. In a previous study, the weak association model (WAM) was proposed to explain the Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. mechanism of weak ﬂow-performance link in virtual environment (VE) [2]. It reveals that Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. the reason leading to the weak link was the disjunction/incongruence between the primary This article is an open access article task and interactive artifacts. It further points out the disjunction/incongruence caused by distributed under the terms and disjointed features distracts the user ’s attention and interest away from the primary task, conditions of the Creative Commons which might be a direct cause of the weak link. However, it has not been tested directly. Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// Games of different genres were used to test the WAM in previous studies [2]. Although creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ diversity of genres can help prove the generalization of the theoretical model in different 4.0/). Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5799. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11135799 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5799 2 of 18 types of VEs, it might lead to extra variables that are difﬁcult to control and may play a role in the results. Therefore, to clarify the mechanism of weak ﬂow-performance link, the VE genre should be controlled. To solve this problem, a VR task paradigm needs to be developed to enhance the comparability of different conclusions on a broad scale. In this paper, we further validate the WAM, and clarify the reason for weak ﬂow- performance link hidden in poor VR design. Moreover, it develops effective approaches to alleviating this problem by guiding attention/distraction in VR activities. Our work provides methodological improvements to exploring ﬂow-performance link. Moreover, it helps to clarify some UE problems and has practical signiﬁcance for promoting optimal VR design. Overall, this paper makes the following contributions: 1. This paper improves the ‘VR searching paradigm’ and develops an experimental VR system, which is the ﬁrst paradigm and experimental prototype system to specially explore ﬂow-performance link in VR. 2. This paper provides the ﬁrst empirical evidence directly proving the effect of dis- traction in weak ﬂow-performance link, i.e., distraction caused by disjunction is an antecedent, which helps improve the explanation of underlying mechanism of weak link. 3. This paper is the ﬁrst to provide design guidelines with a view to guiding task-relevant attention and prove its effectiveness at alleviating the weak ﬂow-performance link and optimizing the VR design. 2. Related Work 2.1. What Is Weak Flow-Performance Link? Although many authors argue for a positive association or even a causal relation between ﬂow and performance, the empirical evidence documenting such an association is meager. For instance, in some previous studies, the inﬂuence of ﬂow on performance in playing computer games was not found after controlling different playing modes [2,8–10]. Engeser and Rheinberg [5] conducted a study in which participants played a computer game at different degrees of difﬁculty. When controlling for the baseline performance, they found that even at an appropriate level of difﬁculty, ﬂow experience only explained a small amount of the variance in performance, and this effect was only marginally signiﬁcant. To our knowledge, there is not a single methodologically adequate study available in the literature documenting the causal effect of ﬂow experience on (subsequent) performance. In two previous studies, Bian et al. [2,7] paid attention to the weak ﬂow-performance link in their recent work and veriﬁed the universality of it. In their study, the weak ﬂow- performance link was found in different activities in a VE, such as virtual Tai Chi learning, VR shooting game, and VR tennis game. Moreover, they discussed the possible causes of the weak ﬂow-performance link in these virtual activities and examined them. Finally, they established the WAM. 2.2. Explanation of the WAM The WAM attempted to explain the reasons for the weak ﬂow-performance link in VEs [2]. Based on the model, ﬂow can be produced in two ways: performing the primary task, and manipulating artifacts. Only the ﬂow produced from performing the primary task can directly improve the task performance, ﬂow from the latter only inﬂuences experience but not performance. Many VEs have disjointed features (i.e., the use of interactive artifacts is incongruent with the primary task). In these VEs, ﬂow might not be produced from performing the primary task (black arrows in Figure 1) but from using interactive artifacts (white arrows in Figure 1). In this case, there may be a strong link between ﬂow and experience, but the ﬂow-performance link will be weak [2]. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5799 3 of 18 Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5799 3 of 18 Figure 1. The weak association model (WAM) developed from [2]. Figure 1. The weak association model (WAM) developed from [2]. It reveals that the incongruence between interactive artifacts and the primary task may It reveals that the incongruence between interactive artifacts and the primary task be the reason for weak ﬂow-performance link. Attention may play the role of an important may be the reason for weak flow-performance link. Attention may play the role of an im- mediator. Irrelevant artifacts may distract users’ attention and interest from the primary portant mediator. Irrelevant artifacts may distract users’ attention and interest from the task [2]. Therefore, the distraction caused by disjointed features may be a direct cause of primary task [2]. Therefore, the distraction caused by disjointed features may be a direct weak ﬂow-performance link in VEs. cause of weak flow-performance link in VEs. 2.3. Distraction and Selective Attention 2.3. Distraction and Selective Attention To pursue the mechanism of weak ﬂow-performance link, we argue that it is essential to draw To upon pursue the thstudy e mech of andistraction ism of weak and flow selective -performa attention. nce link, Selective we argue attention that it is esse cannbe tial to draw upon the study of distraction and selective attention. Selective attention can be broadly deﬁned as the ability to facilitate the processing of one source of environmental information broadly defwhile ined aattenuating s the abilitythe to fpr aci ocessing litate the ofpr others ocessi[n 11 g ]. of one source of envi ronmental infoAccor rmatio ding n wh to illimited e attenua resour ting th cee theory proce ,ss people ing ofhave other as [ limited 11]. capacity system to process visual information. Therefore, an act of selection must occur at some point, after which According to limited resource theory, people have a limited capacity system to pro- only some of the available information can be processed further [12]. cess visual information. Therefore, an act of selection must occur at some point, after There is load in cognitive processing. The LT indicates that the perceptual load which only some of the available information can be processed further [12]. inﬂuences selective attention. The LT framework is well rooted in traditional cognitive There is load in cognitive processing. The LT indicates that the perceptual load influ- models of dual-task information processing, demonstrating behavioral costs when attention ences selective attention. The LT framework is well rooted in traditional cognitive models is divided among relevant stimuli [12–14]. LT is an extension of these ideas into the realm of dual-task information processing, demonstrating behavioral costs when attention is di- of task-irrelevant information processing. vided among relevant stimuli [12–14]. LT is an extension of these ideas into the realm of Usually, there is some physical distinctiveness between the task-relevant and task- task-irrelevant information processing. irrelevant information (e.g., spatial location, color). In the design of ideal tasks, the Usually, there is some physical distinctiveness between the task-relevant and task- allocation of perceptual processing capacity should ﬁrst prioritize task-relevant infor- irrelevant information (e.g., spatial location, color). In the design of ideal tasks, the alloca- mation and then, if capacity remains, task-irrelevant information. In other words, the tion of perceptual processing capacity should first prioritize task-relevant information and allocation of perceptual resources should occur ﬁrst to relevant information and then to then, if capacity remains, task-irrelevant information. In other words, the allocation of irrelevant information. perceptual resources should occur first to relevant information and then to irrelevant in- However, in practice, task-irrelevant information is often allocated much attention formation. in the experimental environment. Distractions in activities are common and often un- However, in practice, task-irrelevant information is often allocated much attention in avoidable [15,16]. For example, in some VR activities, rich virtual scenes often have some the experimental environment. Distractions in activities are common and often unavoid- task-irrelevant visual information. Interactive artifacts provide distracting notiﬁcations able [15,16]. For example, in some VR activities, rich virtual scenes often have some task- while users are performing the primary tasks, competing for the user ’s attention. Irrele- irrelevant visual information. Interactive artifacts provide distracting notifications while vant parts of them (distractors) can be distracting because users have limited cognitive users are performing the primary tasks, competing for the user’s