PHANTOMATRIX: A Transfer Model for Extended Reality Systems
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.65638/2978-8811.2026.02.02Keywords:
Transfer function, Event fields, Phantom fields, Extended reality, PHANTOMATRIXAbstract
Extended Reality (XR) systems mediate event fields through technical transformations that intervene between physical events and their rendered representation. This article formalizes these transformations within the PHANTOMATRIX framework, which models XR systems as composed mappings between primary event fields, phantom representations, and secondary event fields. Capture, transformation, and display are defined as sequential stages governed by mode-specific and system-imposed constraints. By expressing XR configurations as transformation chains, PHANTOMATRIX provides a formal basis for analyzing how technical constraints shape mediated environments and how different system architectures can be represented within a unified compositional structure. This perspective enables XR systems to be examined in terms of stage-specific constraints that influence mediated experience. Such constraints provide a basis for analyzing user experience effects in XR systems.
References
Clua E, Porcino T, Trevisan D, Cardoso JCS, Lisboa T, Peres V, et al. Workshop: Challenges for XR in Digital Entertainment. In: Baalsrud Hauge J, C. S. Cardoso J, Roque L, Gonzalez-Calero PA, editors. Entertainment Computing - ICEC 2021 [Internet]. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2021 [cited 2023 May 6]. p. 489-98. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89394-1_43
Jahn K, Oschinsky FM, Kordyaka B, Machulska A, Eiler TJ, Gruenewald A, et al. Design elements in immersive virtual reality: the impact of object presence on health-related outcomes. INTR. 2022; 32: 376-401. https://doi.org/10.1108/INTR-12-2020-0712
Plechatá A, Makransky G, Böhm R. Can extended reality in the metaverse revolutionise health communication? npj Digit Med. 2022; 5: 132. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-022-00682-x
Vasarainen M, Paavola S, Vetoshkina L. A Systematic Literature Review on Extended Reality: Virtual, Augmented and Mixed Reality in Working Life. IJVR. 2021; 21: 1-28. https://doi.org/10.20870/IJVR.2021.21.2.4620
Billinghurst M, Duenser A. Augmented Reality in the Classroom. Computer. 2012; 45: 56-63. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2012.111
Ziker C, Truman B, Dodds H. Cross Reality (XR): Challenges and Opportunities Across the Spectrum. In: Ryoo J, Winkelmann K, editors. Innovative Learning Environments in STEM Higher Education [Internet]. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2021 [cited 2023 May 6]. p. 55-77. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58948-6_4
Moses R, Garia N, Devan P. Digital reality - A technical primer. Deloitte Insights; 2018.
Felnhofer A, Kothgassner OD, Schmidt M, Heinzle A-K, Beutl L, Hlavacs H, et al. Is virtual reality emotionally arousing? Investigating five emotion inducing virtual park scenarios. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 2015; 82: 48-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2015.05.004
Meuleman B, Rudrauf D. Induction and Profiling of Strong Multi-Componential Emotions in Virtual Reality. IEEE Trans Affective Comput. 2021; 12: 189-202. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAFFC.2018.2864730
Somarathna R, Bednarz T, Mohammadi G. Virtual Reality for Emotion Elicitation - A Review. IEEE Trans Affective Comput. 2022; 1-21.
Al-Jundi HA, Tanbour EY. A framework for fidelity evaluation of immersive virtual reality systems. Virtual Reality. 2022; 26: 1103-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-021-00618-y
Skarbez R, Smith M, Whitton MC. Revisiting Milgram and Kishino’s Reality-Virtuality Continuum. Front Virtual Real. 2021; 2: 647997. https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2021.647997
Stauffert J-P, Niebling F, Latoschik ME. Latency and Cybersickness: Impact, Causes, and Measures. A Review. Front Virtual Real. 2020; 1: 582204. https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2020.582204
Warburton M, Mon-Williams M, Mushtaq F, Morehead JR. Measuring motion-to-photon latency for sensorimotor experiments with virtual reality systems. Behav Res [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2023 May 13]; https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.06.24.497509
Zhao N, Zhang X, Noah JA, Tiede M, Hirsch J. Separable Processes for Live “In-Person” and Live “Zoom-like” Faces. Imaging Neuroscience [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2023 Nov 4]; https://doi.org/10.1162/imag_a_00027
Grasnick A. Transfer Functions and Event Fields in XR: The PHANTOMATRIX Framework for Quantifying Perception Convergence (Preprint) [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2024 June 5]. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3556886/v1
Slater M. Place illusion and plausibility can lead to realistic behaviour in immersive virtual environments. Phil Trans R Soc B. 2009; 364: 3549-57. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0138
Makransky G, Petersen GB. The Cognitive Affective Model of Immersive Learning (CAMIL): a Theoretical Research-Based Model of Learning in Immersive Virtual Reality. Educ Psychol Rev. 2021; 33: 937-58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09586-2
Slater M. Immersion and the illusion of presence in virtual reality. British J of Psychology. 2018; 109: 431-3. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12305
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
