Once a week.
Subscribe to our weekly newsletter.
Gamifying reality: How AR and VR will combine to transform experience
It's the dawn of a new age. AI, VR, and robotics are creating the future that science-fiction writers have dreamed about.
New and exciting realities are now just a few screens away. The wildest dreams of fiction writers are slowly seeping their way into our current day and age. Many people are familiar with virtual reality. You put on some kind of headset and you’re whisked into an all-encompassing world of sound and sight. VR’s closest cousin, augmented reality, comes in a few different forms – overlaid blocks of text and information, sometimes cartoonish images and games that let you interact with the world around you. Both of these types of tech have earned their namesake, but what about when you combine the two of them?
The border between these digital worlds is already beginning to break down. Mixed reality is the intersection of both AR and VR. Right now the biggest player in the mixed reality space is Microsoft, which is leading the way with its Hololens headset. In order to learn more about MR, we need to look a little deeper at both augmented and virtual realities.
A quick primer on different digital realities
So much is happening in the world of digital realities that it can become puzzling to try and draw a distinction between VR, AR, and MR. But each one of these realities can be quickly explained:
Virtual reality (VR) immerses a user in a digital environment like a video game.
Augmented reality (AR) places digital objects over a real-world view.
Mixed reality (MR) overlays and anchors virtual things in a real-world environment.
For VR, a computer generates the virtual environment that users then explore and interact with. Special hand controllers help to enhance and integrate the body into the entire virtual experience. An ideal virtual world will be completely cut off from the outside visual view, along with noise canceling headphones.
In an augmented reality, users interact with the real world while virtual content is added to the screen. Think of the quickly viral videogame Pokemon Go or some Snapchat features that add digital avatars to the world around you. Most of current AR is experienced through smartphones. There has been a mixed reaction to AR glasses, and no clear leader in that space yet – especially after Google’s failed Google Glass experiment.
You can also access virtual worlds through 360-degree video, which is also considered another form of VR. If, for example, you wear a Google Cardboard, you’ll be able to view any type of 360 video with your headset.
You must wear a specialized VR headset to experience any kind of virtual reality. Most headsets are connected to a computer or gaming console. Oculus Rift, HTC Vive and PlayStation VR are some of the more advanced and most popular devices in the space. Other affordable options include the Google Cardboard – these types of standalone VR headsets work in tandem with a headset.
Mixed reality on the scene
The most recent development in reality technologies has given us a few forms of mixed reality. One type of MR is the ability to not only overlay objects on the real world, but interact with them as well. This is a kind of advanced type of AR. Another interesting form of MR takes its cue from a completely immersed virtual environment where the real world is blocked out. At first, it sounds like just plain virtual reality. But in this instance, the virtual environment that you see is tethered to and overlaps the real world environment. Here’s an example of how this works.
Mixed reality fuses layered objects into the real world with an immersive digital world, allowing you to do things not possible in a strictly AR or VR digital environment. The cutting-edge paradigm shift into MR has been made possible with the Microsoft Hololens - a headset that as the name would suggest, allows its users to overlay holograms from virtual worlds on top of regular old reality (take a look here — they look like space-age Oakley sunglasses). Essentially, it creates the feeling of being present within a virtual environment.
This type of intersection between the real and virtual gives us an entirely new space that we can interact and innovate inside of. We’ll be unearthing a whole new expanse of possibilities as the technology grows.
New mediums of experience
If we’re to take a page from Marshall McLuhan, mid 20th-century media theorist, our new mediums of technology will begin to radically alter our perceptions of ourselves and reality regardless of the content. A famous McLuhan quote puts it simply:
“We become what we behold. We shape our tools and then our tools shape us.”
Virtual and mixed realities will be no different and will completely change our way of doing things and viewing our world. Look no further than actually trying to explain and differentiate between these realities. It will become more difficult throughout the years as these once novel technologies will be completely integrated into our lives. No one thinks much about having a supercomputer in their pocket anymore. It’s become a normal mode of existence. AR, VR and the junction point of mixed reality is the next logical step.
Reality is almost becoming gamified. One day, surgeons should be able to overlay x-ray or ultrasound images over a patient while they operate on them. Designers and artists will be able to collaborate with another from miles away and project an imagined idea into a real-life space. Drones traversing the sky will instantly relay quantifiable information about the world while they fly. There’s no end in sight to what’s possible.
Different perspectives and another person’s point of view will seamlessly become a visual activity to participate in. There is no limit to the medium.
A future of possibility
Inventors and artists are the ones who tend to lead the way when it comes to future technology. Our ability to transform the world and our lives is limited only to our imagination. With mixed reality, we’re given a blank canvas over the rich and vast natural environment. It’s almost as if the internet has found a new conduit, or rather a physical manifestation of itself, and divorced itself from the computer screen. This very well could be the beginning of a seismic shift of our shared technological realities.
A cave in France contains man’s earliest-known structures that had to be built by Neanderthals who were believed to be incapable of such things.
