Source-linked AI summary
Big World, Little Me: Comparing a First-Person VR Walkthrough Video and Static Slides for Communicating Height-Related Accessibility Barriers
Chan In Sio, Alex Mann, Qian Ming Jia, Xuecheng Guo, Yan Zhuo, Xinyu Ning, Kaikuo Liao, Lik-Hang Lee
TL;DR
People with dwarfism may face barriers created by fixed-height environments and discriminatory social assumptions. This paper compares a recorded first-person walkthrough with corresponding static slides, finding higher reported engagement and empathy for the walkthrough. The findings concern the complete formats and do not establish that a single feature caused the differences.
Problem
People with dwarfism may encounter barriers from fixed-height environments and social assumptions that affect everyday activities, social participation, and employment.
Source: §1 · p. 2Method
The study compared a 10 min 52 s first-person walkthrough of a Unity-based environment with a corresponding self-paced static-slide presentation in a non-randomised between-subjects study.
Source: §1 · p. 2Results
Participants who viewed the walkthrough reported substantially higher narrative engagement and state empathy, while exploratory analyses showed larger pre-to-post increases in supportive intentions.
Source: §8 · p. 13Takeaways & Limitations
Recorded walkthroughs may offer a practical way to disseminate VR-authored accessibility narratives when HMD delivery is impractical.
Source: §8 · p. 13The narrative presents selected barriers rather than a broad account that also represents agency, adaptation, community, and diverse everyday experiences.
Source: §1 · p. 2, §7 · p. 13
Abstract
from arXiv · showhide
People with dwarfism and other forms of short stature may encounter barriers created by fixed-height environments and discriminatory social assumptions. This paper evaluates Big World, Little Me, a 10 min 52 s first-person walkthrough recorded from a Unity-based VR environment. The narrative depicts domestic reachability, public-transport, and employment barriers. In a non-randomised between-subjects study, 100 participants aged 15--48 years viewed either the fixed-duration audiovisual walkthrough or a silent, self-paced 27-slide presentation representing the same principal events. Narrative engagement was higher for the walkthrough ($M=5.54$, $SD=0.51$) than for the slides ($M=4.24$, $SD=0.73$), mean difference $=1.30$, 95% CI [1.05, 1.55], Hedges' $g=2.05$, $p<.001$. State empathy was also higher for the walkthrough ($M=3.15$, $SD=0.33$) than for the slides ($M=2.21$, $SD=0.60$), mean difference $=0.94$, 95% CI [0.74, 1.13], Hedges' $g=1.91$, $p<.001$. Exploratory supportive-intention ratings increased more in the walkthrough condition than in the slide condition. Participants also rated the walkthrough as more dynamic, continuous, spatially clear, and information-rich. The findings indicate stronger immediate responses to the complete walkthrough format, but do not isolate the effects of motion, continuity, pacing, information quantity, or participant control. The walkthrough should be understood as screen-based VR-authored media rather than immersive VR or a reproduction of lived experience.
1 INTRODUCTION
People with dwarfism may face barriers from fixed-height environments and social assumptions. This paper evaluates a first-person VR-authored accessibility narrative in walkthrough-video and static-slide formats, comparing immediate engagement, empathy, and exploratory supportive intentions.
1 INTRODUCTION
- Fixed-height environments and social assumptions can restrict everyday activities, social participation, and employment for people with dwarfism.The paper frames these barriers as arising from environmental and attitudinal conditions, not impairment alone.Source: §1 · p. 2
- Prior perspective-taking research reports some positive effects, but findings vary across outcomes, so VR is not an automatic route to empathy.First-person VR may make barriers concrete by preserving spatial relationships among viewers, objects, and people.Source: §1 · p. 2
- Disability simulations may increase distress or vulnerability without reliably improving attitudes, and this study's fictionalised narrative does not claim to reproduce lived experience.It directs attention toward environmental and social barriers.Source: §1 · p. 2
- The study compares a 10 min 52 s recorded first-person walkthrough with corresponding self-paced slides in a non-randomised study of engagement, empathy, and exploratory supportive intentions.The video retains viewpoint, sequence, and dynamic spatial information while removing interaction, head tracking, stereoscopic depth, and embodiment.Source: §1 · p. 2
- The paper describes the paired presentation formats, compares their engagement and empathy measures, and offers preliminary insights for interpreting screen-based VR-authored narratives.The formats also differ in dynamic presentation and perceived information.Source: §1 · pp. 2–3
2 RELATED WORK
Prior work reports mixed effects of VR perspective-taking and highlights ethical concerns in disability representation. This paper situates its recorded walkthrough as screen-based VR-authored media, distinct from immersive VR.
