An Integrative Approach to Presence and Self-Motion Perception Research

Riecke, Bernhard E.; Schulte-Pelkum, J

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-10190-3_9

Cited by 16 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 130 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Well-designed locomotion interfaces can improve the experience and performance in virtual environments (VE) [22]. Yet, despite recent advances in virtual reality (VR) technology, supporting effective spatial orientation and providing a compelling sensation of self-motion through the VE remains challenging [27]. While modern VR systems allow for photorealistic graphics, users typically perceive simulated selfmotions not as actual and embodied self-motion, but rather as camera motion [26].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Upper Body Leaning can affect Forward Self-Motion Perception in Virtual Environments

Kruijff

Riecke

Trekowski³

et al. 2015

Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Symposium on Spatial User Interaction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study of locomotion in virtual environments is a diverse and rewarding research area. Yet, creating effective and intuitive locomotion techniques is challenging, especially when users cannot move around freely. While using handheld input devices for navigation may often be good enough, it does not match our natural experience of self-motion in the real world. Frequently, there are strong arguments for supporting body-centered selfmotion cues as they may improve orientation and spatial judgments, and reduce motion sickness. Yet, how these cues can be introduced without having to allow for physical user motion is not well understood. Actuated solutions such as motion platforms can be an option, but they are expensive and difficult to maintain. Alternatively, within this article we focus on the effect of upperbody tilt while users are seated, as previous work has indicated positive effects on self-motion perception. We report on two studies that investigated the effects of static and dynamic upper body leaning on perceived distances traveled and self-motion perception (vection). Static leaning (i.e., keeping a constant forward torso inclination) had a positive effect on self-motion, while dynamic torso leaning showed mixed results. We discuss these results and identify further steps necessary to design improved embodied locomotion control techniques that do not require actuated motion platforms.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Upper Body Leaning can affect Forward Self-Motion Perception in Virtual Environments

Kruijff

Riecke

Trekowski³

et al. 2015

Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Symposium on Spatial User Interaction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite recent advancements in virtual reality (VR) technology, there is a need for effective and easy to use locomotion interfaces [1]. In particular, with affordable head-mounted displays (HMDs) such as HTC Vive, Oculus Rift, and Samsung GearVR quickly becoming more widespread, research in embodied navigation systems and techniques is especially relevant given the consumers' interest in these highly immersive experiences.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing leaning-based motion cueing interfaces for virtual reality locomotion

Kitson

Hashemian

Stepanova

et al. 2017

2017 IEEE Symposium on 3D User Interfaces (3DUI)

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we describe a user study comparing five different locomotion interfaces for virtual reality locomotion. We compared a standard non-motion cueing interface, Joystick (Xbox), with four motion cueing interfaces, NaviChair (stool with springs), MuvMan (sit/stand active stool), Head-Directed (Oculus Rift DK2), and Swivel Chair (everyday office chair with leaning capability). Each interface had two degrees of freedom to move forward/backward and rotate using velocity (rate) control. The aim of this mixed methods study was to better understand relevant user experience factors and guide the design of future locomotion interfaces. This study employed methods from HCI to provide an understanding of why users behave a certain way while using the interface and to unearth any new issues with the design. Participants were tasked to search for objects in a virtual city while they provided talk-aloud feedback and we logged their behaviour. Subsequently, they completed a post-experimental questionnaire on their experience. We found that the qualitative themes of control, usability, and experience echoed the results of the questionnaire, providing internal validity. The quantitative measures revealed the Joystick to be significantly more comfortable and precise than the motion cueing interfaces. However, the qualitative feedback and interviews showed this was due to the reduced perceived controllability and safety of the motion cueing interfaces. Designers of these interfaces should consider using a backrest if users need to lean backwards and avoid using velocity-control for rotations when using HMDs.

show abstract

“…Future research may investigate possible correlations between subjective ratings of immersion and vection intensity ratings. This seems conceivable, given that spatial presence in a simulated VE has been previously found to correlate with the convincingness of vection, and involvement in the VE was correlated with vection onset latencies ( Riecke et al, 2006 ; Riecke and Schulte-Pelkum, 2015 ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…Due to its ability to invoke powerful and embodied sensations of self-movement, vection has also been discussed over the last decade as a means for improving VR and other self-motion simulations, where physical navigation is often unfeasible (see Riecke, 2011 , for a review). As such, extensive research has been conducted to determine what factors may elicit, enhance, and prolong vection, both in the context of psychology research (see reviews in Dichgans and Brandt, 1978 ; Mergner and Becker, 1990 ; Warren and Wertheim, 1990 ; Palmisano et al, 2011 ) and, to a lesser degree, VR research ( Riecke, 2011 ; Hettinger et al, 2014 ; Riecke and Schulte-Pelkum, 2015 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing the effectiveness of different displays in enhancing illusions of self-movement (vection)

Riecke

Jordan

2015

Front. Psychol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Illusions of self-movement (vection) can be used in virtual reality (VR) and other applications to give users the embodied sensation that they are moving when physical movement is unfeasible or too costly. Whereas a large body of vection literature studied how various parameters of the presented visual stimulus affect vection, little is known how different display types might affect vection. As a step toward addressing this gap, we conducted three experiments to compare vection and usability parameters between commonly used VR displays, ranging from stereoscopic projection and 3D TV to high-end head-mounted display (HMD, NVIS SX111) and recent low-cost HMD (Oculus Rift). The last experiment also compared these two HMDs in their native full field of view (FOV) and a reduced, matched FOV of 72° × 45°. Participants moved along linear and curvilinear paths in the virtual environment, reported vection onset time, and rated vection intensity at the end of each trial. In addition, user ratings on immersion, motion sickness, vection, and overall preference were recorded retrospectively and compared between displays. Unexpectedly, there were no significant effects of display on vection measures. Reducing the FOV for the HMDs (from full to 72° × 45°) decreased vection onset latencies, but did not affect vection intensity. As predicted, curvilinear paths yielded earlier and more intense vection. Although vection has often been proposed to predict or even cause motion sickness, we observed no correlation for any of the displays studied. In conclusion, perceived self-motion and other user experience measures proved surprisingly tolerant toward changes in display type as long as the FOV was roughly matched. This suggests that display choice for vection research and VR applications can be largely based on other considerations as long as the provided FOV is sufficiently large.

show abstract

An Integrative Approach to Presence and Self-Motion Perception Research

Cited by 16 publications

References 130 publications

Upper Body Leaning can affect Forward Self-Motion Perception in Virtual Environments

Upper Body Leaning can affect Forward Self-Motion Perception in Virtual Environments

Comparing leaning-based motion cueing interfaces for virtual reality locomotion

Comparing the effectiveness of different displays in enhancing illusions of self-movement (vection)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About