A methodology for the evaluation of travel techniques for immersive virtual environments

Abstract

We present a framework for the analysis and evaluation of travel, or viewpoint motion control, techniques for use in immersive virtual environments (VEs). In previous work, we presented a taxonomy of travel techniques and a set of experiments mapping parts of the taxonomy to various performance metrics. Since these initial experiments, we have expanded the framework to allow evaluation of not only the effects of different travel techniques, but also the effects of many outside factors simultaneously. Combining this expanded framework with the measurement of multiple response variables epitomises the philosophy of testbed evaluation. This experimental philosophy leads to a deeper understanding of the interaction and the technique(s) in question, as well as to broadly generalisable results. We also present an example experiment within this expanded framework, which evaluates the user's ability to gather information while travelling through a virtual environment. Results indicate that, of the variables tested, the complexity of the environment is by far the most important factor.

Comparing leaning-based motion cueing interfaces for virtual reality locomotion

“…Motion cueing has also been widely studied, showing that it can enhance overall usability and user experience [21]- [23], enhance spatial perception and orientation [22], and reduce motion sickness [35]. Harris and colleagues [34] found passive physical motion, i.e., remaining inactive while the simulation moves the user, evokes an enhanced sensation of motion, but also tends to dominate other cues; and they found a complete match between visual and vestibular cues was not required to help induce self-motion.…”

“…Interfaces that utilize spatial updating, also known as physical navigation interfaces, have been shown to increase usability and spatial orientation [21]- [23]. In terms of self-motion, researchers investigating the integration of visual and vestibular sensory cues found that visual and non-visual cues are by themselves sufficient, but together are stronger in signaling self-motion [24], [25].…”

The New Era of Virtual Reality Locomotion: A Systematic Literature Review of Techniques and a Proposed Typology

“…The VR motion type shares common characteristics with the component of input conditions, i.e., the way in which the technique specifies VR motion. Moreover, in an expanded version of Bowman et al's framework [16], the size of the environment was considered significant for the performance of the VR locomotion technique, a characteristic represented in the theme of VR interaction space. Arns' work [17] on extending Bowman et al's taxonomy and introducing the concept of physical and virtual interaction regarding the rotation of the virtual environment and the translation of the user's viewpoint presents common elements with the interaction type theme.…”

Enhanced Hand Manipulation Methods for Efficient and Precise Positioning and Release of Virtual Objects

“…Moreover, many studies have been done on 3D interaction techniques using hand manipulation, such as the silk cursor [24], ray-casting interaction [3], go-go interaction [20], IntenSelect [8], body-relative interaction [14], image plane interaction [19], and scaled manipulation [6]. These techniques use a handheld device such as a stylus to manipulate a virtual object.…”