attention. Irrelevant parts resources to allocate to the primary tasks. It results in a reduction in task performance [17]. of them (distractors) can be distracting because users have limited cognitive resources to Therefore, features of disjunction in VEs may lead to distraction, and then weaken the allocate to the primary tasks. It results in a reduction in task performance [17]. Therefore, ﬂow-performance link [2]. However, this viewpoint has not been directly veriﬁed. features of disjunction in VEs may lead to distraction, and then weaken the flow-perfor- To test this viewpoint, we ﬁrst put forward a VR task paradigm to avoid potential mance link [2]. However, this viewpoint has not been directly verified. interference of different task genres in studying weak ﬂow-performance link. To test this viewpoint, we first put forward a VR task paradigm to avoid potential interference of different task genres in studying weak flow-performance link. 3. A VR Task Paradigm for Flow Study In ﬂow studies, experimental manipulations for inducing ﬂow are essentially based 3. A VR Task Paradigm for Flow Study on a variation of the difﬁculty levels of the respective task. The difﬁculty should be ei- In flow studies, experimental manipulations for inducing flow are essentially based ther experienced as too low, too high, or as largely compatible with the individual’s skill on a variation of the difficulty levels of the respective task. The difficulty should be either level [18]. According to this general logic, several previous paradigms were proposed by experienced as too low, too high, or as largely compatible with the individual’s skill level using different types of tasks (i.e., in the math, chess, knowledge quiz, and mental arith- [18]. According to this general logic, several previous paradigms were proposed by using metic paradigms). Flow studies in VEs also induce ﬂow through manipulating difﬁculty different types of tasks (i.e., in the math, chess, knowledge quiz, and mental arithmetic levels of various tasks [19], but there is no relatively ﬁxed task paradigm. There may be paradigms). Flow studies in VEs also induce flow through manipulating difficulty levels two existing problems: Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5799 4 of 18 Level of task difﬁculty is hard to design properly. It should be noted that the speciﬁc operationalization used to vary the difﬁculty levels of the task affects the quality of ﬂow experience during task engagement. Therefore, it is crucial to take into consideration that participants may frequently experience “interruption from ﬂow”, “give up”, or not engage in the task any more after some experiences of failure. The ideal overload experience should reﬂect a continued struggle instead of a sudden change. Although some ﬂow task paradigms have attempted to solve this problem, it still exists (e.g., in the mental arithmetic algorithm, although the algorithm is designed in a way that the difﬁculty level decreases—to a still relatively appropriate level—after a certain number of failures, the individual has experienced these failures and interrupted the ﬂow state). Existing task paradigms are not applicable to study the problem of weak ﬂow- performance link, especially the role of distraction. One reason is that the existing ﬂow task paradigms often avoid the emergence of distraction and therefore do not include the manipulation of distractors. Another reason is that some existing classic paradigms (e.g., in the math, chess, knowledge quizzes, and mental arithmetic paradigms) are not suitable for ﬂow studies in VR activities, and there is still no paradigm sophisticated enough for a VR task. To address these problems, a VR task paradigm for ﬂow study is proposed in this paper. This paradigm should: (1) ensure the overload experience to reﬂect a continued struggle (only in this way can a continuous and ﬂuent ﬂow experience be induced) and (2) be able to manipulate distraction. Inspired by past studies [20,21], we proposed a novel task paradigm that is called the VR searching paradigm. The task paradigm is applicable to VR activities, and especially suitable for ﬂow studies in the VEs. The principle of this paradigm is given as follows: This paradigm is based on the LT and limited resource theory. In the VEs, a primary task with stable challenge level should run throughout the whole process consistently. The primary task here is a visual search and collection task when navigating in VR. Using this task, the difﬁculty is steady and easily matches the individual’s skill level, i.e., if the skill level is high, they will ﬁnd the targets faster, if the skill level is low, they will ﬁnd the targets slower. Therefore, it guarantees the task challenge’s good adaptivity to individuals’ skill during the entire task, and it is universal for people with different levels, unlike the abovementioned paradigms that require individuals to have a certain background of knowledge. When performing the primary task, there are potential distractors that may distract the user ’s attention and interest (see Figure 2). According to the manipulation of distractors (such as manipulating the type, fun, intensity, or number of the distractors), different levels of attention allocation will be induced, and this may lead to different levels of attention when performing the primary task. The more distractors there are, or the more attractive/disruptive they are, the more attention may be transferred, thus the ﬂow from performing the primary task will decrease. By comparison, the less distractors there are, or the less attractive/disruptive they are, the less attention will be transferred, and then the ﬂow from performing the primary task will increase. It should be noted that the distractors here are different from interruptions. Distractors do not suddenly intrude or appear in a VR scene to interrupt the process of engaging in the primary task, but constantly exist in the scene due to poor design. The task paradigms can help the ﬂow study, especially in exploring the role of distraction in weak ﬂow-performance link. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5799 5 of 18 Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5799 5 of 18 Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5799 5 of 18 Figure 2. A task paradigm based on a VR searching task. Figure Ne 2.x A t, ta a s VR k pa ta ra sd k sy igmst bem i aseds d onev a VR elo pe sead r ca hcc ino grd tas in k.g to this task paradigm. Figure 2. A task paradigm based on a VR searching task. Next, a VR task system is developed according to this task paradigm. 4. Construction of Testing System Next, a VR task system is developed according to this task paradigm. We developed a VR system according to one of Bian’s previous studies [7], and de- 4. Construction of Testing System 4. Construction of Testing System signed the primary task and distractors according to the proposed “VR searching para- We developed a VR system according to one of Bian’s previous studies [7], and de- digm W” e. developed a VR system according to one of Bian’s previous studies [7], and de- signed signed the thprimary e primary task tas and k an distractors d distracto accor rs acc ding ordto inthe g topr th oposed e propo “VR sedsear “VR ching searc paradigm”. hing para- d 4.i1 gm . Sto ”. ryline Design 4.1. Storyline Design A VR underwater-treasure-hunting system is constructed for our experiments. To 4.1. Storyline Design A VR underwater-treasure-hunting system is constructed for our experiments. To make it easy for the user to be involved in the VE and the task, we designed a storyline make it easy for the user to be involved in the VE and the task, we designed a storyline [4]. A VR underwater-treasure-hunting system is constructed for our experiments. To [4]. At the beginning of the task, the user falls into a mysterious area under the sea (see make it easy for the user to be involved in the VE and the task, we designed a storyline At the beginning of the task, the user falls into a mysterious area under the sea (see Figure 3). The user is “cursed”, and then turned into a king crab (using avatars helps to [4]. Figure 3). The user is “cursed”, and then turned into a king crab (using avatars helps to enhance immersion, and the degree of immersion increases the body ownership, agency, At the beginning of the task, the user falls into a mysterious area under the sea (see enhance immersion, and the degree of immersion increases the body ownership, agency, as well as the feeling of presence [22]). There are eight treasure chests scattered on an Figure 3). The user is “cursed”, and then turned into a king crab (using avatars helps to as well as the feeling of presence [22]). There are eight treasure chests scattered on an underwater mountain with many curves and slopes. After ﬁnding all the treasure chests enhance immersion, and the degree of immersion increases the body ownership, agency, underwater mountain with many curves and slopes. After finding all the treasure chests successfully within 4 min, the user can escape from the sea and become human again. as well as the feeling of presence [22]). There are eight treasure chests scattered on an successfully within 4 min, the user can escape from the sea and become human again. Otherwise, they will “be a crab forever” and it is “game over”. underwater mountain with many curves and slopes. After finding all the treasure chests Otherwise, they will “be a crab forever” and it is “game over”. successfully within 4 min, the user can escape from the sea and become human again. Otherwise, they will “be a crab forever” and it is “game over”. Figure Figure 3. 3The . Thuser e user plays play as s a asking a kin crab g crin abthe in tVR he VR treasur treaesur hunting e huntsystem ing syst (fr em (fr om the om thir the d tperson hird per view). son view). Figure 3. The user plays as a king crab in the VR treasure hunting system (from the third person view). Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5799 6 of 18 4.2. Natural Interaction Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5799 6 of 18 Our study mainly refers to the role of visual distraction. To avoid unnecessary dis- tractions due to poor interactions, we adopted a first-person perspective and embodied interaction design. 4.2. Natural Interaction To improve the sense of presence, the user navigates in the VE using the first-person Our study mainly refers to the role of visual distraction. To avoid unnecessary dis- Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5799 6 of 18 tractions due to poor interactions, we adopted a ﬁrst-person perspective and embodied view. A near to real underwater exploration experience is simulated with an HTC vive: interaction design. (1) The controllers were embodied into a pair of virtual crab claws in the VE. (2) user’s To improve the sense of presence, the user navigates in the VE using the ﬁrst-person 4.2. Natural Interaction angle of view was controlled by adjusting the head movement and orientation. By simply view. A near to real underwater exploration experience is simulated with an HTC vive: (1) The controllers were embodied into a pair of virtual crab claws in the VE. (2) user ’s Our study mainly refers to the role of visual distraction. To avoid unnecessary dis- using a swivel chair (just for rotation, not actual movement), users can move like a real angle of view was controlled by adjusting the head movement and orientation. By simply tractions due to poor interactions, we adopted a first-person perspective and embodied crab to control the orientation in the VE (Figure 4). (3) In addition, the user can control the using a swivel chair (just for rotation, not actual movement), users can move like a real interaction design. movements and open the treasure chests by using the handle. (4) The player can interact crab to control the orientation in the VE (Figure 4). (3) In addition, the user can control the To improve the sense of presence, the user navigates in the VE using the first-person movements and open the treasure chests by using the handle. (4) The player can interact v wi iew. th A o n th eaer r to m rea ari l un ne der cr wa ea ter ture expl s. ora By tiob nl ex owi peri n ence g o ut is sia m v ulia rtua ted wi l wa th ater n HT co C lv um ive:n , the user can drive with other marine creatures. By blowing out a virtual water column, the user can drive (1) The controllers were embodied into a pair of virtual crab claws in the VE. (2) user’s marine creatures away (Figure 5). (5) The feeling of water resistance under the water is marine creatures away (Figure 5). (5) The feeling of water resistance under the water is angle of view was controlled by adjusting the head movement and orientation. By simply simulated by using a visual motion delay effect [23]. simulated by using a visual motion delay effect [23]. using a swivel chair (just for rotation, not actual movement), users can move like a real crab to control the orientation in the VE (Figure 4). (3) In addition, the user can control the movements and open the treasure chests by using the handle. (4) The player can interact with other marine creatures. By blowing out a virtual water column, the user can drive marine creatures away (Figure 5). (5) The feeling of water resistance under the water is simulated by using a visual motion delay effect [23]. Figure 4. The equipment of our VR testing system. Figure 4. The equipment of our VR testing system. Figure 4. The equipment of our VR testing system. Figure Figure 5. 5. I If f ther there e is is a a marine marine cr creatur eature e in inthe the way way( left (left ),),the the player player can can drive drive the the marine marincr e c eatur reature e away awaby y bblowing y blowin out g ou atjet a jof et water of wat(er right (righ ). t). These interaction designs are integrated with an immersive VE, and they will even- tually make the user feel like exploring the virtual world with their own body [24], which Figure 5. If there is a marine creature in the way (left), the player can drive the marine creature away by blowing out a jet can provide a good, embodied interaction experience. of water (right). 4.3. Practice Scenarios These interaction designs are integrated with an immersive VE, and they will even- A training scenario was developed for the user to practice the necessary operations tually make the user feel like exploring the virtual world with their own body [24], which in advance. The system gives instruction to the user as “Your new body has some new can provide a good, embodied interaction experience. 4.3. Practice Scenarios A training scenario was developed for the user to practice the necessary operations in advance. The system gives instruction to the user as “Your new body has some new Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5799 7 of 18 These interaction designs are integrated with an immersive VE, and they will eventu- ally make the user feel like exploring the virtual world with their own body [24], which can provide a good, embodied interaction experience. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5799 7 of 18 4.3. Practice Scenarios A training scenario was developed for the user to practice the necessary operations in advance. The system gives instruction to the user as “Your new body has some new abilities, so get used to it”. Then, the user follows visual and auditory instructions to prac- abilities, so get used to it”. Then, the user follows visual and auditory instructions to tice. After practice, the system says, “Now that you’re familiar with your new body, practice. After practice, the system says, “Now that you’re familiar with your new body, there’s going to be a formal task”. there’s going to be a formal task”. 4.4. Formal Scenario: Primary Task and Distractors 4.4. Formal Scenario: Primary Task and Distractors The The f formal ormal scena scenario rio iis s a a m mysterious ysterious sea sea a ar re ea a wi with th va various rious ki kinds nds o of f m marine arine cr crea eatur ture es. s. The The pr primary imary t task ask a and nd d distractors istractors were were d designed esigned a accor ccord ding ing to to th the e VR VR sea sear rc ching hing pa paradigm radigm to investigate the player ’s response. to investigate the player’s response. The primary task is to ﬁnd eight targets (i.e., treasure chests) as soon as possible within The primary task is to find eight targets (i.e., treasure chests) as soon as possible wi the thlimited in the litime mited (Figur time e(Fi 6a). gure Distractors 6a). Distra in cto this rs in VE thar is e VE various are vasea rious creatur sea cr es earandomly tures ran- navigating in the virtual scene (Figure 6b). Although the player can interact with them, domly navigating in the virtual scene (Figure 6b). Although the player can interact with they do not play a role in the primary task (incongruence), thus may attract the user, and them, they do not play a role in the primary task (incongruence), thus may attract the user, then interfere with his/her attention on the task. Based on this VR system, we conducted and then interfere with his/her attention on the task. Based on this VR system, we con- three empirical studies in the following sections. ducted three empirical studies in the following sections. Figure 6. The primary task is to find treasure chests (a); some examples of distractors are shown in (b). Figure 6. The primary task is to ﬁnd treasure chests (a); some examples of distractors are shown in (b). 5. Empirical Study 1: Testing the Role of Distraction in Weak Flow-Performance Link 5. Empirical Study 1: Testing the Role of Distraction in Weak Flow-Performance Link Based on the analysis above on WAM and distraction in Section 2, the ﬁrst question Based on the analysis above on WAM and distraction in Section 2, the first question we need to verify is the assertion of WAM. The core assertion is that distraction caused by we need to verify is the assertion of WAM. The core assertion is that distraction caused by disjointed features maybe a reason of weak ﬂow-performance link, which is the Hypothesis disjointed features maybe a reason of weak flow-performance link, which is the hypothe- (H1) in this study. sis (H1) in this study. Hypothesis 1 (H1). In VEs where the artifacts are disjointed with the primary task, distraction Hypothesis 1 (H1). In VEs where the artifacts are disjointed with the primary task, distraction caused by disjointed features is a direct antecedent of weak ﬂow-performance link. caused by disjointed features is a direct antecedent of weak flow-performance link. 5.1. Design 5.1. Design A within-subjects quasi-experimental design was adopted to test the hypothesis. It A within-subjects quasi-experimental design was adopted to test the hypothesis. It is is commonly used in situations occurring in natural settings where full experimental commonly used in situations occurring in natural settings where full experimental control control is lacking, allowing the researcher to introduce something like true experiment is lacking, allowing the researcher to introduce something like true experiment design. design. With this design, both a control group and an experimental group is compared, With this design, both a control group and an experimental group is compared, however, however, the groups are chosen and assigned out of convenience rather than through the groups are chosen and assigned out of convenience rather than through randomiza- randomization [25]. Participants were asked to perform a speciﬁc task, and the frequency tion [25]. Participants were asked to perform a specific task, and the frequency of dis- of distracted interaction during the task was recorded as an independent variable. Two tracted interaction during the task was recorded as an independent variable. Two levels levels of distracted interaction would be distinguished: high level and low level. The of distracted interaction would be distinguished: high level and low level. The operational operational deﬁnition of high level (of distracted interaction) in this study is “having definition of high level (of distracted interaction) in this study is “having more interactions (about the top thirty percent) with irrelevant marine creatures while performing the pri- mary task”. It reflects a strong tendency to shift attention away from the primary task. The low level (of distracted interaction) is operationally defined as “having little interaction (about bottom thirty percent) with irrelevant marine creatures during the primary task”. It reflects a weak tendency to shift attention away from the primary task. This method of dividing high-level and low-level groups is commonly used in psychological experiments. