Group 2 Full Proposal

Introduction

Proposed Project

Human memory is imperfect, and has always been a point of contention in the field of psychology. With Virtual Reality (VR) on the rise and mankind's increasing dependence on technology, it will become more and more crucial to find better ways to understand how virtual reality and its technologies affect human memory. While many previous research studies examined the benefits (i.e. Virtual Reality Therapy for Psychological Disorders (North, North & Coble, 1997)) and detriments of virtual reality (i.e. Side Effects of Virtual Environments: A Review of the Literature (Barrett, 2004)), our proposed research project will examine the brain's response and observe the differences between the brain processing a real experience and a virtual reality experience.

In particular, immediately after undergoing a VR experience, the participant will realize that the experience was in fact not real - often triggered by the removal of the VR hardware and software and returning back to "reality". When and after that happens, would the brain change the memory and storage of that experience? If so, how does the brain change the understanding, memory, and storage of these virtual reality experiences in comparison to real experiences? Specifically, how is the post-experience activity in the brain different from the activity of someone who truly undergoes the same experience in real life?

Hypothesis

Our main hypothesis is that during the recall stage of the experience, the activation of specific memory areas in the brain will be the similar between the two conditions. However, we hypothesize that although the stimulation of memory areas will be equivalent, there will be a stronger signal of activation in perceptual areas of the brain for those in the control condition.

Importance

By examining the differences of the two experiences both on a neural level and a self-reported level (which will be submitted through a form of a post-test questionnaire), we can assess the difference between experiences in reality and their virtual counterparts. If our hypothesis is found to be true, then we can justify that humans will not actually need to undergo “real” experiences to learn and feel, as it signifies that there is no difference in how the brain processes both VR and reality. This can make virtual reality a much more crucial component to learning and improving mankind’s overall intelligence as activities that could previously only be remotely accessed can be accessed via VR and still provide the same outcomes in terms of brain stimulation and memory activation.

Below, we have listed a few key reasons why this research is important to the specific disciplines of Psychology and Computer Science:

Psychology: The effects of such technology on the brain will be analyzed, which will make up the psychological aspect of this research. We will be able to observe how the brain processes the information differently after experiencing something under virtual reality and reality, and will be able to compare how we perceive the experience differently depending on the method we have experienced it with.

First and foremost, it would be crucial for psychologists in analyzing and understanding how our brain determines what is real and what is imagined and how the specific parts of our brain understand the multi-sensory inputs that it receives and how information is stored. This information is important as it can also provide an insight to gestalt psychology, looking at how our brain receives different sensory perceptions, link them into one experience, and store them in relation to one another (Morie & Williams, 2003). In particular, our research would increase understanding of how human memory evolves over time.

In addition, this research is also important to the field of psychology as it would be take a deeper dive into how Virtual Reality technologies can present various mental health risks such as Depersonalization / Derealization Disorder. Furthermore, there are many concerns relating to embodiment that VR technology poses, including but not limiting to "personal neglect of users' own actual bodies and real physical environments" (Spiegel, 2017). Through the research, we can open the doors to other research related to topics above by giving a brief insight to how the memory from virtual reality is stored, and further research could be conducted focusing on if any enhancements to the technology could be made so that such disorders resulting from virtual reality could be avoided.

Computer Science: Virtual Reality can successfully imitate various features of the world around us; however, its "success" is dependent on how authentic and believable a virtual experience is to its participants. The "presence" and the feeling of actually "being there" is crucial to the advancement of VR Technologies in the field of Computer Science. Although the inner workings of how VR affects the brain relates to Psychology and psychologists, the results from our analysis would be able to give Computer Scientists and Virtual Reality companies an insight into how their technologies affect one's experience in terms of memory processing, recall of experience, and overall subconscious experience.

This is crucial because it not only allows Computer Scientists to better understand how to improve their VR technologies to better simulate real world situations, but also allows them to understand how Virtual Reality and the Body Schema intersect, as well as how Virtual Reality affects the various other factors of society - both subconsciously and consciously. With the aforementioned information, the field of Computer Science would be able to advance its VR technologies in ways that have never been imagined.

