Flotation Simulation in a Cable-driven Virtual Environment -- A Study with Parasailing

Kang, HyeongYeop; Lee, Geonsun; Kwon, Seongsu; Kwon, Ohung; Kim, Seongpil; Han, JungHyun

doi:10.1145/3173574.3174206

Cited by 15 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly, Shute discussed how to embed questionnaires into games without disturbing the game flow [169]. These considerations With Q, not reported: [2, 15, 16, 20, 27, 30, 31, 33, 34, 38, 42, 43, 50-52, 54, 63, 67-70, 73-76, 86, 89, 90, 92, 93, 95, 101, 105-107, 109-111, 115, 117, 120,122,124-126,130-132,134,135,139-143,145,151,156,164,167,173, 174, 178-181, 184-186, 188, 190, 192, 193, 195, 199, 200, 204] OUTVRQS: [3,8,29,77,84,94,98,114,121,138,157,162,176,177,187,191,196,197] INVRQS: [6,28,37,44,55,66,85,100,108,127,148,[158][159][160]198] Without Q: [9,11,19,22,40,59,71,91,133,153,182,194,<...>…”

Section: Moving Between Virtual and Physical Realitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Examining Design Choices of Questionnaires in VR User Studies

Alexandrovsky

Putze

Bonfert

et al. 2020

Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Questionnaires are among the most common research tools in virtual reality (VR) user studies. Transitioning from virtuality to reality for giving self-reports on VR experiences can lead to systematic biases. VR allows to embed questionnaires into the virtual environment which may ease participation and avoid biases. To provide a cohesive picture of methods and design choices for questionnaires in VR (INVRQ), we discuss 15 INVRQ studies from the literature and present a survey with 67 VR experts from academia and industry. Based on the outcomes, we conducted two user studies in which we tested different presentation and interaction methods of INVRQS and evaluated the usability and practicality of our design. We observed comparable completion times between INVRQS and questionnaires outside VR (OUTVRQS) with higher enjoyment but lower usability for INVRQS. These findings advocate the application of INVRQS and provide an overview of methods and considerations that lay the groundwork for INVRQ design.

show abstract

Section: Moving Between Virtual and Physical Realitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Examining Design Choices of Questionnaires in VR User Studies

Alexandrovsky

Putze

Bonfert

et al. 2020

Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To assess player experience after each game round, we applied the Player Experience of Need of Satisfaction (PENS) [66] questionnaire either using an INVRQ [45,63,76]. To assess potential differences in perceived sense of presence due to different questionnaire modalities and to validate the "breakable experience", we operated the igroup presence questionnaire (IPQ) [70] after the third game rounds in each condition (2× for each participant).…”

Section: Subjective Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recent research has already started to embed questionnaires in the VE for various applications [45,63,76]. However, related work does not offer considerations about the extent and influence of BIPs on the VR experience, as triggered by posing questionnaires [3].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Breaking The Experience: Effects of Questionnaires in VR User Studies

Putze

Alexandrovsky

Putze

et al. 2020

Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Questionnaires are among the most common research tools in virtual reality (VR) evaluations and user studies. However, transitioning from virtual worlds to the physical world to respond to VR experience questionnaires can potentially lead to systematic biases. Administering questionnaires in VR (INVRQS) is becoming more common in contemporary research. This is based on the intuitive notion that INVRQS may ease participation, reduce the Break in Presence (BIP) and avoid biases. In this paper, we perform a systematic investigation into the effects of interrupting the VR experience through questionnaires using physiological data as a continuous and objective measure of presence. In a user study (n=50), we evaluated question-asking procedures using a VR shooter with two different levels of immersion. The users rated their player experience with a questionnaire either inside or outside of VR. Our results indicate a reduced BIP for the employed INVRQ without affecting the self-reported player experience.

show abstract

“…Most of them use extradiegetic UIs. Their design choices differ from each other in (1) the means of presentation, for example using floating headup-displays [9,12,23], world-referenced UIs [14,18,24,29,[34][35][36] or UIs attached to the body [43], (2) the means of interaction, mainly by using VR-controllers [18,23,24,29,35], gamepads [2,9,14], answering orally [12] or using free-hand interaction via Leap Motion gesture-based inputs [32,34,36,43], and (3) other design choices like presenting single or multi-questions at once, answering via Likert-scales [29,[34][35][36]], text-based buttons [23] or sliders [2,9,14,18].…”

Section: Vr Questionnairesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In some experimental setups, the VR-scene (mostly a game) was replaced entirely by a new VE, either by showing the questionnaire in front of a plain background [9,23] or in a virtual replica of the laboratory [19,30,35]. This approach resembles the UI Extern used in this paper (see figure 1 a).…”

Section: Vr Questionnairesmentioning

confidence: 99%