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5799 8 of 18 more interactions (about the top thirty percent) with irrelevant marine creatures while performing the primary task”. It reﬂects a strong tendency to shift attention away from the primary task. The low level (of distracted interaction) is operationally deﬁned as “having little interaction (about bottom thirty percent) with irrelevant marine creatures during the primary task”. It reﬂects a weak tendency to shift attention away from the primary task. This method of dividing high-level and low-level groups is commonly used in psychological experiments. The dependent variable is the ﬂow-performance link. Considering that the participants’ existing familiarity with VR and visual discomfort during the task may affect ﬂow experience and concentration, they were controlled as extra variables. 5.2. Participants In this study, we recruited 32 volunteers (15 males and 17 females) to participate in the study. The age ranged from 14 to 34 years old (M = 24.75 years, SD = 6.49 years). 5.3. Environment and Procedure After practice, all participants performing the task two times (we designed two parallel tasks by changing the location of treasure chests) according to their own intention. When ﬁnished, the participant immediately completed an online questionnaire. 5.4. Measures Flow Experience. The ﬂow of participants during the task was measured with Flow Short-Scale. The scale has been proven to be an effective instrument to measure ﬂow in VR activities [19,26]. The participants answered these items on a seven-point Likert scale from 1 (I don’t agree) to 7 (I agree). The reliability of the scale was good in this study. Task Performance. The task performance of participants was measured by the number of treasure chests found during the task. Most participants could not ﬁnd all eight chests in 4 min, thus there was no ceiling effect. Distraction. Distraction was evaluated with the frequency of distracted interaction, which is the time spent shooting irrelevant marine creatures during the primary task. This indicator is not extremely sensitive and so does not reﬂect the state of distraction, but it can be used as an external indicator of distraction. The data were recorded in the system. Visual Comfort The Visual Comfort Questionnaire was used to assess the participants’ visual comfort during the task. The questionnaire was developed by Zhou et al. [27] from referencing Lambooij et al.’s questionnaire [28]. The questionnaire evaluates the overall visual experi- ence in VR activities from four aspects: 3D experience, naturalness, viewing experience in interaction (including three indicators: comfort in stability, ﬂuency and viewpoint), image quality, and avoidance of discomfort (including two indicators: avoidance of dizziness and avoidance of fatigue). The participants answered these items on a scale with the adjectives [bad]-[poor]-[fair]-[good]-[excellent]. 5.5. Results A total of 64 valid data were collected. We ﬁrstly performed a pre-test to ensure that the weak ﬂow-performance link occurred in our constructed VR environment. According to Bian et al. [2,7], the weak link was tested with the regression analysis. A signiﬁcant prediction from ﬂow to performance means strong ﬂow-performance link, while an in- signiﬁcant prediction from ﬂow to performance means weak ﬂow-performance link. Then, correlation analysis and regression analysis were performed. Results showed that the correlation between ﬂow (M = 61.13, SD = 7.94) and task performance (M = 4.45, SD = 1.59) was low and the prediction from ﬂow to performance was marginally signiﬁcant ( = 0.215, p = 0.086). These results showed that the designed distractors could be used as disjointed features to induce weak association to some extent. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5799 9 of 18 Next, to examine the role of distraction in weak link, 44 data (half in high distraction condition, half in low distraction condition) were ﬁnally selected for analysis according to the operational deﬁnition of high distraction and low distraction. The visual comfort and familiarity with VR during the task were measured, and there was no difference between the two groups (ps > 0.05). After performing correlation analysis and regression analysis, results showed that there was no signiﬁcant correlation between ﬂow and task performance in high distraction condition, and ﬂow did not signiﬁcantly predict task performance ( = 0.198, p = 0.391). In comparison, data from low distraction condition showed that there was signiﬁcant corre- lation between ﬂow and performance, and ﬂow signiﬁcantly predicted task performance ( = 0.437, p = 0.042). These results support H1 and demonstrate that in VEs where the artifacts are disjointed with the primary task, distraction level caused by disjointed features is a direct antecedent of weak ﬂow-performance link. When obvious distractions occur, this problem will arise. If the results of this study support that distraction is an antecedent of weak ﬂow- performance link, how can we alleviate this problem by dealing with distractions? WAM suggested a basic design guideline [2], which is to improve the congruence between interactive artifacts and primary tasks (or reduce the disjointed features on the other side). Based on the basic guideline, two more speciﬁc design guidelines can be proposed to deal with distractions in VR activities: (1) Reducing conspicuous but irrelevant distractors directly; (2) Increasing the congruence between distractors and primary task by guiding attention. As to the latter, we got inspiration to utilize visual cues to guiding attention from some previous work. Grogorick et al. proposed an adaptation of different existing gaze guidance stimuli to immersive environments and investigated the efﬁciency of ﬁve different gaze guidance techniques [29]. In augmented reality-based assistance system, guiding attention towards the relevant targets will reduce the time needed for visual search and reduce errors, based on the several attention-guiding techniques developed in [30]. We think it is a constructive way to guide attention and transfer distracted behavioral consequences to task-relevant cues through appropriate visual or interaction design. The effectiveness of the two guidelines was tested in the following studies 2 and 3. 6. Empirical Study 2: Effect of Reducing Distractors on the Weak Flow-Performance Link The purpose of this study is to test the effectiveness of guideline 1. According to this guideline, we proposed Hypothesis 2 (H2). Hypothesis 2 (H2). Reducing task-irrelevant distractors can help alleviate the problem of weak ﬂow-performance link. 6.1. Experimental Design We adopted a single factor between-subject design with distractor conditions (reducing distractors/control condition) as the independent variable. Using between-subject design can control the potential learning effect/ordering effect. Dependent variables are ﬂow, task performance and the ﬂow-performance link. The visual discomfort and familiarity with VR game were still controlled as extra variables. 6.2. Participants A total of 38 volunteers (17 males and 21 females) were recruited to participate in the study. The age of the sample ranged from 14 to 31 years old (M = 22.93 years, SD = 3.02 years). Participants were randomly divided into two equal groups, one group was assigned to the condition of reducing distractors, and the other group was assigned to the control condition. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5799 10 of 18 6.3. Environment In contrast to study 1, two versions (version 0 and 1) of the VR system were developed in this study to test H2. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5799 10 of 18 Version 0 is the control condition. It is the same VR system (with distractors) as that in study 1 (Figure 7a). Figure 7. Differences between version 0 (a) and version 1 (b) on distractors. (a): Many kinds of marine creatures navigating Figure 7. Differences between version 0 (a) and version 1 (b) on distractors. (a): Many kinds of marine creatures navigating in the scene as distractors. (b): Very few distractors appear. in the scene as distractors. (b): Very few distractors appear. Version 1 is developed based on design guideline 1. Speciﬁcally, we remove the Version 1 is developed based on design guideline 1. Specifically, we remove the con- conspicuous marine creatures that wander around in the virtual scene (see Figure 7b). spicuous marine creatures that wander around in the virtual scene (see Figure 7b). Since Since there is no change in the primary task, it will not affect the difﬁculty of the task. there is no change in the primary task, it will not affect the difficulty of the task. 6.4. Procedure 6.4. Procedure Before the study, we ﬁrst explained the VR tasks to the participants in advance. After that, each participant played one of the two versions. When they ﬁnished (or the time is Before the study, we first explained the VR tasks to the participants in advance. After out), task performance was recorded by the system. Then, the participant immediately that, each participant played one of the two versions. When they finished (or the time is completed a questionnaire. out), task performance was recorded by the system. Then, the participant immediately completed a questionnaire. 