Evaluation on User Perception Effect based on Interaction Techniques in the Stereoscopic Environment

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21512/commit.v15i2.7021

Keywords:

User Perception, Interaction Techniques, Stereoscopic Environment

Abstract

The interaction of user performance with three-dimensional (3D) objects has become an important issue in the recent development of virtual reality applications. Additionally, the basic conviction of current Virtual Reality (VR) supports the development of the viable interface between humans and machines. The research focuses on the user’s interaction technique by considering two approaches (direct and indirect interaction techniques) for the users while interacting with threedimensional objects. Numerous possible uses can benefit from virtual reality by considering a few fundamental visual and cognitive activities in the Virtual Environment (VE), such as the interpretation of space that users of clear and indirect perception are not well established. The experiment is performed in a stereoscopic environment using a reciprocal tapping task. Participants are expected to use direct pointing as well as indirect cursor techniques to select a stereoscopic spherical target. The results show that, in the sense of a direct interaction technique, user recognition of an object appears to converge in the center of a simulated area. Unfortunately, this convergence is not demonstrated in the indirect cursor situation. The pointing estimation from the users is more accurate when using the indirect interaction approach. The findings provide an understanding of the interaction characteristics done by the users in the stereoscopic environment. Importantly, developers of a virtual environment may use the result when developing effective user interface perception in specific interaction techniques.

Dimensions

Plum Analytics

Author Biographies

Dino Caesaron, Telkom University

Industrial Engineering Department

Rio Prasetyo Lukodono, Universitas Brawijaya

Industrial Engineering Department

Yunita Nugrahaini Safrudin, Telkom University

Industrial Engineering Department

References

F. El Jamiy and R. Marsh, “Distance estimation in virtual reality and augmented reality: A survey,” in 2019 IEEE International Conference on Electro Information Technology (EIT). Brookings, SD, USA: IEEE, May 20–22, 2019, pp. 063–068.

J. Mittelstaedt, J. Wacker, and D. Stelling, “Effects of display type and motion control on cybersickness in a virtual bike simulator,” Displays, vol. 51, pp. 43–50, 2018.

S. Sharples, S. Cobb, A. Moody, and J. R.Wilson, “Virtual Reality Induced Symptoms and Effects (VRISE): Comparison of Head Mounted Display (HMD), desktop and projection display systems,” Displays, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 58–69, 2008.

J. Chen and C. Or, “Assessing the use of immersive virtual reality, mouse and touchscreen in pointing and dragging-and-dropping tasks among young, middle-aged and older adults,” Applied Ergonomics, vol. 65, pp. 437–448, 2017.

M. R. Mine, “Virtual environment interaction techniques,” University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Tech. Rep., 1995.

C. J. Lin, B. T. Abreham, and B. H. Woldegiorgis, “Effects of displays on a direct reaching task: A comparative study of head mounted display and stereoscopic widescreen display,” International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, vol. 72, pp. 372–379, 2019.

C. J. Lin, D. Caesaron, and B. H. Woldegiorgis, “The accuracy of the frontal extent in stereoscopic environments: A comparison of direct selection and virtual cursor techniques,” PLOS ONE, vol. 14, no. 9, pp. 1–20, 2019.

J. M. Loomis and J. M. Knapp, Virtual and adaptive environments: Applications, implications, and human performance issues. CRC Press, 2003, ch. Visual perception of egocentric distance in real and virtual environments, pp. 21–46.

E. A. Maguire, N. Burgess, and J. O’Keefe, “Human spatial navigation: Cognitive maps, sexual dimorphism, and neural substrates,” Current Opinion in Neurobiology, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 171–177, 1999.

C. Armbr¨uster, M.Wolter, T. Kuhlen,W. Spijkers, and B. Fimm, “Depth perception in virtual reality: Distance estimations in peri-and extrapersonal space,” Cyberpsychology & Behavior, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 9–15, 2008.

M. Gonzalez-Franco, P. Abtahi, and A. Steed, “Individual differences in embodied distance estimation in virtual reality,” in 2019 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR). Osaka, Japan: IEEE, March 23–27, 2019, pp. 941–943.