Secondly, the concept of how ethics plays a role in Virtual Reality is an important one to Computer Scientists. Although the applications and advantages of Virtual Reality are plentiful, research on how Virtual Reality can affect one's brain and memory is lacking and definitely should be one of concern for the field of Computer Science. If our research showcases no material difference between the two experiences (virtual and authentic) on a neural level, or cognitive level, there may be moral or social risks associated with VR that Computer Scientists and the field of Computer Science as a whole would need to consider. Obscuring the differentiation between illusory and authenticity can pose many potential risks that need to be further researched. For example, obscuring the fine line between VR and authentic experiences can negatively affect one's attitude towards aggression or violent behaviour, and to potentially lose moral accountability if one truly believes that VR experiences are different than those that are real (Spiegel, 2017). Geert Gooskens argues that in VR, no genuine consequences are tied to the actions of one's VR self, and this can "present a danger of real moral harm when the feelings and desires associated with such actions are carried into the real world". If our conclusions show that the memory of both a real experience and one through VR is the same in our brain activity, this could alter the way Computer Scientists and VR technology companies think about the applications of VR. (Gooskens, 2010).

Background Research

Computer assisted data collection, storage, manipulation and analysis brought great benefits to research in Psychology. In the article “Psychology and its Role in Information Technology”, author Paula Goolkasian writes about the role of psychology in the information technology revolution (1995). Listing the reasons for importance of psychology in computer science, she states that cognitive science represents the leading edge of the information technology revolution (Goolkasian, 1995). Psychology and Computer science are in an intertwined relation; programmers need information from psychology research about the human brain and neural activities to try to program machines with the same capabilities. On the other hand, psychologists take advantage of already programmed software and other technology tools. Future research in cognitive psychology should give even more clarity to computer scientists about brain processing, which could be applied to information technology.

As our research proposal is a comparison of VR and real world experience we found a very interesting article by Foreman (2010) where he gives an overview of the current state of VR in psychology, going through history of psychology development. Instead of VR, the author actually uses the term virtual environments (VE), and states “…the benefits of using virtual environments (VE's) in psychology arise from the fact that movements in virtual space, and accompanying perceptual changes, are treated by the brain in much the same way as those in equivalent real space” (Foreman, 2010, p. 225). Foreman also states that benefits of using virtual reality in psychology are interface flexibility, the reproducibility of virtual experience and the opportunity for on-line monitoring of performance, where experience can be tailored via augmentation, and dangerous training situations can be avoided (2010). The ability of computer science technology to scale down any environment is very important for psychology research because it can simulate any situation/environment in the convenience of a lab room. Our research proposal is a great example of such use of computer science technology. Using virtual reality, we will bring a coffee shop experience to a small lab room.

Current State of VR Technology & Experiments

The origins and concept of VR can be dated back to as early as the 1930s, where Fred Waller's research on vision and depth perception triggered the study of peripheral vision in an artificial environment (Waller, 1993). Since then, the desire to innovate technology that could re-create the mankind's field of vision led us to arc-shaped screens, surround sound and stereoscopic 3-D movies that heightened sensory stimulation, 4-D experience theatres and computer generated virtual environments (Lowood, 2015).

Since the popularization of VR, applications of these technologies have evolved drastically - from flight simulations to gaming, from aerospace and education. Also much research has occurred on the benefits and disadvantages of VR and on the specific applications of VR, the understanding of how VR affects one's memory has not been explored in much depth. Our research will highlight how memory plays a vital role in VR and how these applications are utilized.

