State of the art of virtual reality technology

Anthes, Christoph; Hernández, Rubén Jesús García; Wiedemann, Michael; Kranzlmüller, Dieter

doi:10.1109/aero.2016.7500674

Cited by 374 publications

(233 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

220

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The beginnings of modern-day virtual reality can be traced back to 2012, when a kickstarter project named Oculus Rift was introduced, promising to provide high quality head-mounted displays that could mimic the real world (Anthes, García-Hernandez, Wiedemann, & Kranzlmüller, 2016). In 2016, after the release of two developer kits Oculus Rift DK1 and DK2, the first consumer-grade Oculus Rift CV1 became available for the general public (Oculus, 2016).…”

Section: Purpose Of the Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another VR device that has only been recently released is the Gear VR by Samsung and powered by Oculus (Oculus, 2015). In comparison to Oculus Rift, this device is wireless and solely relies on the technology of a smartphone to create an immersive virtual experience (Anthes et al, 2016). Previous applications of Oculus Rift in education include the creation of a virtual lecture presented by a virtual instructor where it was found that students performed better in the knowledge quiz administrated after the lecture in comparison to those that watched a recording of the lecture (Tsaramirsis et al, 2016), virtual exploration of archaeological sites (Borba, Cabral, Lopes, Zuffo, & Kopper, 2016), or virtual anatomical visualisations .…”

Section: Purpose Of the Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Virtualisation devices for student learning: Comparison between desktop-based (Oculus Rift) and mobile-based (Gear VR) virtual reality in medical and health science education

Moro

Štromberga

Stirling

2017

AJET

136

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Consumer-grade virtual reality has recently become available for both desktop and mobile platforms and may redefine the way that students learn. However, the decision regarding which device to utilise within a curriculum is unclear. Desktop-based VR has considerably higher setup costs involved, whereas mobile-based VR cannot produce the quality of environment due to its limited processing power. This study aimed to compare performance in an anatomical knowledge test between two virtual reality headsets, the Oculus Rift and Gear VR, as well as to investigate student perceptions and adverse health effects experienced from their use. An identical lesson on spine anatomy was presented to subjects using either the Oculus Rift or Gear VR, with no significant differences observed in test scores from participants using either device, with both groups answering 60% of the questions correctly. However, 40% of participants experienced significantly higher rates of nausea and blurred vision when using the Gear VR (P < 0.05). It was established that the more cost effective mobile-based VR was just as suitable for teaching isolated-systems than the more expensive desktop-based VR. These outcomes show great promise for the effective use of mobile-based virtual reality devices in medical and health science education.

show abstract

Section: Purpose Of the Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Purpose Of the Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Virtualisation devices for student learning: Comparison between desktop-based (Oculus Rift) and mobile-based (Gear VR) virtual reality in medical and health science education

Moro

Štromberga

Stirling

2017

AJET

136

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The current generation of VR headsets still yield a modest field of view of 90°–100° horizontally, which although is far less than the human binocular field of view of 220°, is still far greater than the angular coverage of the normal use‐case of any direct‐view display. Even though VR displays feature impressive pixel counts, the perceived pixel density is still much worse than conventional monitors …”

Section: Motivation and Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Even though VR displays feature impressive pixel counts, the perceived pixel density is still much worse than conventional monitors. 3,4 As a result, real-time rendering for VR has a disadvantage. It is more expensive to render a scene of equivalent sophistication as a modern video game, judged by triangle count, texture detail, and so on.…”

Section: Motivation and Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Limits of peripheral acuity and implications for VR system design

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

At different retinal locations, we measured the visual system's sensitivity to a number of artifacts that can be introduced in near‐eye display systems. One study examined the threshold level of downsampling that an image can sustain at different positions in the retina and found that temporally stable approaches, both blurred and aliased, were much less noticeable than temporally volatile approaches. Also, boundaries between zones of different resolution had low visibility in the periphery. We also examined the minimum duration needed for the visual system to detect a low‐resolution region in an actively tracked system and found that low‐resolution images presented for less than 40 ms before being replaced with a high‐resolution image are unlikely to be visibly degraded. We also found that the visual system shows a rapid falloff in its ability to detect chromatic aberration in the periphery. These findings can inform the design on high performance and computationally efficient near‐eye display systems.

show abstract

“…Virtual reality typically means 'near-reality', which is what we experience as Humans [1] [2]. It has been about 52 years since Ivan Sutherland formally presented the world his vision of "Ultimate Display" imitating the real world in every sense.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recent Trends and Challenges in Virtual Reality

Sanjay¹,

Salanke²

2017

IJCA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper provides an overview of the Virtual Reality with emphasis on current trends of hardware and software technology, the processing and application issues. The first section of the paper presents a background of Virtual reality followed by the description and classification of the technology and the way the processing of those technologies takes place. Based on the observations from the current practice, the technologies are overviewed with an attempt to focus on areas it has evolved to nurture and trend the way users are characterized by it, followed by challenges of implementing new technology approaches in creating Virtual reality system. Finally, summarizing with issues related to engaging Virtual reality and on the future enhancement and developments

show abstract

State of the art of virtual reality technology

Cited by 374 publications

References 42 publications

Virtualisation devices for student learning: Comparison between desktop-based (Oculus Rift) and mobile-based (Gear VR) virtual reality in medical and health science education

Virtualisation devices for student learning: Comparison between desktop-based (Oculus Rift) and mobile-based (Gear VR) virtual reality in medical and health science education

Limits of peripheral acuity and implications for VR system design

Recent Trends and Challenges in Virtual Reality

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About