Leaning as a method of translation in large virtual environments

Harris, Alyssa; Wilson, Preston Tunnell; Nguyen, Kevin A.; Williams, Betsy

doi:10.1145/2492494.2501884

Cited by 10 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Given this limitation, participants still voiced they liked the motion cueing interfaces better than the Joystick because Interface they were fun, engaging, more realistic, and had the natural feeling of moving. This preference for a more embodied interface is consistent with related interfaces, such as the ChairIO [5], Gyroxus gaming chair [11], or leaning interfaces like the Joyman [3], Wii balance board-based standing leaning interfaces [4], [6], [37], [50] or interfaces where users merely lean their upper body while seated on a stable chair [38]. In order to increase familiarity, we recommend a sufficiently long training phase for unfamiliar motion cueing interfaces before any systematic experiments or testing.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

“…. This result is consistent with prior literature that found motion cueing interfaces were more engaging and enjoyable than using a joystick [3], [4], [6]. One participant recounted that the virtual environment "feels very real" [P14].…”

Section: Navichair Interfaces Felt Unstable To Participants Because Tsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…Based on previous studies, we hypothesized that the motion cueing interfaces would provide greater benefits over a nonmotion cueing interface such as a joystick, for illusions of selfmotion [6], [11], spatial perception and orientation [3], [4], enjoyment and engagement [3], [4], [6], as well as immersion and presence [3], [10], [41]. Conversely, we predicted the joystick control to yield higher accuracy, controllability, and ease-of-use and be less fatiguing than the motion cueing interfaces [3], [6], [10], [41].…”

Section: Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is surprising that the non-motion cueing interface (i.e., Joystick) was rated as giving better sense of spatial orientation than the motion cueing interfaces because the literature suggests physically moving your body to cue virtual motion increases spatial orientation [3], [4], [34], [47]. One possible explanation could be that the mapping of the motion cueing interfaces caused more confusion than help in orientation, especially given that we used velocity (rate) control instead of position control (one-to-one mapping) for rotations.…”

Section: Spatial Orientationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Comparing leaning-based motion cueing interfaces for virtual reality locomotion

Kitson

Hashemian

Stepanova

et al. 2017

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

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

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

Section: Navichair Interfaces Felt Unstable To Participants Because Tsupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Spatial Orientationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparing leaning-based motion cueing interfaces for virtual reality locomotion

Kitson

Hashemian

Stepanova

et al. 2017

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

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Human joystick: The user stands and leans on a sensing board (e.g., Wii balance board) to produce forward, backward and sideways (strafing) motions, as well as turning during forward motion [39,55].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Boletsis

2017

MTI

247

193

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The latest technical and interaction advancements that took place in the Virtual Reality (VR) field have marked a new era, not only for VR, but also for VR locomotion. Although the latest advancements in VR locomotion have raised the interest of both researchers and users in analyzing and experiencing current VR locomotion techniques, the field of research on VR locomotion, in its new era, is still uncharted. In this work, VR locomotion is explored through a systematic literature review investigating empirical studies of VR locomotion techniques from 2014-2017. The review analyzes the VR locomotion techniques that have been studied, their interaction-related characteristics and the research topics that were addressed in these studies. Thirty-six articles were identified as relevant to the literature review, and the analysis of the articles resulted in 73 instances of 11 VR locomotion techniques, such as real-walking, walking-in-place, point and teleport, joystick-based locomotion, and more. Results showed that since the VR revival, the focus of VR locomotion research has been on VR technology and various technological aspects, overshadowing the investigation of user experience. From an interaction perspective, the majority of the utilized and studied VR locomotion techniques were found to be based on physical interaction, exploiting physical motion cues for navigation in VR environments. A significant contribution of the literature review lies in the proposed typology for VR locomotion, introducing four distinct VR locomotion types: motion-based, room scale-based, controller-based and teleportation-based locomotion.

show abstract