Mov Sport Sci/Sci Mot
Number 115, 2022
Page(s) 33 - 42
Published online 11 January 2022
  • Araújo, D., Hristovski, R., Seifert, L., Carvalho, J., & Davids, K. (2019). Ecological cognition: expert decision-making behaviour in sport. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 12(1), 1–25. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Bowman, D.A., & McMahan, R.P. (2007). Virtual reality: how much immersion is enough? Computer, 40(7), 36–43. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Cheng, L.K., Chieng, M.H., & Chieng, W.H. (2014). Measuring virtual experience in a three-dimensional virtual reality interactive simulator environment: a structural equation modeling approach. Virtual Reality, 18(3), 173–188. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Clark, C., & Peterson, P. (1986). Teachers’ Thought Processes. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching – 3rd Edition (pp. 255–296). New York: Macmillan. [Google Scholar]
  • Csíkszentmihályi, M., Abuhamdeh, S., & Nakamura, J. (2014). Flow. In M. Csíkszentmihályi (Ed.), Flow and the foundations of Positive Psychology (pp. 227–238). New York: Springer. [Google Scholar]
  • Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the selfdetermination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Diener, E., Sandvik, E., Pavot, W., Strack, F., Argyle, M., & Schwarz, N. (1991). Subjective well-being: An interdisciplinary perspective. International Series in Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 119–139. [Google Scholar]
  • Ellis, G.D., Voelkl, J.E., & Morris, C. (1994). Measurement and analysis issues with explanation of variance in daily experience using the flow model. Journal of Leisure Research, 26(4), 337–356. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Ericsson, K.A., & Simon, H.A. (1984). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge: The MIT Press. [Google Scholar]
  • Gagné, M., & Deci, E.L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational behavior, 26(4), 331–362. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Georgiou, Y., & Kyza, E.A. (2017). The development and validation of the ARI questionnaire: An instrument for measuring immersion in location-based augmented reality settings. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 98, 24–37. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Geslin, E., Bouchard, S., & Richir, S. (2011). Gamers’ versus non-gamers’ emotional response in virtual reality. Journal of CyberTherapy & Rehabilitation, 4(4), 489–493. [Google Scholar]
  • Gianaros, P.J., Muth, E.R., Mordkoff, J.T., Levine, M.E., & Stern, R.M. (2001). A questionnaire for the assessment of the multiple dimensions of motion sickness. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 72(2), 115. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Hagiwara, M.A., Backlund, P., Söderholm, H.M., Lundberg, L., Lebram, M., & Engström, H. (2016). Measuring participants’ immersion in healthcare simulation: the development of an instrument. Advances in Simulation, 1(1), 1–9. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Hassenzahl, M., & Ullrich, D. (2007). To do or not to do: Differences in user experience and retrospective judgments depending on the presence or absence of instrumental goals. Interacting with Computers, 19(4), 429–437. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Kennedy, M.D., & Knight, C.J. (2017). Bench behaviour of ice hockey coaches: Psychophysiological and verbal responses to critical game incidents. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 12(3), 303–311. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Keshavarz, B., Riecke, B.E., Hettinger, L.J., & Campos, J.L. (2015). Vection and visually induced motion sickness: How are they related? Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 472. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Klein, G. (2008). Naturalistic decision making. Human Factors, 50(3), 456–460. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Lombard, G., & Cloes, M. (2021). Analysis of the relevance of the information content given to the players during volleyball timeouts with a 3D device. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 21(6), 965–980. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Macquet, A.C., & Fleurance, P. (2006). Des modèles théoriques pour étudier l’activité de l’expert en sport. Movement Sport Sciences, (2), 9–41. [Google Scholar]
  • Makransky, G., & Lilleholt, L. (2018). A structural equation modeling investigation of the emotional value of immersive virtual reality in education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66(5), 1141–1164. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Makransky, G., & Petersen, G.B. (2019). Investigating the process of learning with desktop virtual reality: A structural equation modeling approach. Computers & Education, 134, 15–30. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Mouchet, A. (2005). Modélisation de la complexité des décisions tactiques en rugby. E-Journal de la Recherche sur l’Intervention en Éducation Physique et Sport, 7, 3–19. [Google Scholar]
  • Mouchet, A. (2013). L’expérience subjective en sport: éclairage psychophénoménologique de l’attention. Movement & Sport Sciences-Science & Motricité, (81), 5–15. [Google Scholar]