2.1 VR Perspective-Taking and Narrative Engagement
- VR perspective-taking has produced some positive effects, but outcomes are inconsistent; dynamic presentation may support narrative engagement while richer media can increase cognitive load without improving learning.Narrative engagement includes understanding, attention, emotional engagement, and presence, while transportation is linked with attention, imagery, affect, and story-consistent judgments.Source: §2.1 · p. 3
2.2 Disability Representation and Height-Related Barriers
- Disability simulations may foreground helplessness or vulnerability while overlooking adaptation, agency, and community, and short simulations may raise distress without reliably improving attitudes or willingness to interact.Barriers for people with short stature span physical activities, transport, employment, services, and social participation.Source: §2.2 · p. 3
2.3 From Immersive VR to Screen-Based Walkthroughs
- Recorded walkthroughs retain first-person viewpoint, temporal sequence, movement, and spatial relationships while removing stereoscopic depth, head tracking, embodiment, and interaction; they are not immersive VR.HMD delivery requires dedicated hardware and setup and may involve locomotion discomfort.Source: §2.3 · pp. 3–4
3 DESIGN OF THE VR-AUTHORED STIMULI
The paper translates a Unity-based first-person accessibility environment into a recorded walkthrough and corresponding slides. Both formats present selected domestic, transport, and employment barriers, but differ in movement, continuity, pacing, and sensory presentation.
3.1 VR Environment and Narrative Design
- The Unity environment follows an adult protagonist with dwarfism through domestic reachability, public transport, and employment barriers created by physical design and social assumptions.The narrative includes fixed-height fixtures, inaccessible transport controls, mistaken identity as a child, and hiring assumptions.Source: §3.1 · p. 4, Figure 1 · p. 4
3.2 First-Person Walkthrough Video
- The 10 min 52 s first-person walkthrough retains dialogue, subtitles, environmental audio, and transitions, preserving spatial relationships with objects, fixtures, furniture, and people.It was recorded from the VR-system display and edited only to remove loading screens, prolonged pauses, and development artefacts.Source: §3.2 · p. 5
3.3 Static-Slide Presentation
- The 27-slide presentation follows the walkthrough's event order and dialogue but uses successive still frames without narration, audio, movement, animation, or transitions.Participants advanced through the full-screen slides at their own pace.Source: §3.3 · p. 5
3.4 Stimulus Correspondence
- Both formats correspond in principal events, dialogue, subtitles, and event order, but differ in movement, continuity, pacing, participant control, narration, and environmental audio.The comparison therefore tests complete formats rather than isolating motion or another single feature; both are framed as one fictionalised account, not a universal representation.Source: §3.4 · p. 5
4 USER STUDY
The study used a non-randomised, between-subjects comparison of a walkthrough video and static slides. It measured narrative engagement and state empathy after exposure, with supportive intentions treated as exploratory.
4.1 Study Design and Hypotheses
- The study compared a first-person walkthrough video with static slides in a two-group, non-randomised between-subjects design, with participants viewing one format only.The first 50 participants viewed the walkthrough and the next 50 viewed slides, so allocation followed recruitment phase rather than random assignment.Source: §4.1 · p. 5
- Narrative engagement was the primary outcome and state empathy the secondary outcome, both measured immediately after exposure with validated scales.Supportive behavioural intentions were examined exploratorily using researcher-developed items.Source: §4.1 · pp. 5–6
- The walkthrough and slides showed corresponding events, dialogue, subtitles, and event order, while narration, environmental audio, movement, and transitions appeared only in the video.Figure 2 depicts the continuous refrigerator and employment sequences alongside their corresponding slides.Source: Figure 2 · p. 6
- The study tested whether the walkthrough group reported greater narrative engagement and state empathy than the slide group.Because condition allocation was not random, findings indicate between-group associations and cannot establish that format alone caused differences.Source: §4.1 · p. 6
4.2 Participants
The Hong Kong sample comprised 100 participants aged 15–48, recruited into two presentation conditions. The study measured engagement, empathy, supportive intentions, perceived format differences, and exploratory open-ended responses.