In 2014, The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine was awarded to John O’Keefe, May-Britt Moser and Edvard Moser, for their discovery of cells that constitute a positioning system in the brain (Nobelprize.org, 2014). In 1971, O’Keefe found that in the hippocampus area of the brain, there are cells that form a map of the environment. He called them “place cells” (O’Keefe, 1971). O'Keefe's work was a base for the research of May-Britt and Edvard Moser, scientists who found that in the entorhinal cortex there are nerve cells (they named them “grid cells”) that generate a coordinate system of the environment (Fyhn, Molden, Witter, Moser & Moser, 2004). The most important part was to understand how the brain makes sense of where we are, and this discovery of "place cells" and "grid cells" allowed us to understand how the brain knows our location while we explore our surrounding environment.

While observing the effects of VR on the brain, scientists have discovered that when rats were placed in VR, parts of their brain cut down in power. The rats were still exploring their surroundings and showed signs of trying to become aware of their environment and which path to choose, but their hippocampal activity decreased by 25%; the brains showed 20% activation in the hippocampus under VR simulations, compared to 45% when experienced in real life (Ravassard et al., 2013). This experiment suggested that the VR might not be able to provide the full experience of real life, but the scientists also analyzed that this result was due to the vestibular and other sensory cues being absent under virtual settings.

Another scientific research of Mayank Mehtas and Z. Aghajan was on the cell activity in the rats' brain. In the UCLA’s Brain Research Institute, Mehta and his team tried to understand if VR creates mental maps the same way as real experience does. They found that in the virtual environment the neurons in the rat’s brain fired randomly in comparison to the real world experience where neurons fired in an organized fashion forming maps of the environment (Aghajan et al., 2015). They also found that more than half of the neurons that were active in the real world experience, were shut down in the virtual reality experience (Aghajan et al., 2015). The researchers compared the rats’ brain activity in the VR created room and the brain activity when rats explored the real room. The difference was that the rats’ brain created the mental map only when experiencing the real world. The researchers believe that in order to create a map, the brain needs information from other senses such as smell and touch, not just visual. Mehta’s team findings support our hypothesis that there will be a greater activation in brain areas involved in perceptual experience for those that experienced the event in real life (Aghajan et al., 2015).

Methods

Experimental Design

We will have both an experimental condition as well as a control condition. The experimental condition will have the participants take part in an activity that is simulated in a lab environment using VR and 4D technologies. The control condition will have participants engaging in the same activity that the experimental group is experiencing, except that they will do so in real life. Both participants in the experimental and control conditions will be wearing EEG caps during the duration of the experiment in order to record brain activity during the experience.

Re-stating the Hypothesis

We hypothesize that during the recollection of the experience the activation of memory areas in the brain will be the similar between the two conditions while there is a stronger activation of brain areas involved in perceptual experience in the control condition due to the belief of the activity being a "real" one.

Surveys and Questionnaires

We will employ a pre-test and post-test questionnaire with a set of open ended questions which will allow participants to elaborate on their experience. Both the pre-test and post-test questionnaire will be given to both the experimental and control condition groups. The pre-test questionnaire will ask participants about prior experiences, preferences, and their lifestyle in order to filter participants. This will help us to better narrow our participants and remove participants that are unsuitable for the study. For example, if a participant regularly engages in the activity being studied they will have many memories already attached and could present confounding variables. The post-test questionnaire will ask them to reflect on the experience (real or lab-VR). To create the questionnaires, we will use survey.ubc.ca or SurveyMonkey.com. The questionnaire will consist of predetermined set of questions.

Conditions

• Experimental: VR and 4D simulated activity in a lab environment

• Control: Participate in activity in real life inside mock coffee shop (see below)

Procedure

The four parts of the experiment:

1. Pre-Test Questionnaire - This will be done online prior to coming into the lab.

2. Experimental and Control Conditions

3. Recall Event - Post-Test Questionnaire taken

4. Debriefing

Questionnaires

The following are a subset of questions we would be using in our Pre and Post-Test Questionnaire:

Pre-Test Sample Questions

1) Do you visit coffee shops often? Yes No

2) What is your favorite coffee shop to go to?

3) Have you been to the following coffee shops?

Starbucks: Yes No

Tim Hortons: Yes No

Café Artigiano: Yes No

Blenz: Yes No

Post-Test Sample Questions

1) Please explain what the coffee shop looked like.