6.5. Measures The measures of ﬂow, performance, and visual comfort were the same as study 1. 6.5. Measures 6.6. Results The measures of flow, performance, and visual comfort were the same as study 1. We ﬁrstly conducted two independent-sample t tests to investigate the difference in visual comfort and familiarity with VR between the two versions. Results showed that 6.6. Results there was no signiﬁcant difference (ps > 0.05). Thus, these extra variables were controlled We firstly conducted two independent-sample T tests to investigate the difference in without affecting the subsequent analysis. visual comfort and familiarity with VR between the two versions. Results showed that Additional independent-sample t tests were performed to investigate the difference there was no significant difference (ps > 0.05). Thus, these extra variables were controlled in ﬂow and performance between the two conditions. Results showed that there was a without affecting the subsequent analysis. signiﬁcant difference in ﬂow [t (37) = 2.906, p = 0.005], and participants in version 0 had higher Addi ﬂow tiona than l ind those epende in version nt-sampl 1 (Figur e T tests e 8 a). were The pe dif rffo er rme ence d in totask investi performance gate the dwas ifference also signiﬁcant [t (37) = 5.302, p < 0.001]. Contrary to the results of ﬂow, participants in in flow and performance between the two conditions. Results showed that there was a version 1 achieved better task performance than those in version 0 (Figure 8b). significant difference in flow [t (37) = 2.906, p = 0.005], and participants in version 0 had Correlation analysis and regression analysis were conducted un-der each condition. higher flow than those in version 1 (Figure 8a). The difference in task performance was Results showed that the correlation between ﬂow and performance was not signiﬁcant in also significant [t (37) = 5.302, p < 0.001]. Contrary to the results of flow, participants in high distraction conditions, and ﬂow did not signiﬁcantly predict performance ( = 0.110, version 1 achieved better task performance than those in version 0 (Figure 8b). p = 0.509). In comparison, data from low distraction condition showed that the correlation between ﬂow and performance was signiﬁcant, and ﬂow signiﬁcantly and positively predicted task performance ( = 0.351, p = 0.031). Figure 8. Differences between the effects of these two versions on flow (a), and task performance (b). In (a), flow in version 1 is significantly lower than version 0. In (b), performance in version 1 is significantly better than version 0 (p < 0.01). ** means p < 0.01; *** means p < 0.001. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5799 10 of 18 Figure 7. Differences between version 0 (a) and version 1 (b) on distractors. (a): Many kinds of marine creatures navigating in the scene as distractors. (b): Very few distractors appear. Version 1 is developed based on design guideline 1. Specifically, we remove the con- spicuous marine creatures that wander around in the virtual scene (see Figure 7b). Since there is no change in the primary task, it will not affect the difficulty of the task. 6.4. Procedure Before the study, we first explained the VR tasks to the participants in advance. After that, each participant played one of the two versions. When they finished (or the time is out), task performance was recorded by the system. Then, the participant immediately completed a questionnaire. 6.5. Measures The measures of flow, performance, and visual comfort were the same as study 1. 6.6. Results We firstly conducted two independent-sample T tests to investigate the difference in visual comfort and familiarity with VR between the two versions. Results showed that there was no significant difference (ps > 0.05). Thus, these extra variables were controlled without affecting the subsequent analysis. Additional independent-sample T tests were performed to investigate the difference in flow and performance between the two conditions. Results showed that there was a significant difference in flow [t (37) = 2.906, p = 0.005], and participants in version 0 had higher flow than those in version 1 (Figure 8a). The difference in task performance was Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5799 11 of 18 also significant [t (37) = 5.302, p < 0.001]. Contrary to the results of flow, participants in version 1 achieved better task performance than those in version 0 (Figure 8b). Figure 8. Differences between the effects of these two versions on ﬂow (a), and task performance Figure 8. Differences between the effects of these two versions on flow (a), and task performance (b). In (a), ﬂow in version 1 is signiﬁcantly lower than version 0. In (b), performance in version 1 is (b). In (a), flow in version 1 is significantly lower than version 0. In (b), performance in version 1 is signiﬁcantly better than version 0 (p < 0.01). ** means p < 0.01; *** means p < 0.001. significantly better than version 0 (p < 0.01). ** means p < 0.01; *** means p < 0.001. The results showed that reducing conspicuous distractors not only strengthened the ﬂow-performance link but also improved the task performance. However, this approach impaired the quality of ﬂow experience to some extent. It meant that although distractions reduced task performance, they helped achieve better experience during the task. Anyway, these results supported H2, suggesting that guideline 1 was an effective way to alleviate the weak link. Next, experiment 3 tested the effectiveness of guideline 2. 7. Empirical Study 3: Effect of a Congruence Design Approach on the Weak Flow-Performance Link The purpose of this study is to test the effectiveness of guideline 2. According to this guideline, we proposed Hypothesis 3 (H3). Hypothesis 3 (H3). Promoting the congruence of distractors and primary task can help alleviate the problem of weak ﬂow-performance link. 7.1. Design We conducted another comparative experiment. In contrast to study 2, we adopted a within-subject design with the congruence conditions (congruent/control condition) as the independent variable. Dependent variables are the same as study 2. The reason for changing the study design is as follows: although we try to control individual differences (such as familiarity with VR game and visual comfort), there might be others that may affect the results. Within-subject design can avoid the problem. However, it brings the risk of rising learning effect or order effect. To avoid this effect, the positions of the treasure chests are different in the two conditions without changing the task difﬁculty (the perceived difﬁculty was controlled as an extra variable). Moreover, we counterbalanced the order of experiencing the two conditions. 7.2. Participants A total of 65 volunteers (35 males and 30 females) were recruited to participate in the study. The age of the sample ranged from 14 to 45 years old (M = 23.05, SD = 5.11). 7.3. Environment We set two versions (version 0 and 2) in this study to test H3. Version 0 is the control condition. It is the same VR system (with distractors) as that in study 1 (Figure 7a). Version 2 is a VR system developed according to a design guideline. In this version, the number of distractors were not reduced. To improve the congruence between distracted interactions and the primary task, visual cues were designed to utilize Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5799 12 of 18 distractors to provide attention guidance [31], and then achieve more task-oriented selective attention. When the participants actively attack task-irrelevant creatures due to distraction, different from version 0, the attacked creatures will move towards the nearby treasure chest. In this way, the participants’ attention is probably unconsciously shifted back from the distractors to the primary task. The rest of the conditions (including the perceived Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5799 12 of 18 difﬁculty of the task) in the two versions remain the same. The differences between the two versions are shown in Figure 9. Figure 9. After frequently interacting with the marine creatures, version 0 (a) and version 2 (b) show differences in outcomes. Figure 9. After frequently interacting with the marine creatures, version 0 (a) and version 2 (b) show differences in out- (a): The creatures still move randomly after being attacked. (b): The creatures move towards the location of the nearby comes. (a): The creatures still move randomly after being attacked. (b): The creatures move towards the location of the treasure chest more frequently after being attacked. nearby treasure chest more frequently after being attacked. 7.4. Procedure 7.4. Procedure Before the study, we ﬁrst explained the VR tasks to the participants in advance. Before the study, we first explained the VR tasks to the participants in advance. After After that, each participant experienced the two versions of the tasks, and the order of that, each participant experienced the two versions of the tasks, and the order of experi- experiencing the two versions was counterbalanced. When they ﬁnished (or the time enci isnout) g the each twotime, versitask ons w performance as counterb was alan rce ecor d.ded Whe by n t the hey system. finished Then, (or th the e ti participant me is out) each immediately completed a questionnaire. time, task performance was recorded by the system. Then, the participant immediately completed a questionnaire. 