In a French cave deep underground, scientists have discovered what appear to be 176,000-year-old man-made structures. That's 150,000 years earlier than any that have been discovered anywhere before. And they could only have been built by Neanderthals, people who were never before considered capable of such a thing.
This is going to force a major shift in the way we see these early hominids. Researchers had thought that Neanderthals were profoundly primitive, and just barely human. This cave in France's Aveyron Valley changes all that: It's suddenly obvious that Neanderthals were not quite so unlike us.
According to The Atlantic, Bruniquel Cave was first explored in 1990 by Bruno Kowalsczewski, who was 15 at the time. He'd spent three years digging away at rubble covering a space through which his father felt air moving.
Some members of a local caving club managed to squeeze through the narrow, 30-meter long tunnel Kowalsczewski had dug to arrive in a passageway. They followed it past pools of water and old animal bones for over 330 meters before coming into a large chamber and a scene they had no reason to expect: Stalagmites that someone had broken into hundreds of small pieces, most of which were arranged into two rings—one roughly 6 meters across, and one 2 meters wide—with the remaining pieces stacked into one of four piles or leaning against the rings. There were also indications of fires and burnt bones.
Image source: Etienne FABRE - SSAC
A professional archeologist, Francois Rouzaud, determined with carbon dating that a burnt bear bone found in the chamber was 47,600 years old, which made the stalagmite structures older than any known cave painting. It also put the cave squarely within the age of the Neanderthals since they were the only humans in France that early. No one had suspected them of being capable of constructing complex forms or doing anything that far underground.
After Rouzard suddenly died in 1999, exploration at the cave stopped until life-long caver Sophie Verheyden, vacationing in the area, heard about it and decided to try and uranium-date the stalagmites inside.
The team she assembled eventually determined that the stalagmites had been broken up by people 176,000 years ago, way farther back even than Rouzard had supposed.
There weren't any signs that Neanderthals lived in the cave, so it's a mystery what they were up to down there. Verheyden thinks it's unlikely that a solitary artist created the tableaux, and so an organized group of skilled workers must've been involved. And “When you see such a structure so far into the cave, you think of something cultural or religious, but that's not proven," Verheyden told The Atlantic.
Whatever they built, the Bruniquel Cave reveals some big surprises about Neanderthals: They had fire, they built things, and likely used tools. Add this to recent discoveries that suggest they buried their dead, made art, and maybe even had language, and these mysterious proto-humans start looking a lot more familiar. A lot more like homo sapiens, and a lot more like distant cousins lost to history.
A recent study used fMRI to compare the brains of psychopathic criminals with a group of 100 well-functioning individuals, finding striking similarities.
- The study used psychological inventories to assess a group of violent criminals and healthy volunteers for psychopathy, and then examined how their brains responded to watching violent movie scenes.
- The fMRI results showed that the brains of healthy subjects who scored high in psychopathic traits reacted similarly as the psychopathic criminal group. Both of these groups also showed atrophy in brain regions involved in regulating emotion.
- The study adds complexity to common conceptions of what differentiates a psychopath from a "healthy" individual.
When considering what precisely makes someone a psychopath, the lines can be blurry.
Psychological research has shown that many people in society have some degree of malevolent personality traits, such as those described by the "dark triad": narcissism (entitled self-importance), Machiavellianism (strategic exploitation and deceit), and psychopathy (callousness and cynicism). But while people who score high in these traits are more likely to end up in prison, most of them are well functioning and don't engage in extreme antisocial behaviors.
Now, a new study published in Cerebral Cortex found that the brains of psychopathic criminals are structurally and functionally similar to many well-functioning, non-criminal individuals with psychopathic traits. The results suggest that psychopathy isn't a binary classification, but rather a "constellation" of personality traits that "vary in the non-incarcerated population with normal range of social functioning."
Assessing your inner psychopath
The researchers used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to compare the brains of violent psychopathic criminals to those of healthy volunteers. All participants were assessed for psychopathy through commonly used inventories: the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised and the Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale.
Experimental design and sample stimuli. The subjects viewed a compilation of 137 movie clips with variable violent and nonviolent content.Nummenmaa et al.
Both groups watched a 26-minute-long medley of movie scenes that were selected to portray a "large variability of social and emotional content." Some scenes depicted intense violence. As participants watched the medley, fMRI recorded how various regions of their brains responded to the content.
The goal was to see whether the brains of psychopathic criminals looked and reacted similarly to the brains of healthy subjects who scored high in psychopathic traits. The results showed similar reactions: When both groups viewed violent scenes, the fMRI revealed strong reactions in the orbitofrontal cortex and anterior insula, brain regions associated with regulating emotion.
These similarities manifested as a positive association: The more psychopathic traits a healthy subject displayed, the more their brains responded like the criminal group. What's more, the fMRI revealed a similar association between psychopathic traits and brain structure, with those scoring high in psychopathy showing lower gray matter density in the orbitofrontal cortex and anterior insula.
There were some key differences between the groups, however. The researchers noted that the structural abnormalities in the healthy sample were mainly associated with primary psychopathic traits, which are: inclination to lie, lack of remorse, and callousness. Meanwhile, the functional responses of the healthy subjects were associated with secondary psychopathic traits: impulsivity, short temper, and low tolerance for frustration.