4.2 Participants
- The final sample included 100 participants aged 15–48, with 50 in each condition; recruitment was in Hong Kong and required sufficient English proficiency and iPad access.The groups had similar mean ages, but differed in gender composition and included 20 versus 15 participants under 18.Source: §4.2 · pp. 6–7
4.3.1 Narrative Engagement
- Narrative engagement was measured with a 12-item, 7-point scale covering understanding, attentional focus, presence, and emotional engagement.The overall score was the mean of all items; dimension scores were examined descriptively.Source: §4.3.1 · p. 7
4.3.2 State Empathy
- State empathy was measured with a 12-item scale covering affective, cognitive, and associative empathy, rated with reference to the protagonist.The overall score was the mean of all items; dimension scores were examined descriptively.Source: §4.3.2 · p. 7
4.3.3 Supportive Intentions
- Four researcher-developed items assessed intentions to support accessible facilities, workplace accommodation, challenging infantilising comments, and further accessibility learning.The exploratory index combined the four items, which measured stated intentions rather than observed behaviour and was interpreted cautiously.Source: §4.3.3 · p. 7
4.3.4 Manipulation Checks
- Four post-presentation items checked perceived dynamism, movement continuity, spatial clarity, and information quantity as features of the complete formats.These were exploratory checks, not outcome measures.Source: §4.3.4 · p. 7
4.3.5 Open-Ended Responses
- Three open-ended questions asked about barriers, possible changes, and whether the narrative seemed unrealistic, stereotypical, or incomplete.Only 10 usable responses were available, and they were treated as exploratory material rather than a validated learning measure.Source: §4.3.5 · p. 7
4.4 Procedure
Participants completed baseline questions before viewing one assigned presentation in a laboratory iPad session, then completed posttest measures and optional open-ended questions.
4.4 Procedure
- Participants were recruited sequentially: the first 50 viewed the walkthrough, followed by 50 who viewed the slides.After consent, participants completed demographics, background items, and baseline supportive-intention ratings.Source: §4.4 · p. 7
- Walkthrough participants watched the complete first-person video, while slide participants advanced the full-screen presentation at their own pace.Sessions used an iPad with built-in speakers; the slides had no narration or environmental audio.Source: §4.4 · p. 8
- Before the posttest, video participants confirmed completing the recording and slide participants confirmed reaching the final slide; slide-viewing duration was not recorded.All participants then completed engagement, empathy, supportive-intention, and manipulation-check measures and could answer three open-ended questions.Source: §4.4 · p. 8
4.5 Analysis
The analyses compared posttest engagement and empathy between conditions, examined exploratory intention changes, and descriptively summarized the small set of open-ended responses.
4.5 Analysis
- Narrative engagement and state empathy were compared using Welch’s independent-samples t-tests, with group summaries, confidence intervals, p-values, and Hedges’ g reported.Subscale analyses were exploratory.Source: §4.5 · p. 8
- Supportive-intention pretest and posttest responses were paired by response order without participant identifiers, so those analyses were treated as exploratory.Between-condition differences in individual-item change scores used Welch’s tests; Holm correction covered the four item-level comparisons, while the overall-index analysis was unadjusted.Source: §4.5 · p. 8
- Open-ended responses were grouped descriptively into barriers, suggested changes, and representation concerns, without an aim of establishing thematic saturation.Ten usable responses were reviewed in Chinese and translated into English for reporting by a bilingual team member.Source: §4.5 · p. 8
5 RESULTS
The walkthrough condition reported higher engagement and state empathy than the slide condition, while exploratory intention ratings also favored the walkthrough. Format checks showed that participants perceived differences in dynamism, continuity, spatial clarity, and information quantity.
5.1 Narrative Engagement
- Engagement was higher for the walkthrough (M=5.54, SD=0.51) than slides (M=4.24, SD=0.73), with a 1.30-point difference, 95% CI [1.05, 1.55], and Hedges’ g=2.05.All four engagement dimensions followed the same pattern; the largest differences were emotional engagement (g=2.38) and narrative presence (g=2.12).Source: §5.1 · p. 8, Table 1 · p. 9
5.2 State Empathy
- State empathy was higher for the walkthrough (M=3.15, SD=0.33) than slides (M=2.21, SD=0.60), with a 0.94-point difference, 95% CI [0.74, 1.13], and Hedges’ g=1.91.All three dimensions followed the same direction; the largest differences were cognitive empathy (g=2.17) and associative empathy (g=1.99).Source: §5.2 · p. 9, Table 1 · p. 9
5.3 Supportive Intentions
- The exploratory supportive-intention index changed by 1.38 points in the walkthrough group and −0.21 in the slide group, a 1.58-point difference in change, 95% CI [1.32, 1.84], Hedges’ g=2.37.All four item-level between-condition change comparisons were significant after Holm correction; these were self-reported intentions, not observed behaviour.Source: §5.3 · p. 9, Table 2 · p. 10
5.4 Manipulation Checks
- Participants rated the walkthrough as more dynamic, continuous, and spatially clear than slides (g=3.51–3.77, all p<.001), and as containing more information (M=6.14 versus 3.06).The main outcomes therefore compare complete formats rather than isolating movement or continuity alone.Source: §5.4 · p. 10
5.5 Open-Ended Responses
- All 10 usable open-ended respondents identified physical and social barriers, including inaccessible features and employment bias, infantilisation, or misunderstanding.Common suggestions included lowered or adjustable facilities, accessible transport, and recruitment based on ability rather than appearance.Source: §5.5 · p. 10
- Nine respondents described the narrative as centred on difficulty or rejection, and two cautioned that one fictionalised narrative could not represent everyone with dwarfism.Responses supported the focus on environmental and social barriers while identifying a risk of hardship-centred representation.Source: §5.5 · p. 10
5.6 Sensitivity Analyses
- After excluding straight-lining responses, engagement remained higher for video (M=5.57, n=43) than slides (M=4.21, n=30), with a 1.36-point difference, 95% CI [1.04, 1.68], g=2.16.State empathy also remained higher for video (M=3.17) than slides (M=2.21), with a 0.96-point difference, 95% CI [0.71, 1.21], g=2.01.Source: §5.6 · p. 10
6 DISCUSSION
The walkthrough was associated with stronger engagement, empathy, and supportive intentions than the slides, but the comparison cannot identify which format features account for the differences. The findings are immediate and format-specific, and the narrative’s barrier-focused representation has limits.