2) Please describe the different scents that were present at the shop.

3) Was the menu digital or printed?

4) Did you enjoy your time at the coffee shop?

These questions are all designed to invoke recall of the participants' experience. Questions one and two are specifically designed to measure recall perceptual stimulus. Question three is designed to measure recall of detail. Question four is designed to measure a self-report of their experience.

Proposal to Answer Hypothesis

To solve our hypothesis, we will use Psychology/Neuroscience approaches to identify processes in our brain related to cognitive states during real life experiences and artificially induced experiences. In a set of experiments, we plan to have two groups of pre-screened participants - one group will undergo the activity in real life, and the other group of participants will experience the exact same experience using virtual reality and 4D technologies in a lab environment. We will track both groups’ brain activities during and after the experiences to see the differences between the two. To accomplish this, we will be using EEG during the experience and fMRI after the experience, during the recall stage.

Sampling

• The participants will be randomly selected from the North American population

• Characteristics of the sample - 100 participants, 50 females and 50 males.

The specific size of the sampling was determined based on a few criteria:

Ensures that the study was large enough to allow achievement of statistical significance
Ensures that the participants were randomized enough
Ensures that we can generalize our results

Ethics

Prior to participating in the study, the participants will be asked to sign a consent form which will guarantee confidentiality of the experiment and results. Participants in both the experimental condition as well as the control condition will be told that we are studying the effects of sensory stimuli. This deception is necessary in order to safeguard against participant bias. Participants will also be made aware that they are able to withdraw at anytime should they decide that they no longer want to take part in the experiment. The reason for the consent form and confidentiality is to ensure that all participants are willing to participate in the survey and know that the information that they have provided both actively and passively will be anonymized - this it to ensure that participants are comfortable with their participation. During the debriefing participants will be told the actual phenomena being studied and informed as to why the deception was necessary. Additionally, they will be informed that due to the deception their data can be omitted should they choose.

Details of the Experimental Approach

Virtual Lab Experience (Experimental Condition)

In this part of the study, participants will experience the same activity as those in the control condition, however the activity will be simulated in a lab environment. In order to simulate the activity, we will be using 360 VR and 4D technologies. We will be using the Oculus Rift for the 360 VR and standard 4D movie technology. The activity will be pre-recorded using a 360 camera and the necessary 4D effects will be added. This will allow us to have the same experience for all of our participants in the experimental condition. By combining immersive 360 VR as well as 4D effects we hope to present the participants with an experience equal to that of the control condition.

Real World Experience (Control Condition)

In this part of the study, participants will experience the same activity as those in the experimental condition, however they will be experiencing the activity in the real world. All of the participants will be taken to the same location and will undergo the same activity. The location will be designed to look and feel like a real coffee shop however it will actually be a fake coffee shop designed by us. The main advantage and reason for doing this is that we will be able to control the different perceptual stimuli present. The disadvantage of doing this is that it will cost quite a bit. Although this will require deceiving the participants, it is necessary if we want to control all of the stimuli present during the experiment and get genuine results from the participants.

EEG (electroencephalography)

We will be using EEG to monitor participants' neural patterns during the activity. This will be done for both the experimental and control conditions. Using EEG will allow us to collect data on how the participants are experiencing the activity. For example, if we see a rise in alpha we know that they become disinterested for bored. This data will allow us to compare and cross analyze with participants brain patterns during the recall section of the study. Being able to cross analyze such information will give us the ability to make stronger conclusions in regards to our hypothesis.

fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging)

We will be using fMRI to observe participants during the recall stage of the study. Participants in both the experimental and control conditions will be asked to respond to preset questions asked by the experimenter. These questions will be designed so that participants must recall their experience overall as well specific details of their experience. The questions will be asked by the experimenter and participants will verbally respond. By having participants answer questions verbally, we can record the time of their answer which will correspond with their brain activity during that time. Using fMRI we will be able to achieve mapping of areas active during participant's recall of the information.

