Reaction Time as a Proxy for Presence in Mixed Reality with Distraction

TL;DR

In MR, distractions can erode presence and degrade performance. The authors propose the Cognitive Distraction Model for MR (CDM-MR) and test it with a within-subject study of $N=54$ participants performing an image-sorting task under no-distraction, congruent-distraction, and incongruent-distraction conditions, measuring presence (PQ/IPQ), cognitive load (NASA-TLX), and reaction time. Results show that incongruent distractions increase cognitive load and reaction time and reduce presence more than congruent distractions, with presence partially mediating the cognitive-load–reaction-time relationship. The work introduces reaction time as a real-time proxy for presence, illuminates how distraction type shapes BIP-like effects, and offers design guidance for MR systems to maintain immersion by managing cognitive load and attentional shifts.

Abstract

Distractions in mixed reality (MR) environments can significantly influence user experience, affecting key factors such as presence, reaction time, cognitive load, and Break in Presence (BIP). Presence measures immersion, reaction time captures user responsiveness, cognitive load reflects mental effort, and BIP represents moments when attention shifts from the virtual to the real world, breaking immersion. However, the effects of distractions on these elements remain insufficiently explored. To address this gap, we have presented a theoretical model to understand how congruent and incongruent distractions affect all these constructs. We conducted a within-subject study (N=54) where participants performed image-sorting tasks under different distraction conditions. Our findings show that incongruent distractions significantly increase cognitive load, slow reaction times, and elevate BIP frequency, with presence mediating these effects.

Figures (9)

• Figure 1: The Cognitive Distraction Model for MR (CDM-MR).
• Figure 2: Hand gesture for virtual button press and dragging images.
• Figure 3: The two patterns of distractions for participants: red with diamond ends and black with circular ends. Each participant experiences (6, 10, 21) in one condition and (14, 17, 23) in the other.
• Figure 4: User study procedure.
• Figure 5: The relationship between cognitive load and presence. The regression coefficients are -0.43 and 5.64. The value of R$^2$ is 0.35 with a $p$-value of 0.000. The Pearson's correlation coefficients for ND, CD, ID, and overall are -0.79, -0.73, -0.69, and -0.59, respectively.