6 DISCUSSION
- Engagement, state empathy, and supportive intentions were higher after the walkthrough than after the slides, but the complete formats differed on several features.The findings do not isolate the effect of movement, continuity, pacing, participant control, narration, audio, or perceived information quantity.Source: §6 · p. 11
6.1 Narrative Engagement
- The walkthrough was associated with greater narrative engagement (g=2.05), with the largest differences in emotional engagement and narrative presence.The pattern extended across understanding, attentional focus, narrative presence, and emotional engagement.Source: §6.1 · p. 11
6.2 State Empathy
- State empathy was higher after the walkthrough than after the slides (g=1.91), with larger differences in cognitive and associative than affective empathy.The findings concern immediate state empathy and do not establish enduring empathy, attitude change, or accurate understanding of lived experience.Source: §6.2 · p. 11
6.3 Supportive Intentions
- Supportive intentions increased by 1.38 points in the walkthrough condition and −0.21 points in the slide condition (g=2.37).These were exploratory ratings from researcher-developed items measuring stated intentions rather than behaviour.Source: §6.3 · p. 12
6.4 Format and Representational Implications
- Participants rated the walkthrough as more dynamic, continuous, spatially clear, and information-rich, while it also imposed a fixed pace.The study cannot separate these differences from event coverage, exposure time, or participant control; future comparisons could vary format features separately.Source: §6.4 · p. 12
- A recorded walkthrough may be useful when HMD delivery is impractical, but it is not equivalent to VR or lived experience.The fictionalised narrative focused on difficulty and rejection, with relatively little attention to agency, achievement, relationships, or positive everyday life; future work should involve people of short stature in co-design and evaluation.Source: §6.4 · p. 12
7 LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE WORK
The study compared complete formats in a non-randomised design, limiting causal interpretation of their differences. Its immediate self-reports, convenience sample, and narrow representational scope also constrain interpretation and generalisability; future work should control format differences and broaden evaluation.
7 LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE WORK
- Because allocation followed recruitment phase rather than random assignment, between-group differences may reflect temporal, recruitment, or other unmeasured differences.The comparison also varied movement, continuity, pacing, control, narration, audio, and perceived information quantity, limiting causal inference about individual features.Source: §7 · p. 13
- Immediate self-reports, a convenience sample, researcher-developed intention items, and uniform responding in some questionnaires limit generalisability and interpretation.Only 10 qualitative responses were collected, insufficient for thematic saturation or reliable comparison between conditions.Source: §7 · p. 13
- Future studies should compare walkthrough, slide, and HMD formats while controlling event coverage and perceived information more closely.The authors also recommend delayed, behavioural, and qualitative measures and participatory design and evaluation with people with dwarfism.Source: §7 · p. 13
8 CONCLUSION
In a non-randomised study of 100 participants, the walkthrough was associated with higher engagement and empathy than the corresponding self-paced slides, alongside larger exploratory increases in supportive intentions. These results support recorded walkthroughs as a practical dissemination format, but concern complete presentation conditions rather than isolated media effects.
8 CONCLUSION
- The study compared a 10 min 52 s first-person walkthrough with corresponding self-paced slides in a non-randomised between-subjects study of 100 participants.Source: §8 · p. 13
- Walkthrough viewers reported substantially higher narrative engagement and state empathy, with larger pre-to-post increases in supportive intentions across four accessibility-related areas.Those areas were accessible facilities, workplace accommodation, challenging infantilising comments, and further accessibility learning.Source: §8 · p. 13
- Recorded walkthroughs may offer practical dissemination when HMD delivery is impractical, but the findings compare complete formats and do not isolate motion or continuity.The media should remain framed as fictionalised representations of selected barriers, not equivalents to immersive VR or the lived experiences of people with dwarfism.Source: §8 · p. 13