Brain Areas Being Observed

During the recall stage, participants will paced in a fMRI machine and asked memory invoking questions. While responding to these questions, we will be looking for activation in brain areas related to memory. The brain areas we have chosen to place focus on are the hippocampus and the medial temporal lobe. The first area of the brain that will be analyzed is the hippocampus. The hippocampus has been shown to be involved in memory broadly as well as more specifically in regards to explicit or declarative memory (Squire, 1992). Looking at this region of the brain is critical to our study as we are observing the difference in memory between our two conditions. Next, we will be looking at the activation of the temporal lobe. Specifically, we will be observing activation of the medial temporal lobe. The medial temporal lobe has been shown to be responsible for episodic memory and in particular for the retrieval of episodic memory (Nyberg, McIntosh, Houle, Nilsson & Tulving, 1996). Naturally, since we are asking participants to recall a specific event we expect activation in this area. In addition to memory the area mentioned, we will also be looking at areas involved in perceptual experience to determine if there is a stronger activation in any of the conditions. These would be areas such as the motor cortex, auditory cortex, and the visual cortex. By comparing the activation of all these areas mentioned across participants in both conditions, we will be able to collect valuable data to answer our hypothesis.

3. Discussion

Why did we choose this method/approach?

Survey/Questionnaire:

We have chosen to provide a survey/questionnaire along with the experimental research methods as this will be able to primarily give an insight to the participant's experience with the experiment. Otherwise, the survey can be used as a checklist for the researchers to find better ways to conduct the experiment and to fix anything in the future that could have affected the outcome of the research. It can also be used to reflect on whether the participant was aware of the research topic and the purpose of the experiment. If the participant had any hint of what the research was for, it could create bias in their reaction to the stimulus provided in the experiment.

Virtual Reality / Real World:

Virtual reality and how it affects the processing of memory in the brain after the experience is the main focus of our experiment. This is the reason the experiment should be conducted both in the real world and under a virtual setting, for which using VR headsets and having a field experience is crucial in order to observe the brain activity. The actual monitoring of the brain activity and brain mapping will be done by using the EEG and fMRI technology which will help accurately track brain activites.

One of the important aspects of this study is that the VR environment be as realistic as possible, so that the participants are minimally aware that they are in a VR simulation during the experiment. In order to achieve this realism, the environment from reality should be recreated, with the help of multiple cameras, sensors, and rigs. After the recording is done, the environment should be recreated using a software and checked for any defects in graphics. Any traces of the rig and cameras should be removed (Millane, 2015). Should there be any problems, they should be fixed and re-tested multiple times to ensure that the VR environment is as close to the reality as possible.

How to evaluate the performance of the system used in research

Reliability

The interrater reliability should be present through our research, which means that different researchers should be able to look at our research and come up with the same conclusions. The brain scannings from fMRI and EEG would be read by multiple researchers, and would signify the same conclusions. According to our hypothesis, the brain wave readings should imply that while the same areas of the brain are activated, but should also show a difference in the power of brain signals depending on whether the participant went through a virtual or real environment. Otherwise, the null hypothesis would show that there is a significant difference in recall, in terms of brain areas and strength of brain activity.

The devices used during the study must be reliable enough to function during the full duration of the study and give accurate results. VR headsets must have working surrounding sound systems and synced accelerometers, gyroscopes and magnetometers that will help track the participant's movement accurately and give the optimal experience that clones reality. The sound systems and VR headsets should function properly and without noise or any other disturbance that might affect the experience of the participant. For EEG devices, the results of the brain wave scan should all yield similar results in the processing of the data afterhand and the results should show a pattern in memory processing. Both the EEG and fMRI machines have been used for a long time which guarantees their reliability.

Validity

In order to ensure external validity of the sample, the participants will be randomly selected from the North American population, and through the survey, be filtered so that we can filter participants fit to the specific study. As mentioned in the method section above, it would be best to gather 50 males and 50 females from this process. Only then the members of the chosen participants will be randomly assigned to either the VR or real environment to ensure internal validity.