7.5. Measures The measurements of ﬂow, performance, and visual comfort were the same as those in 7.5. Measures studies 1 and 2. The perceived difﬁculty was assessed on a scale with the adjectives [very The measurements of flow, performance, and visual comfort were the same as those easy]-[easy]-[moderate]-[difﬁcult]-[very difﬁcult]. in studies 1 and 2. The perceived difficulty was assessed on a scale with the adjectives 7.6. Results [very easy]-[easy]-[moderate]-[difficult]-[very difficult]. We ﬁrstly performed a paired-sample t test to investigate the difference in perceived difﬁculty between the two conditions. Results showed that the perceived difﬁculty of 7.6. Results participants was moderate (M = 3.46, SD = 0.47) and that there was no signiﬁcant difference We firstly performed a paired-sample T test to investigate the difference in perceived [t (64) = 0.659, p = 0.512]. Thus, this extra variable was controlled well. difficulty between the two conditions. Results showed that the perceived difficulty of par- tici7.6.1. pantsEf wa fects s m on od Flow erate (M = 3.46, SD = 0.47) and that there was no significant difference [t (64) = 0.659, p = 0.512]. Thus, this extra variable was controlled well. A paired-sample t test was conducted to test the difference of ﬂow experience between the two conditions. It was found that the difference in ﬂow between version 0 (61.13 7.94) and version 2 was not signiﬁcant (see Figure 10a). 7.6.1. Effects on Flow A paired-sample T test was conducted to test the difference of flow experience be- tween the two conditions. It was found that the difference in flow between version 0 (61.13 ± 7.94) and version 2 was not significant (see Figure 10a). Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5799 13 of 18 Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5799 13 of 18 Figure 10. Differences between the effects of these two versions on flow (a), and performance in the primary task (b). In Figure 10. Differences between the effects of these two versions on ﬂow (a), and performance in the (a), there are no significant differences between version 0 and version 2. In (b), performance in version 2 is significantly primary task (b). In (a), there are no signiﬁcant differences between version 0 and version 2. In (b), better than version 0 (p < 0.01). ** means p < 0.01. performance in version 2 is signiﬁcantly better than version 0 (p < 0.01). ** means p < 0.01. 7.6.2. Effects on Performance 7.6.2. Effects on Performance We conducted another paired-sample T test to test the difference in performance (see We conducted another paired-sample t test to test the difference in performance (see Figure 10b), and a significant difference was found [t (64) = 3.313, p = 0.002]. Specifically, Figure 10b), and a signiﬁcant difference was found [t (64) = 3.313, p = 0.002]. Speciﬁcally, the participants in version 2 (5.18 ± 1.74) had better task performance than those in version the participants in version 2 (5.18 1.74) had better task performance than those in version 0 (4.45 ± 1.59). It indicated that the approach of providing attention guidance did help 0 (4.45 1.59). It indicated that the approach of providing attention guidance did help participants improve their task-relevant behavior and performance. participants improve their task-relevant behavior and performance. 7.6.3. Effects on the Flow-Performance Link 7.6.3. Effects on the Flow-Performance Link Correlation analysis and regression analysis were conducted under each of the two Correlation analysis and regression analysis were conducted under each of the two conditions. Results showed that the correlation between flow and performance was not conditions. Results showed that the correlation between ﬂow and performance was not significant in version 0, and flow did not significantly predict task performance (β = 0.215, signiﬁcant in version 0, and ﬂow did not signiﬁcantly predict task performance ( = 0.215, p = 0.086). In comparison, data from version 2 showed that the correlation between flow p = 0.086). In comparison, data from version 2 showed that the correlation between ﬂow and task performance was significant, and flow significantly predicted task performance and task performance was signiﬁcant, and ﬂow signiﬁcantly predicted task performance (β = 0.255, p = 0.041). It could be seen that the correlation between flow and performance ( = 0.255, p = 0.041). It could be seen that the correlation between ﬂow and performance did increase to some extent after promoting congruence design. did increase to some extent after promoting congruence design. These results basically support H3 and demonstrate that distraction behavior can be These results basically support H3 and demonstrate that distraction behavior can transformed into task-relevant behavior by adding visual cues to provide attention guid- be transformed into task-relevant behavior by adding visual cues to provide attention ance. When attention shifts from distractors to the task, the weak link will be alleviated. guidance. When attention shifts from distractors to the task, the weak link will be alleviated. 8. Discussion 8. Discussion Our studies further verified the WAM. Some meaningful results were found through Our studies further veriﬁed the WAM. Some meaningful results were found through three empirical studies. three empirical studies. 8.1. The VR Task Paradigm 8.1. The VR Task Paradigm In this paper, we developed a VR task paradigm. Based on this paradigm, we con- In this paper, we developed a VR task paradigm. Based on this paradigm, we con- structed a VR system and conducted a series of studies. From the research results, it is structed a VR system and conducted a series of studies. From the research results, it is concluded that this paradigm can be well used to investigate flow experience and flow- concluded that this paradigm can be well used to investigate ﬂow experience and ﬂow- performance link in VR activities. performance link in VR activities. This paradigm was proposed based on the LT and limited resource theory. From the This paradigm was proposed based on the LT and limited resource theory. From the perspective of cognitive resources allocation, it can be used to investigate how VR users’ perspective of cognitive resources allocation, it can be used to investigate how VR users’ attention resources are allocated in the process of completing tasks with distractors. attention resources are allocated in the process of completing tasks with distractors. Different from the interruption diagram [32], in which the primary task was inter- Different from the interruption diagram [32], in which the primary task was inter- rupted in special phases, the primary task is not interrupted in our paradigm, and the rupted in special phases, the primary task is not interrupted in our paradigm, and the distractors are constantly existing in the primary task. Moreover, it is different from the distractors are constantly existing in the primary task. Moreover, it is different from the visual search paradigm in traditional cognitive experiments, which denotes the task of visual search paradigm in traditional cognitive experiments, which denotes the task of finding a target amongst a set of distractors. This is typically done by moving the eye gaze ﬁnding a target amongst a set of distractors. This is typically done by moving the eye gaze to potential target locations through an active scan of static graphics or images presented to potential target locations through an active scan of static graphics or images presented Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5799 14 of 18 by ﬁxed-position screens [20]. By contrast, the visual task in our paradigm is set in a more natural and interesting VR navigation scene, and it is interactive. According to the paradigm, various experimental VR systems can be designed. Since this paper is a basic study, the task designed in this paper is relatively simple. Both the task design and indicators of performance can be further developed and expanded in more extensive research. We expect that this paradigm can be increasingly used in VR learning and training systems to further examine the relation between distraction and ﬂow-performance link. 8.2. Role of Distraction in Weak Flow-Performance Link According to WAM, the main reason leading to weak ﬂow-performance link in VE is the incongruence between interactive artifacts and the primary task. Weak ﬂow might be caused by irrelevant VE contents or using interaction artifacts (they can induce ﬂow experience that is independent of the primary task) instead of performing the primary task [2]. In fact, distraction is a key mediator, mediating the effect from the disjunction features to ﬂow-performance link. The problem of weak ﬂow-performance link arises when charac- teristics of disjunction cause a certain level of distraction. Although the role of distractions was brieﬂy mentioned in WAM, previous studies did not directly examine it. The results of study 1 veriﬁed this point: By designing task-irrelevant distractors to accompany the primary task, we constructed a VR activity with disjointed features that cause a wide range and degree of distraction. Moreover, distraction levels directly predicted the weak link problem. Higher levels of distraction were followed by weaker ﬂow-performance link, while lower levels of distraction were followed by stronger link. Therefore, these results revealed the direct effect of distractions on ﬂow-performance link. Therefore, further paying attention to distraction and clarifying the effect of distractors on the user could be a breakthrough to avoid the problem of ﬂow-performance link and optimize VR designs. 