c















 






 results of this experiment were very
 promising and started a series of research
Vertigo, fear of heights, is a difficult initives.One other controlled experiment
phobia to treat because of the danger that was concerned with the treatment of
may cause being on some high place with agoraphobia (Coble, et al.,1995).
the subject. One of the lasts studies was done by
In this project we will try to induce the Delft University of Technology in
some Vertigo into the subjects. So, the collaboration with the University of
subjects will experiment fear but in a safe Amsterdam. This study tried to treat the
environment. acrophobia using a head mounted display.
Our goal in this project is: is it
  
possible to treat people in virtual reality?
There had been a lot of research on
treatment of some phobias: acrophobia
(Rothbaum, Hodges, Kooper, Opdyke,
Williford, & North, 1995), agoraphobia
(Rothbaum, Hodges, Kooper, Opdyke,
Williford, & North, 1995 ) and

claustrophobia (Botella C, Banos RM,
Perpina C, Villa H, Alcaniz M, & Rey
A,1998). Which leads that Virtual Reality
can be used for phobia treatment.
In the case of Vertigo, we know very
well the effectiveness of the exposure of the
subject in vivo (Emmelkamp&Felten,
1985).
So we can find out more about the
characteristics of the virtual reality system.
Another question we want to look
for an answer is which factors play a roll
in provoking a phobic response to heights?

!"

For this project we had a C.A.V.E., a
Sensor Hat and 3 scenes.
PC Cave
1

Projectors

Main PC

MoCap Hat
Server
Fig 1. C.A.V.E.

Fig 2 . C.A.V.E. Pipeline

The firsts studies taken at the end
of 1993 (Rothbaum, Hodges, Kooper,
Opdyke, Williford& North, 1995) were a
controlled experiment involving 7 persons 
in a control room and 10 subjects were 
exposed in seven weekly VR sessions. The 
!#

 
The CAVE is a 3 walls and a
groundfloor screens, with 2 projectors each
one (Fig 1). We had 4 computers rendering
(one for each wall) and one computer doing
the synchronization (Fig 2).
The interaction of the user into the
Virtual Environment is done by a control-
pad (Fig 3).
Fig 3. PAD
!!&

We had 3 scenes: a city, a tunnel
and a scene with simple cubes.
The city and the cubes are the same
scene but one with static details (cars,
statues, light,) and the other one only
with the
Fig 4. MoCap Hat
shape of the main buildings (only cubes).
They have 3 places to place the subject
during the test.
The first one is on the top of a
!"#$% building, looking to a big square with a
 statue and some cars (Fig 5).
The subjects wear at the tests a hat
with 3 LED (Fig 4) that are received by
some impulse cameras placed inside the
CAVE and this information is processed by
the computer (Fig 5). 


Fig 5.- Spot 1 City and Cubes

The second one is a elevator, which

begins on the ground level and can go up
and down from the building (Fig 6).
The third one is in the top of a
building, but looking through a corner of a
street (Fig 7).
Fig 5. MoCap Pipeline

The controller (which activates the

leds) is activated via the Base Station.
The information provided by the
MoCap is used by the main computer (the
one which synchronizes the CAVE) to know
position, height and gaze orientation of the
subject. Fig 7.- Spot 3 City and Cubes
  


In the 2nd spot of the city scene, we

implemented an elevator which simulates
the real ones.
We put a speed by default of
27m/s. When the elevator reaches certain
height (going up or down) we de-accelerate
by 4.5 m/s2(with a low boundary of speed
equal to 1.5m/s) until it reachesthe final
height. When we push again for going up or
down, the acceleration is put as the default
27 m/s.

'



Fig 6.- Spot 2 Elevator Up We could control each aspect of the

and down cave in real time using a wireless PAD. The
configuration would be as follows:
The tunnel scene (Fig 8) was created Action Button to press
for another principle: destabilize the subject. Change Scene Mode
We place the subject looking to a light on the Change Spot (only
end of the tunnel while is rotating itself, 4
City and Cubes)
making the subject loose control of its Elevator UP
stability. The speed of the rotation can vary, (only in the 2nd
we used 13/s , so the rotation was slow 2
Spot)
enough to make the instability more natural.
Elevator DOWN
(only in the 2nd
3
Spot)
Manual Orientation
Right Joystick
of the Camera

!"#$%

The MoCap software and hardware

were already implemented.
Fig 8.- Tunnel

()


 $ 


 (#*


+ 

We used MVisio as a tool for
development of the code. The program was
coded in C++ and we just added the new
scenes to a program to work on the CAVE
that was already done.
The scenes were created using 3D
Studio Max.