The criterion(concurrent) validity signifies whether a measure is correlated with other variables. Under our research, this would be the correlation of brain wave strength with the environment the participant was in, and the survey results. This will be calculated upon observing whether the real environment brings a stronger recall in terms of brain activity than the VR environment, as the strength of the recall power in the brain would be correlated to whether the participant was under a real environment or not.

While we have tried to minimize any variables that will affect our readings on brain waves, we predict that the production of speech during the post-experimental survey, in the fMRI machine, might affect our brain scannings as the participant will use their auditory (and its association) cortex in order to comprehend the survey questions and the broca's area related to the production of speech. Hence we have to take into consideration, when processing our data from the experiment, that the participant was going through multiple activities even during that particular moment of scanning their brain activity.

Replicability

The research study needs to be replicable - although the findings of our specific experiment will produce specific results, it needs to be implemented so that others are able to replicate the findings of our research in a similar manner - either refuting or supporting our findings. The procedures of the experiment should be identical in every trial. The outcomes of each trial, upon all the participants, should yield a similar result that will help formulate a conclusion. Also, the p-values in results could be calculated to further help determine whether the phenomena observed during the experiment is statistically significant or not. If the p-value is under 0.05, this will ensure that the results are statistically significant and ensures that the result is 95% significant.

What are the predictions of results if employing experimental approach?

We hypothesize that during the recollection of the experience the activation of memory areas in the brain will be the same between the two conditions while there is greater activation in brain areas involved in perceptual experience for those that experienced the event in real life. We predict that brain activation is going to be more significant in the participants who experience real world events because in their case all of the senses are activated and it needs more brain processing. We believe that although bot hexperiments are a fabrication of a realistic setting, because both the control and experimental group are aware of the reality and virtual reality, the brains of participants will show a difference in memory recall and the strength of brain activity post-experiment.

Do the conclusions fit with other scientific evidence?

Consistency and the amount of supporting evidence allows us to come to a consensus. Although it is understood that not one study will 100% support the truth, the performance of our research will partially be measured against the other pieces of data and research in this field in the specific subject matter. Ensuring that existing literature relates to the topic that we are researching and that its relevance is important to other scientific evidence is crucial.

Conclusion

In our research, we hypothesized that although the areas of stimulation will be equivalent, there will be a greater, stronger signal of activation in the brain for those who actually performed the activity than those who simply experienced the Virtual Reality experience. This, in turn, allows us to theorize that although Virtual Reality will be able to recreate moments and experiences of human life, it will not be able to completely duplicate the experience. As a result, we believe that no matter how realistic the VR experience may feel, the strength of the post-experience stimuli in the brain will tell us otherwise.

Ultimately, our research will allow both fields of Computer Science and Psychology, and more generally Cognitive Science, to better understand how virtual reality technologies affect memory and our brain activity during and after exposure to VR. This will allow Computer Scientists to better understand how to better improve its virtual reality technologies, and more importantly, understand the ethics behind how to operate and apply virtual reality so that it conforms to all ethical boundaries. For psychologists, it will provide insight into the concept of memory and how the neural networkings in our brain are activated and wired for the two varying memory forms (virtual reality experiences and real experiences).

Although we understand that one reasearch study alone will not be able to provide 100% context, we are hoping that through our properly designed methods and validating against our performance criteria, we will be able to help propel the study of memory and virtual reality forward.

Insights & What We Learnt

As mentioned in our hypothesis, we expect that the results of our study would be that there will be no difference between the conditions in terms of overall memory recall. While the overall recall of the experience would be the same between the participants, we expect that participants in the control condition would have greater recollection in regards to their perceptual experience. Given that we are control the perceptual stimuli present for both participants and ensuring that they be the same, the recollection should be the same. However, due to participants in the experimental condition believing their experience to be "fake" (since it is in VR) they will have a weaker recollection of the sensory stimuli present. Regardless of what the outcome, we believe that our findings will yield important implications for both psychology and computer science. In our hypothesis is true it will mean that people don't need to undergo actual experiences since technically both experiences are fabrications of reality. Our hypothesis being true shows that the difference is in belief rather than perceptual experience. If our hypothesis is falsified, it will mean that despite equal stimuli there remains a significant difference in recall of the experience. This can then lead to improvements in VR as well as further research to determine why there remains a difference.