8.3. Design Guideline and Its Practical Implication Based on the principle proposed in WAM [2], we proposed two more speciﬁc design guidelines to deal with distractions in VR: (1) Reducing conspicuous but irrelevant distrac- tors directly; and (2) increasing the congruence between distractors and primary task. When conspicuous but irrelevant distractors induce distractions during the primary task, directly reducing the number of them is an easy and practical approach. This approach can effectively reduce distraction, improve task-relevant behaviors, and the performance of primary task. Not only that, but it can also strengthen the ﬂow-performance link to a certain extent. However, this approach impairs the quality of ﬂow experience to some extent. Some distractors can improve the vividness and interactivity of the virtual environment. Researchers have agreed that interactivity and vividness are two key variables affecting presence [33–36], and more vivid and interactive virtual environments are associated with higher levels of telepresence [37–40]. Therefore, distractors are not totally useless and they may have the potential to enhance the user ’s feeling of presence and motivation of automatic exploration (autotelic experience) in VR, which helps achieve better ﬂow experience. It may be better to take advantage of these distractors than to remove them entirely. Guideline 2 was proposed in this direction. Guideline 2 gives another approach to dealing with distractions during the primary task. It is a constructive way to transfer the consequences of distraction into task-relevant ones through providing appropriate visual cues. In addition to the previous several studies that gave us inspiration, there are also some existing studies that are in line with this direction of design. Beck and Hollingworth [31] used a gaze-contingent search paradigm to manipulate selection history directly and examine the competition between multiple cue-matching saccade target objects. Quiros’ et al. conducted A meta-analysis to explore a concurrent working memory load task that does not impair visual selective attention [41]. These works can also provide inspiration to adjust visual information. Finally, we optimized Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5799 15 of 18 the disjointed VR system to a more congruent one and proved the second guideline is effective and practical too. This approach can help transfer the participants’ attention back to the primary task without reducing the number of distractors, and it does help participants improve task-related behavior and performance without damaging the quality of ﬂow. In this way, much ﬂow may be produced from performing the primary task and task-relevant behavior, and a stronger ﬂow-performance link can be built. These ﬁndings can provide reference for designers to ﬁnd ways to optimize VR systems. As to how to make the best use of these guidelines, the speciﬁc features of each VR system and the type of the primary task need to be fully considered. 8.4. Discussion about the Applicability of the Findings In fact, the ﬁndings discussed in this paper are more applicable to the VR systems for the purpose of learning, training, and education rather than pure entertainment. For the latter systems, the key points of the system design are vividness, interest, and richness, so they merely need to provide users with a good experience, not necessarily to transfer these experiences into better task performance. In this case, any spontaneous exploratory behavior is acceptable, even if it is irrelevant to the primary task. Therefore, the weak ﬂow-performance link is not a real problem for these systems. For example, the VR system in this paper is more like an example of entertainment-oriented systems. A variety of distractors (marine creatures) can enrich the scene, bring interest and fun to the users, and then produce a good experience. For entertainment, there is no need to transfer the good experiences into task relevant performance, the enhancement of attention on distractors or task-irrelevant interactive behaviors are also acceptable. Although this may not be a real problem for entertainment-oriented systems, it could be a serious and usually imperceptible problem for learning- oriented systems (or education-oriented systems) [2]. As stated in the introduction, if the enhancement of experience quality cannot promote performance effectively, pursuing good experience would be meaningless or may even be counterproductive. Still, if take the system in this paper as an example, if the primary task is not simply ﬁnding things, but to ﬁnd and learn some knowledge hidden in the chests (such as biological knowledge of marine creatures), then even if distractors make the VR environment lively and interesting, they distract users’ attention resource away from the primary task. Thus, it will break the further transferring from good experience into task-relevant performance and outcome. 8.5. Limitations and Future Work There are still some shortcomings in this paper. First, the VR systems designed in this paper are more game-like. Although we believe that the fundamental conclusions are applicable to other learning systems, they need to be further tested in various virtual learning environments. Moreover, we will further perfect the VR task paradigm and enrich the statistical test methods of weak ﬂow-performance link in the future. Second, this paper provides two design guidelines, but there must be others. Since distraction is a key predictor, all factors affecting distraction may affect ﬂow-performance link. For instance, task demand is a key factor affecting the selective processing of target-related information [42,43]; increasing the demands on lessons would reduce distractions (i.e., increase selectivity) in the classroom [4]; the perceptual load of a task inﬂuenced the spatial selectivity of attention [44]. Lavie and Tsal have developed a framework that explains the early and late selection conditions based on difﬁculty of tasks [43]. Design guidelines can be further explored and extended from these aspects. Third, tracking users’ eye movements is an effective method for revealing distractions and visual information processing [45]. However, due to the limitation of equipment, this paper did not evaluate distraction directly by measuring eye movements. Hence, it is necessary to adopt effective ways to measure distracted eye movements in VR activities to further verify these ﬁndings in the future. Last, people with some different characteristics (such as cognition style, executive Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5799 16 of 18 control resources, etc.) handle distractions differently [7,46,47], Thus, understanding their role in the weak ﬂow-performance link could also be a research direction. 9. Conclusions Through a series of empirical studies, we draw the following conclusions: (1) the VR task paradigm and prototype experimental system introduced in this paper can be used to investigate ﬂow experience and the problem of weak ﬂow-performance link in VR activities. (2) Based on the views of WAM, this paper directly proves that in VEs where the artifacts are disjointed with the primary task, distraction caused by disjointed features is the antecedent of weak ﬂow-performance link. (3) This paper proposes two design guidelines of guiding selective attention to deal with distraction and prove their effectiveness in alleviating the weak ﬂow-performance link in VR activities. One is directly reducing conspicuous but task-irrelevant distractors, and the other is increasing the congruence between distractors and primary tasks, i.e., adding visual cues to transfer distracted behavioral consequences to task-relevant behavior, and then contribute to task-oriented selective attention. In future work, the speciﬁc features of VR systems and the types of primary task need to be fully explored to make the best use of these guidelines. Author Contributions: Conceptualization, J.L. and C.Z.; methodology, W.L.; software, W.L. and H.H.; validation, Y.B. and C.Z.; formal analysis, Y.B. and H.H.; investigation, H.H.; resources, J.L.; data curation, Y.B.; writing—original draft preparation, W.L.; writing—review and editing, Y.B.; visualization, J.L.; supervision, J.L.; project administration, Y.B.; funding acquisition, Y.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant, grant number 61802232, “the Young Scholars Program of Shandong University, Weihai grant number 20820211005” and “China Postdoctoral Science Foundation 2021TQ0178”. Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of The First Afﬁliated Hospital of Jinan University, China (No. KY-2020-037). Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. Conﬂicts of Interest: The authors declare no conﬂict of interest. Nomenclature Symbol Description VR Virtual Reality VE Virtual Environment WAM Weak Association Model UE User Experience LT Load Theory M Means Standardized Regression Coefﬁcient p p-value, expressing the level of statistical signiﬁcance t t-score, a ratio between the difference between two groups and the difference within the groups References 1. Bian, Y.; Yang, C.; Gao, F.; Li, H.; Zhou, S.; Li, H.; Sun, X.; Meng, X. A framework for physiological indicators of ﬂow in VR games: Construction and preliminary evaluation. Pers. Ubiquitous Comput. 2016, 20, 821–832. [CrossRef] 2. Bian, Y.; Yang, C.; Zhou, C.; Liu, J.; Gai, W.; Meng, X.; Tian, F.; Shen, C. Exploring the weak association between ﬂow experience and performance in virtual environments. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Montreal, QC, Canada, 21–26 April 2018; pp. 1–12. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5799 17 of 18 3. Csikszentmihalyi, M.; Csikzentmihaly, M. Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience; Harper & Row: New York, NY, USA, 1990; Volume 1990. 4. Sweetser, P.; Wyeth, P. GameFlow: A model for evaluating player enjoyment in games. Comput. Entertain. 2005, 3, 3. [CrossRef] 5. Engeser, S.; Rheinberg, F. Flow, moderators of challenge-skill-balance and performance. Motiv. Emot. 2008, 32, 158–172. [CrossRef] 6. Engeser, S.E. Advances in Flow Research; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012. 7. Bian, Y.; Zhou, C.; Chen, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Liu, J.; Yang, C. The Role of the Field Dependence-independence Construct on the Flow- performance Link in Virtual Reality. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Interactive 3D Graphics and Games, San Francisco, CA, USA, 5–7 May 2020; pp. 1–9. 8. Keller, J.; Bless, H. Flow and regulatory compatibility: An experimental approach to the ﬂow model of intrinsic motivation. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2008, 34, 196–209. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 9. Keller, J.; Blomann, F. Locus of control and the ﬂow experience: An experimental analysis. Eur. J. Personal. 2008, 22, 589–607. [CrossRef] 10. Schiefele, U.; Roussakis, E. Experimental conditions for experiencing ﬂow in computer games. Z. Psychol. 2006, 214, 207–219. [CrossRef] 11. Huang-Pollock, C.L.; Nigg, J.T.; Carr, T.H. Deﬁcient attention is hard to ﬁnd: Applying the perceptual load model of selective attention to attention deﬁcit hyperactivity disorder subtypes. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 2005, 46, 1211–1218. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 12. Giesbrecht, B.; Sy, J.; Bundesen, C.; Kyllingsbæk, S. A new perspective on the perceptual selectivity of attention under load. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2014, 1316, 71–86. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 13. Norman, D.A.; Bobrow, D.G. On data-limited and resource-limited processes. Cogn. Psychol. 1975, 7, 44–64. [CrossRef] 14. Wickens, C.D. The structure of attentional resources. Atten. Perform. 1980, 8, 239–257. 15. Flynn, E.A.; Barker, K.N.; Gibson, J.T.; Pearson, R.E.; Berger, B.A.; Smith, L.A. Impact of interruptions and distractions on dispensing errors in an ambulatory care pharmacy. Am. J. Health-Syst. Pharm. 1999, 56, 1319–1325. [CrossRef] 16. McKenna, F.P.; Dun-can, J.; Brown, I.D. Cognitive abilities and safety on the road: A re-examination of individual differences in dichotic listening and search for embedded ﬁgures. Ergonomics 1986, 29, 649–663. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 17. Baran, M.; Chignell, M. Differences in cognitive ability and preference mediate effects of interruptions on simulated driving performance. Proc. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. Annu. Meet. 2006, 50, 2008–2011. [CrossRef] 18. Harmat, L.; Andersen, F.Ø.; Ullén, F.; Wright, J.; Sadlo, G. Flow Experience: Empirical Research and Applications; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016. 19. Berta, R.; Bellotti, F.; De Gloria, A.; Pranantha, D.; Schatten, C. Electroencephalogram and physiological signal analysis for assessing ﬂow in games. IEEE Trans. Comput. Intell. AI Games 2013, 5, 164–175. [CrossRef] 20. Engelke, U.; Duenser, A.; Zeater, A. Covert Visual Search: Revisiting the Guided Search Paradigm. Int. J. Cogn. Inform. Nat. Intell. 2014, 8, 13–28. [CrossRef] 21. Tuch, A.N.; Bargas-Avila, J.A.; Opwis, K.; Wilhelm, F.H. Visual complexity of websites: Effects on users’ experience, physiology, performance, and memory. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 2009, 67, 703–715. [CrossRef] 22. Waltemate, T.; Gall, D.; Roth, D.; Botsch, M.; Latoschik, M.E. The impact of avatar personalization and immersion on virtual body ownership, presence, and emotional response. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 2018, 24, 1643–1652. [CrossRef] 23. Lee, E.C.; Cho, Y.H.; Lee, I.K. Simulating Water Resistance in a Virtual Underwater Experience Using a Visual Motion Delay Effect. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR), Osaka, Japan, 23–27 March 2019; pp. 259–266. 24. Kilteni, K.; Groten, R.; Slater, M. The sense of embodiment in virtual reality. Presence Teleoper. Virtual Environ. 2012, 21, 373–387. [CrossRef] 25. Cottrell, E.B. Experimental and quasi-experimental design. Educ. Exp. 1969, 107, 12. 26. Gai, W.; Yang, C.; Bian, Y.; Shen, C.; Meng, X.; Wang, L.; Liu, J.; Dong, M.; Niu, C.; Lin, C. Supporting easy physical-to-virtual creation of mobile VR maze games: A new genre. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Denver, CO, USA, 6–11 May 2017; pp. 5016–5028. 27. Zhou, C.; Li, H.; Bian, Y. Identifying the Optimal 3D Display Technology for Hands-On Virtual Experiential Learning: A Compar- ison Study. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 73791–73803. [CrossRef] 28. Lambooij, M.; IJsselsteijn, W.A.; Heynderickx, I. Visual discomfort of 3D TV: Assessment methods and modeling. Displays 2011, 32, 209–218. [CrossRef] 29. Grogorick, S.; Albuquerque, G.; Maqnor, M. Gaze guidance in immersive environments. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR), Tuebingen/Reutlingen, Germany, 18–22 March 2018; pp. 563–564. 30. Renner, P.; Pfeiffer, T. Attention Guiding Using Augmented Reality in Complex Environments. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR), Tuebingen/Reutlingen, Germany, 18–22 March 2018; pp. 771–772. 31. Beck, V.M.; Hollingworth, A. Competition in saccade target selection reveals attentional guidance by simultaneously active working memory representations. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 2017, 43, 225. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 32. Meys, H.L.; Sanderson, P.M. The effect of individual differences on how people handle interruptions. Proc. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. Annu. Meet. 2013, 57, 868–872. [CrossRef] 33. Coyle, J.R.; Thorson, E. The effects of progressive levels of interactivity and vividness in web marketing sites. J. Advert. 2001, 30, 65–77. [CrossRef] Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5799 18 of 18 34. Huang, L.T.; Chiu, C.A.; Sung, K.; Farn, C.K. A comparative study on the ﬂow experience in web-based and text-based interaction environments. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 2011, 14, 3–11. [CrossRef] 35. Kim, T.; Biocca, F. Telepresence via television: Two dimensions of telepresence may have different connections to memory and persuasion. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 1997, 3, JCMC325. [CrossRef] 36. Klein, L.R. Creating virtual product experiences: The role of telepresence. J. Interact. Mark. 2003, 17, 41–55. [CrossRef] 37. Cheng, L.K.; Chieng, M.H.; Chieng, W.H. Measuring virtual experience in a three-dimensional virtual reality interactive simulator environment: A structural equation modeling approach. Virtual Real. 2014, 18, 173–188. [CrossRef] 38. Fortin, D.R.; Dholakia, R.R. Interactivity and vividness effects on social presence and involvement with a web-based advertisement. J. Bus. Res. 2005, 58, 387–396. [CrossRef] 39. Li, H.; Daugherty, T.; Biocca, F. Characteristics of virtual experience in electronic commerce: A protocol analysis. J. Interact. Mark. 2001, 15, 13–30. [CrossRef] 40. Welch, R.B.; Blackmon, T.T.; Liu, A.; Mellers, B.A.; Stark, L.W. The effects of pictorial realism, delay of visual feedback, and observer interactivity on the subjective sense of presence. Presence Teleoper. Virtual Environ. 1996, 5, 263–273. [CrossRef] 41. Quirós-Godoy, M.; Botella, J.; de Liaño, B.G.G. A concurrent working memory load task does not impair visual selective attention: A meta-analysis. J. Vis. 2017, 17, 967. [CrossRef] 42. Lavie, N.; De Fockert, J.W. Contrasting effects of sensory limits and capacity limits in visual selective attention. Percept. Psychophys. 2003, 65, 202–212. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 43. Lavie, N.; Tsal, Y. Perceptual load as a major determinant of the locus of selection in visual attention. Percept. Psychophys. 1994, 56, 183–197. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 44. Yantis, S.; Johnston, J.C. On the locus of visual selection: Evidence from focused attention tasks. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 1990, 16, 135. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 45. Raptis, G.E.; Fidas, C.; Avouris, N. Effects of mixed-reality on players’ behaviour and immersion in a cultural tourism game: A cognitive processing perspective. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 2018, 114, 69–79. [CrossRef] 46. Allen, R.J.; Baddeley, A.D.; Hitch, G.J. Executive and perceptual distraction in visual working memory. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 2017, 43, 1677. [CrossRef] 47. Vellage, A.K.; Müller, N.G. Individual differences in working memory precision based on selective attention. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 2016, 100, 111–112. [CrossRef]

Journal

Applied Sciences – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute

Published: Jun 22, 2021

Keywords: flow-performance link; virtual reality; distraction

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Exploring the Role of Distraction in Weak Flow–Performance Link Based on VR Searching Tasks

Exploring the Role of Distraction in Weak Flow–Performance Link Based on VR Searching Tasks

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Exploring the Role of Distraction in Weak Flow–Performance Link Based on VR Searching Tasks

Exploring the Role of Distraction in Weak Flow–Performance Link Based on VR Searching Tasks

References (49)

Abstract

Journal

Recommended Articles

There are no references for this article.

Our policy towards the use of cookies