No abstract

In this work, we present a simple method of "walking in place" (WIP) using the Microsoft Kinect to explore a virtual environment (VE) with a head-mounted display (HMD). Other studies have shown that WIP to explore a VE is equivalent to normal walking in terms of spatial orientation. This suggests that WIP is a promising way to explore a large VE. The Microsoft Kinect sensor is a great tool for implementing WIP because it enables real time skeletal tracking and is relatively inexpensive (110 USD). However, the skeletal information obtained from Kinect sensors can be noisy. Thus, this research discusses how we combined the data from two Kinects to implement a robust WIP algorithm. We evaluate our algorithm and directly compare it to joystick navigation of a large VE. We also explore the possibility of scaling the gain of WIP so that one WIP step forward carries the user two steps forward in virtual space.

In this work we present an inexpensive method of exploring a large immersive virtual environment (VE). More specifically, we describe a method of physically leaning to explore a VE on a Nintendo Wii Fit Balance Board, Wii-Leaning. In two experiments described in this paper, we directly compare our Wii-Leaning method to two other methods of exploring a large VE. In Experiment 1, the feasibility and accuracy of our Wii-Leaning is tested by directly comparing it to joystick navigation. In a spatial orientation task, we find that when participants explore the environment by physically leaning that their spatial representation of the VE is more accurate. In Experiment 2, we then directly compare our Wii-Leaning method to "walking in place" using a spatial orientation task. We find that spatial orientation is similar in the two conditions and that Wii-Leaning was more preferred 2:1 by users.

Existing methods of measuring the visibility of an object or of assessing the visibility in an installation are discussed. The ideas underlying the concept of visibility are then analysed with the intention of making clear the nature of some of the difficulties which have given rise to controversy. One must distinguish between the visibility of an object and the visibility in an installation. The latter IS best regarded as an assessment of all actual or potential visibilities in the installation. There has been controversy as to the correct scale for the visibility of an object and about the meaning, if any, of the numerical values given by such scales. It is concluded that all scales which put objects in the same order of visibility are equally valid, but some are more convenient than others because they are more simply related to the visual phenomena vital to the task of the observer: in this case safe driving. The attempt to represent the visibility in an installation by a single number is an attempt to put in order of merit the totalities of actual and potential visibilities in different installations. It is concluded that no useful meaning can be attributed to a comparison of these totalities in terms of visibilities alone. Any such comparison breaks down in certain cases and these are likely to be just the cases in which guidance is most needed. Installations may be compared, however, in terms of safety. The visual safety of an installation, as distinct from the visibility in an installation. can therefore be represented by a single number. The practical difficulties in the way of obtaining the visual safety are discussed. Progress seems to depend on gaining an understanding in clear numerical terms of the part played by visibility in the causation of accidents. Present knowledge is extremely meagre.