C. J. Lin, L.-Y. Cheng, and M.-C. Wang, “Performance of estimating depth in projection based stereoscopic virtual display,” Journal of the Society for Information Display, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 76–83, 2015.

C. Valzolgher, M. Alzhaler, E. Gessa, M. Todeschini, P. Nieto, G. Verdelet, R. Salemme, V. Gaveau, M. Marx, E. Truy et al., “The impact of a visual spatial frame on real sound-source localization in virtual reality,” Current Research in Behavioral Sciences, vol. 1, pp. 1–10, 2020.

W. B. Thompson, P. Willemsen, A. A. Gooch, S. H. Creem-Regehr, J. M. Loomis, and A. C. Beall, “Does the quality of the computer graphics matter when judging distances in visually immersive environments?” Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 560–571, 2004.

M. Shin, S. Lee, S. W. Song, and D. Chung, “Enhancement of perceived body ownership in virtual reality-based teleoperation may backfire in the execution of high-risk tasks,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 115, pp. 1–11, 2021.

ISO, “ISO 9241-9:2000: Ergonomic requirementsfor office work with visual display terminals (vdts)–part 9: Requirements for non-keyboard input devices,” 2000. [Online]. Available: https://www.iso.org/standard/30030.html

H. M. Sun, S. P. Li, Y. Q. Zhu, and B. Hsiao, “The effect of user’s perceived presence and promotion focus on usability for interacting in virtual environments,” Applied Ergonomics, vol. 50, pp. 126–132, 2015.

C. J. Lin, B. T. Abreham, D. Caesaron, and B. H. Woldegiorgis, “Exocentric distance judgment and accuracy of head-mounted and stereoscopic widescreen displays in frontal planes,” Applied Sciences, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 1–16, 2020.

G. Gorisse, O. Christmann, E. A. Amato, and S. Richir, “First-and third-person perspectives in immersive virtual environments: Presence and performance analysis of embodied users,” Frontiers in Robotics and AI, vol. 4, pp. 1–12, 2017.

J. R. Berard, J. Fung, B. J. McFadyen, and A. Lamontagne, “Aging affects the ability to use optic flow in the control of heading during locomotion,” Experimental Brain Research, vol. 194, no. 2, pp. 183–190, 2009.

W. Thompson, R. Fleming, S. Creem-Regehr, and J. K. Stefanucci, Visual perception from a computer graphics perspective. CRC press, 2011.

G. Bruder, F. Steinicke, and W. Sturzlinger, “To touch or not to touch? Comparing 2D touch and 3D mid-air interaction on stereoscopic tabletop surfaces,” in Proceedings of the 1st Symposium on Spatial User Interaction, 2013, pp. 9–16.

G. Bruder, F. Steinicke, and W. St¨urzlinger, “Effects of visual conflicts on 3D selection task performance in stereoscopic display environments,”in 2013 IEEE Symposium on 3D User Interfaces (3DUI). Orlando, FL, USA: IEEE, March 16–17, 2013, pp. 115–118.

J. W. Kelly, W. Hammel, L. A. Sjolund, and Z. D. Siegel, “Frontal extents in virtual environments are not immune to underperception,” Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, vol. 77, no. 6, pp. 1848–1853, 2015.

C. J. Lin and B. H. Woldegiorgis, “Egocentric distance perception and performance of direct pointing in stereoscopic displays,” Applied Ergonomics, vol. 64, pp. 66–74, 2017.

P. J. Werkhoven and J. Groen, “Manipulation performance in interactive virtual environments,” Human Factors, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 432–442, 1998.

P. Maruhn, S. Schneider, and K. Bengler, “Measuring egocentric distance perception in virtual reality: Influence of methodologies, locomotion and translation gains,” PLOS ONE, vol. 14, no. 10, pp. 1–24, 2019.

K. Chamilothori, J. Wienold, and M. Andersen, “Adequacy of immersive virtual reality for the perception of daylit spaces: Comparison of real and virtual environments,” Leukos, vol. 15, no. 2-3, pp. 203–226, 2019.

Downloads

Published

2021-08-18
Abstract 350  .
PDF downloaded 242  .