  • Mouchet, A., Morgan, K., & Thomas, G. (2018). Psychophenomenology and the explicitation interview for accessing subjective lived experience in sport coaching. Sport, Education and Society, 24(9), 967– 980. [Google Scholar]
  • Oman, C.M., & Cullen, K.E. (2014). Brainstem processing of vestibular sensory exafference: implications for motion sickness etiology. Experimental Brain Research, 232(8), 2483–2492. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Rebenitsch, L., & Owen, C. (2016). Review on cybersickness in applications and visual displays. Virtual Reality, 20(2), 101–125. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Riches, S., Elghany, S., Garety, P., Rus-Calafell, M., & Valmaggia, L. (2019). Factors affecting sense of presence in a virtual reality social environment: A qualitative study. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 22(4), 288–292. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Riva, G., Davide, F., & Ijsselsteijn, W.A. (2003). Measuring presence: Subjective, behavioral and physiological methods. Being there: Concepts, Effects and Measurement of User Presence in Synthetic Environments, 5, 110–118. [Google Scholar]
  • Sherman, W.R., & Craig, A.B. (2018). Understanding virtual reality: Interface, application, and design. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann. [Google Scholar]
  • Shin, D. (2018). Empathy and embodied experience in virtual environment: To what extent can virtual reality stimulate empathy and embodied experience? Computers in Human Behavior, 78, 64–73. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Slater, M., & Wilbur, S. (1997). A framework for immersive virtual environments (FIVE): Speculations on the role of presence in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 6(6), 603–616. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Somrak, A., Pogačnik, M., & Guna, J. (2021). Suitability and comparison of questionnaires assessing virtual reality-induced symptoms and effects and user experience in virtual environments. Sensors, 21(4), 1185. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Souchet, A.D., de Cassagnac, R.G., Drapier, O., Maurice, É., Azouani, R., Zaza, E., Naudot, N., Charron, V., Risetti, A., Hono, J., & Philippe, S. (2020). Virtual classroom’s quality of experience: a collaborative VR platform tested in situ. In S. Richir (Ed.), Laval Virtual VRIC ConVRgence 2020 Proceedings (pp. 5). Laval: Laval Virtual. [Google Scholar]
  • Stinson, C., & Bowman, D.A. (2014). Feasibility of training athletes for high-pressure situations using virtual reality. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 20(4), 606–615. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Sweetser, P., Wyeth, P. (2005). GameFlow: a model for evaluating player enjoyment in games. Comput Entertain, 3(3), 1–24. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Tcha-Tokey, K., Loup-Escande, E., Christmann, O., & Richir, S. (2016). Proposition and validation of a questionnaire to measure the user experience in immersive virtual environments. The International Journal of Virtual Reality, 16(1), 33–48. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Tcha-Tokey, K., Loup-Escande, E., Christmann, O., & Richir, S. (2017). Effects on user experience in an edutainment virtual environment: comparison between CAVE and HMD. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics 2017 (pp. 1–8). [Google Scholar]
  • Tcha-Tokey, K., Christmann, O., Loup-Escande, E., Loup, G., & Richir, S. (2018). Towards a model of user experience in immersive virtual environments. Advances in Human-Computer Interaction, 2018, 1–10. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Turnnidge, J., & Côté, J. (2019). Observing coaches’ leadership behaviours: The development of the coach leadership assessment system (CLAS). Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 23(3), 214–226. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Vergari, M., Kojić, T., Vona, F., Garzotto, F., Möller, S., & Voigt-Antons, J.-N. (2021). Influence of interactivity and social environments on user experience and social acceptability in virtual reality. In Proceedings of 2021 IEEE Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR) (pp. 695–704). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Vermersch, P. (2019). L’entretien d’explicitation. Paris: ESF Sciences Humaines. [Google Scholar]
  • Vignais, N., Kulpa, R., Brault, S., Presse, D., & Bideau, B. (2015). Which technology to investigate visual perception in sport: Video vs. virtual reality. Human Movement Science, 39, 12–26. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Wiederhold, B.K., Jang, D.P., Kaneda, M., Cabral, I., Lurie, Y., May, T., Kim, I.Y., Wiederhold, M.D., & Kim, S.I. (2001). An investigation into physiological responses in virtual environments: An objective measurement of presence. Towards Cyberpsychology: Mind, Cognitions and Society in the Internet Age, 2, 175–183. [Google Scholar]
  • Witmer, B.G., & Singer, M.J. (1998). Measuring presence in virtual environments: A presence questionnaire. In G. Riva & C. Galimberti (Eds.), Towards Cyberpsychology: Mind, Cognitions and Society in the Internet Age (pp. 175–183). Amsterdam: IOS Press. [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.