References

Aghajan, Z. M, Acharya, L., Moore, J. J., Cushman, J. D., Vuong, C., Mehta, M. R. (2015) . Impaired spatial selectivity and intact phase precession in two-dimensional virtual reality. Nature Neuroscience, 18, 121- 128. doi: 10.1038/nn.3884

Barrett, J. (2004) . Side Effects of Virtual Environments: A Review of the Literature. Australian Government Department of Defence, 1-54. Retrieved from: http://digext6.defence.gov.au/dspace/bitstream/1947/4079/1/DSTO-TR-1419%20PR.pdf

Brooks, Barbara M. (1999) . The Specificity of Memory Enhancement During Interaction with a Virtual Environment. Memory, 7:1, 65-78. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/741943713

Foreman, N. (2010) . Virtual Reality in Psychology. Themes in Science and Technology Education, 225-252. Retrieved from http://earthlab.uoi.gr/theste/index.php/theste/article/viewFile/33/22

Fyhn, M., Molden, S., Witter, M. P., Moser, E. I., Moser, M. B. (2004) . Spatial representation in the entorhinal cortex. Science, 305(5688), 1258-1264. doi:10.1126/science.1099901

Goolkasian, P. (1995). Psychology and its role in information technology. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 27(2), 109-115. doi: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03204711

Gooskens, G. (2010). The ethical status of virtual actions. Ethical Perspectives, 17, 59–78.

Lowood, H. (2015). Virtual Reality (VR). Encyclopædia Britannica, inc. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/technology/virtual-reality

Morie, J., & Williams, J. (2003). The gestalt of virtual environments. Presence Conference Aalborg, Denmark. Paper available at http://www. ict. usc. edu/publications/GestaltA. pdf.

Nobelprize.org. (6 October 2014). Retrieved from https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2014/press.html

North, M. , North, S. , Coble J R. , (1997). Virtual Reality Therapy: An Effective Treatment Psychological Disorders. Retrieved from https://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=e3dT_29znBoC&oi=fnd&pg=PA59&dq=Virtual+reality+therapy:+an+effective+treatment+for+psychological+disorders.&ots=mOCiu2v1T7&sig=OnD5sNE4zEsBDApp9FNfCezs_JE#v=onepage&q=Virtual%20reality%20therapy%3A%20an%20effective%20treatment%20for%20psychological%20disorders.&f=false

Nyberg, L., McIntosh, A. R., Houle, S., Nilsson, L. -., & Tulving, E. (1996). Activation of medial temporal structures during episodic memory retrieval. Nature, 380(6576), 715-7. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/docview/204470493?accountid=14656

O'Keefe, J., & Dostrovsky, J. (1971) . The hippocampus as a spatial map. Preliminary evidence from unit activity in the freely‐moving rat. ScienceDirect, 34(1), 171-175. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0006-8993(71)90358-1

Ravassard, P., Kees, A., Willers, B., Ho, D., Aharoni, D. A., Cushman, J., … Mehta, M. R. (2013). Multi-sensory Control of Hippocampal Spatiotemporal Selectivity. Science (New York, N.Y.), 340(6138), 1342–1346. doi: 10.1126/science.1232655

Spiegel, J. S. (2017). The Ethics of Virtual Reality Technology: Social Hazards and Public Policy Recommendations. Science and Engineering Ethics, 1-14. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28942536

Squire, L. R., & Squire, L. R. (1992). Psychological review: Memory and the hippocampus: A synthesis from findings with rats, monkeys, and humans American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.99.2.195

Waller, F. (1993). The archeology of Cinerama. Film History, 5(3), 289-297.