For choosing subjects, we did a
simple test by email where we asked to the
people who wanted to participate some
questions. These questions where as follows:
-? enre
-? Did you ever used a C.A.V.E.?
-? Do you have Vertigo?
-? In case not, write from 1 to 10
how much fear you have of
 heights (where 1 is few and 10 is
a lot).
For the test we choose 20 subjects,
half male and half female, whose ages were
between 21-27 years old (students).
There were 16 subjects who hadnt
ever used a C.A.V.E. and 4 who had used it.
As we couldnt find any subject with
real Vertigo illness, we tried to choose
subjects with different levels of fear of
heights. So, we had from level 1 to level 8 of
fear of heights.
Fig 9. Subject prepared for experiment
Most of these subjects were from
different places of Europe.
(" 



 to us his experience answering the
We did 2 kinds of measurement: a
questionnaire and looking at the user.
For each spot, we made the user to
answer a questionnaire. It had questions
like:
- Did you get fear?
- What do you think of the scene?
Also, looking at the user, we could


see if they had any bad instability and we
could see the real effect of the scene to the
subjects.
(!

* 

First of all, we gave the MoCap hat
(Fig 9) and then we asked if they wanted to
do the test using glasses and stereoscopic
vision (red and blue) or without it.
For this, we made them try it in the
second spot of the city with the 2 modes.
After that, they could choose the one they
wanted.
All subjects decided to do it without
stereoscopic vision. They told us it was
because it gave some headache.
Fig 10. Subject while testing
For each test, we chose a random
scene and spot order. That was done using
a random number generator and
subtracting by the total number of scenes
and spots (a total of 9) and assigning
priorities like this.
Then we began with the tests. The
user had to be in each spot 1 min, looking
to whatever he wanted (Fig 10) and then he
rested a bit (out of the CAVE) and explained
questionnaire mentioned above.Then, we
began to configure the next spot with
another random number.
More or less, each subject spent 15
min in total in the subject.
The PAD was only used by us,
telling the users when we were going to
push up in the elevator and when to push
down when we were at spot 2.
,
We get 3 tables of results. The first
one is a general one, the second only for the
city and the 3rd just for the cubes.
Feel City Tunnel Cubes
Not Stable 60% 70% 5%
Stable 40% 30% 95%
In this first table, we can see that
most of the subjects had more instability in
the tunnel scene (Fig 11). The cubes scene,
maybe because it was too simple, didnt
work so well.

Fig 11. User viewpoint for tunnel

City Not Stable(%) Stable(%)

Spot 1 50 50
Spot 2 75 25
Spot 3 55 45

In the city we can observe that using Fig 13. User viewpoint for spot 2 ,
the elevator in the 2nd Spot, the subject up and down, city and cubes
experimented more Vertigo than being in the
top of the roof in the first place. s#
 


The subjects felt more instability (in
general) in the tunnel scene. Most of them
told us that the rotation of the tunnel made
them feel weird in the way that, after some
time, they didnt know if they were straight
or not.
In concrete the 2nd Spot of the City
had more instability than the others. We
think that the sense of velocity and the
Fig 12. User viewpoint for spot 1 difference of height made them feel that way.
city and cubes

Cubes Not Stable(%) Stable(%)

Spot 1 5 95
Spot 2 10 90
Spot 3 0 100

In the cubes scene, we can observe

that the 2nd Spot was also the one that more
of the subjects felt Vertigo, but not so much.
If we compare the last 2 tables, we
can see that even using the same spots and Fig 14. User viewpoint for spot 3
interactions (elevator), the user doesnt feel city and cubes
the fear of height the same way in the Cubes
scene than in the City scene (Fig 12,13,14). We must say that the cubes scene
was a curious case, because the user could
not feel almost anything during that test. We
think that maybe the Vertigo is better
induced if there are some details or there are
objects at different levels of height in the
scene to make the user take a look at them
and feel the depth of the scene.

 -

 

Coble, J.R. North, M.M. North, S.M.
(1995),Effectiveness of virtual reality
environment desensitization in the
treatment of agoraphobia, International
Journal of Virtual Reality, vol.1,no.2, p25 -34

Rothbaum, B.O., Hodges, L., Kooper, R.

Opdyke, D., Williford, J. & North, M.M. (1995),
Effectiveness of Virtual raded Exposure in
the Treatment of Acrophobia, American
Journal of Psychiatry, april, 152, 626 -628

Emmelkamp PM, &Felten M. The process of

exposure in vivo: cognitive and physiological
changes during treatment of acrophobia.
Behaviour Research & Therapy 1985; 23:
219-223!

Rothbaum BO, Hodges L, Kooper R, Opdyke

D, Williford J, & North MM. Effectiveness of
virtual graded exposure in the treatment of
acrophobia, American Journal of Psychiatry
1995b, 152: 626 -628

Rothbaum BO, Hodges L, Kooper R, Opdyke

D, Williford J. & North MM Virtual reality
graded exposure in the treatment of
acrophobia: A case report. Behavior Therapy
1995a; 26: 547-554.

Botella C, Banos RM, Perpina C, Villa H,

Alcaniz M, & Rey A.Virtual reality treatment
of claustrophobia. Behaviour Research &
Therapy 1998; 36: 239-246

M.J.Schuemie, M. Bruynzeel, L. Drost, M.

Brinckman, . de Haan, P.M. Emmelkamp,
C.A.P.. van der Mast
Treatment of Acrophobia in Virtual Reality:
a Pilot Study 2005;
Delft University of Technology, faculty of
Information Technology and Systems
University of Amsterdam, faculty of
Psychology