Quantitative evaluation of visual guidance effects for 360-degree directions

Abstract

A head-mounted display cannot cover an angle of visual field as wide as that of natural view (out-of-view problem). To enhance the visual cognition of an immersive environment, previous studies have developed various guidance designs that visualize the location or direction of items presented in the users’ surroundings. However, two issues regarding the guidance effects remain unresolved: How are the guidance effects different with each guided direction? How much is the cognitive load required by the guidance? To investigate the two issues, we performed a visual search task in an immersive environment and measured the search time of a target and time spent to recognize a guidance design. In this task, participants searched for a target presented on a head-mounted display and reported the target color while using a guidance design. The guidance designs (a moving window, 3D arrow, radiation, spherical gradation, and 3D radar) and target directions were manipulated. The search times showed an interaction effect between guidance designs and guided directions, e.g., the 3D arrow and radar shorten the search time for targets presented at the back of users. The recognition times showed that the participants required short times to recognize the details of the moving window and radiation but long times for the 3D arrow, spherical gradation, and 3D radar. These results suggest that the moving window and radiation are effective with respect to cognitive load, but the 3D arrow and radar are effective for guiding users’ attention to necessary items presented at the out-of-view.

Synergy and medial effects of multimodal cueing with auditory and electrostatic force stimuli on visual field guidance in 360° VR

“…As suggested by the simulation results presented in Section 3.2, reducing the perceptual uncertainty improves the search performance. This finding has been overlooked in previous studies that mainly focused on visual field guidance using overt cue stimuli (Gruenefeld, Ennenga, et al, 2017a;Gruenefeld, El Ali, et al, 2017b;Danieau et al, 2017;Gruenefeld et al, 2018;Harada and Ohyama, 2022). This results in the requirement for the property of cue stimuli to improve performance in multimodal visual field guidance.…”

“…These experimental paradigms have recently been extended to investigate user behavior in VR. Cue-based visual search experiments in VR involve the analysis of reaction times and/or movement angles towards a target object (Gruenefeld, Ennenga, et al, 2017a;Gruenefeld, El Ali, et al, 2017b;Danieau et al, 2017;Gruenefeld et al, 2018;Schmitz et al, 2020;Harada and Ohyama, 2022). In addition, previous studies employed overt cues that directly indicated the target location, whereas we employed non-overt cues that weakly indicated them, without interfering with the visuals.…”

“…We evaluated the proposed visual field guidance method using multimodal cues in a psychophysical experiment. Previous studies have systematically evaluated visual field guidance using visual cues (Gruenefeld, Ennenga, et al, 2017a;Gruenefeld, El Ali, et al, 2017b;Danieau et al, 2017;Gruenefeld et al, 2018;Harada and Ohyama, 2022) in VR versions of visual search experiments (Treisman and Gelade, 1980;McElree and Carrasco, 1999). This study similarly investigated the effects of multimodal cues on visual searching.…”

Comparing the effectiveness of video and stereoscopic 360° virtual reality‐supported instruction in high school biology courses

“…The same authors have also proposed the adoption of stereoscopic 360°‐VR devices, especially for school‐level courses, as the available technological resources and time are limited. Harada and Ohyama (2022) attribute the added value of this technology to the opportunity offered to learners to explore abstract concepts freely and safely. Another advantage of low‐immersion VR solutions, like the VeeR Mini Goggles , is their inherent potential to render the virtual scenes from different angles and points of view.…”

“…Researchers (Harada & Ohyama, 2022; Moro et al, 2021) who have explored systematically the potential of such technologies in biomedical science instruction have identified the following advantages: (a) it reduces the mental effort (internal factor) required to recognise and process abstract structures as well as their unique elements and features, (b) it reduces the mental load (external factor) by providing learners with points of reference that facilitate the conduct of hands‐on tasks, (c) it improves visual cognition, via the repeated representations and conceptual illustrations of the real‐world context, which make certain stimuli become automatic, and (d) it enhances learners' mental capacities (working memory)—via the rich, multi‐sensory, feedback—which are needed for new knowledge and skills to be developed and acquired, respectively.…”