Overall, the study further illuminates some of the biological drivers of psychopathy, and it adds nuance to common conceptions of the differences between psychopathy and being "healthy."
Why do some psychopaths become criminals?
The million-dollar question remains unanswered: Why do some psychopaths end up in prison, while others (or, people who score high in psychopathic traits) lead well-functioning lives? The researchers couldn't give a definitive answer, but they did note that psychopathic criminals had lower connectivity within "key nodes of the social and emotional brain networks, including amygdala, insula, thalamus, and frontal pole."
"Thus, even though there are parallels in the regional responsiveness of the brain's affective circuit in the convicted psychopaths and well-functioning subjects with psychopathic traits, it is likely that the disrupted functional connectivity of this network is specific to criminal psychopathy."
Counterintuitively, directly combating misinformation online can spread it further. A different approach is needed.
- Like the coronavirus, engaging with misinformation can inadvertently cause it to spread.
- Social media has a business model based on getting users to spend increasing amounts of time on their platforms, which is why they are hesitant to remove engaging content.
- The best way to fight online misinformation is to drown it out with the truth.
A year ago, the Center for Countering Digital Hate warned of the parallel pandemics — the biological contagion of COVID-19 and the social contagion of misinformation, aiding the spread of the disease. Since the outbreak of COVID-19, anti-vaccine accounts have gained 10 million new social media followers, while we have witnessed arson attacks against 5G masts, hospital staff abused for treating COVID patients, and conspiracists addressing crowds of thousands.
Many have refused to follow guidance issued to control the spread of the virus, motivated by beliefs in falsehoods about its origins and effects. The reluctance we see in some to get the COVID vaccine is greater amongst those who rely on social media rather than traditional media for their information. In a pandemic, lies cost lives, and it has felt like a new conspiracy theory has sprung up online every day.
How we, as social media users, behave in response to misinformation can either enable or prevent it from being seen and believed by more people.
The rules are different online
Credit: Pool via Getty Images
If a colleague mentions in the office that Bill Gates planned the pandemic, or a friend at dinner tells the table that the COVID vaccine could make them infertile, the right thing to do is often to challenge their claims. We don't want anyone to be left believing these falsehoods.
But digital is different. The rules of physics online are not the same as they are in the offline world. We need new solutions for the problems we face online.
Now, imagine that in order to reply to your friend, you must first hand him a megaphone so that everyone within a five-block radius can hear what he has to say. It would do more damage than good, but this is essentially what we do when we engage with misinformation online.
Think about misinformation as being like the coronavirus — when we engage with it, we help to spread it to everyone else with whom we come into contact. If a public figure with a large following responds to a post containing misinformation, they ensure the post is seen by hundreds of thousands or even millions of people with one click. Social media algorithms also push content into more users' newsfeeds if it appears to be engaging, so lots of interactions from users with relatively small followings can still have unintended negative consequences.
The trend of people celebrating and posting photos of themselves or loved ones receiving the vaccine has been far more effective than any attempt to disprove a baseless claim about Bill Gates or 5G mobile technology.
Additionally, whereas we know our friend from the office or dinner, most of the misinformation we see online will come from strangers. They often will be from one of two groups — true believers, whose minds are made up, and professional propagandists, who profit from building large audiences online and selling them products (including false cures). Both of these groups use trolling tactics, that is, seeking to trigger people to respond in anger, thus helping them reach new audiences and thereby gaming the algorithm.
On the day the COVID vaccine was approved in the UK, anti-vaccine activists were able to provoke pro-vaccine voices into posting about thalidomide, exposing new audiences to a reason to distrust the medical establishment. Those who spread misinformation understand the rules of the game online; it's time those of us on the side of enlightenment values of truth and science did too.
How to fight online misinformation
Of course, it is much easier for social media companies to take on this issue than for us citizens. Research from the Center for Countering Digital Hate and Anti-Vax Watch last month found that 65% of anti-vaccine content on social media is linked to just twelve individuals and their organizations. Were the platforms to simply remove the accounts of these superspreaders, it would do a huge amount to reduce harmful misinformation.
The problem is that social media platforms are resistant to do so. These businesses have been built by constantly increasing the amount of time users spend on their platforms. Getting rid of the creators of engaging content that has millions of people hooked is antithetical to the business model. It will require intervention from governments to force tech companies to finally protect their users and society as a whole.
So, what can the rest of us do, while we await state regulation?
Instead of engaging, we should be outweighing the bad with the good. Every time you see a piece of harmful misinformation, share advice or information from a trusted source, like the WHO or BBC, on the same subject. The trend of people celebrating and posting photos of themselves or loved ones receiving the vaccine has been far more effective than any attempt to disprove a baseless claim about Bill Gates or 5G mobile technology. In the attention economy that governs tech platforms, drowning out is a better strategy than rebuttal.
Imran Ahmed is CEO of the Center for Countering Digital Hate.