[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Head-mounted display versus desktop for 3D navigation in virtual reality: a user study

  • Published:
Multimedia Tools and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Virtual Reality (VR) has been constantly evolving since its early days, and is now a fundamental technology in different application areas. User evaluation is a crucial step in the design and development of VR systems that do respond to users’ needs, as well as for identifying applications that indeed gain from the use of such technology. Yet, there is not much work reported concerning usability evaluation and validation of VR systems, when compared with the traditional desktop setup. The paper presents a user study performed, as a first step, for the evaluation of a low-cost VR system using a Head-Mounted Display (HMD). That system was compared to a traditional desktop setup through an experiment that assessed user performance, when carrying out navigation tasks in a game scenario for a short period. The results show that, although users were generally satisfied with the VR system, and found the HMD interaction intuitive and natural, most performed better with the desktop setup.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
£29.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ardito C, Constabile MC, De Angeli A, Pittarello F (2007) Navigation help in 3D worlds: some empirical evidences on use of sound. Multimedia Tools Appl 33:201–216 doi:10.1007/s11042-006-0060-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bowman D, Davis E, Hodges L, Badre A (1999) Maintaining spatial orientation during travel in an immersive virtual environment. Presence Teleoperators VR 8(10):618–631 doi:10.1162/105474699566521

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bowman D, Kruijff E, LaViola J Jr, Poupyrev I (2001) An introduction to 3D user interfaces design. Presence Teleoperators VR 10(1):96–108 doi:10.1162/105474601750182342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bowman D, Gabbard J, Hix D (2001) Usability evaluation in virtual environments: classification and comparison of methods. Technical Report TR-01–17, Computer Science, Virginia Tech

  5. Bowman D, Datey AA, Ryu, YS, Farooq U, Vasnaik O (2002) Empirical comparison of human behavior and performance with different display devices for virtual environments. In: Proceedings of human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting, Baltimore, pp 2134–2138

  6. Bowman D, Kruijff E, LaViola J Jr, Poupyrev I (2005) 3D user interfaces: theory and practice. Addison Wesley, Los Angeles

    Google Scholar 

  7. Brooks F (1999) What’s real about virtual reality. IEEE Comput Graph Appl 19(6):16–27 doi:10.1109/38.799723

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Demiralp C, Jackson C, Karelitz D, Zhang S, Laidlaw D (2006) CAVE and fish tank virtual-reality displays: a qualitative and quantitative comparison. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 12(3):323–330 doi:10.1109/TVCG.2006.42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Dix A, Finley J, Abowd G, Russell B (2004) Human computer interaction, 3rd edn. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  10. Field M (2004) Usability and collaborative aspects of augmented reality. Interaction 11(6):11–15 doi:10.1145/1029036.1029044

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Gabbard J (1998) A taxonomy of usability characteristics in virtual environments. MSc thesis, Virginia Polytechnique Institute and State University

  12. Gabbard J, Hix D, Swann JE II (1999) User-centred design and evaluation of virtual environments. IEEE Comput Graph Appl 19(6):51–59 doi:10.1109/38.799740

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Griffiths G, Sharples S, Wilson J (2006) Performance of new participants in virtual environments: the Nottingham tool for assessment of interaction in virtual environments (NAÏVE). Int J Human Comput Stud 64(3):240–250

    Google Scholar 

  14. Gruchalla K (2004) Immersive well-path editing: investigating the added value of immersion. Proc IEEE Virtual Real 1999:157–164

    Google Scholar 

  15. Hettmansperger T, McKean J (1998) Robust nonparametric statistical methods. Kendall’s library of statistics, vol 5. Arnold, London

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hix D, Swan E, Gabbard J, McGee M, Durbin J, King T (1999) User centered design and evaluation of a real-time battlefield visualization virtual environment. Proc IEEE Virtual Real 1999:96–103

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hoaglin D, Mosteller F, Tukey J (1983) Understanding robust and exploratory data analysis. Wiley, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Israel J, Naumann A (2007) Human-machine interaction in virtual environments—recent developments and industrial applications. MMI Interakt 12(April):1–2

    Google Scholar 

  19. Karaseitanidis J, Amditis A, Patel H, Sharples S, Bekiaris E, Bullinger A et al (2006) Evaluation of virtual reality products and applications from individual, organizational and societal perspectives—the “VIEW” case study. Int J Human Comput Stud 64:251–266

    Google Scholar 

  20. Mizell D, Jones S, Slater M, Spanlang B (2002) Comparing immersive virtual reality with other display modes for visualizing complex 3D geometry. http://www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/research/vr/Projects/Immersion/Experiment2/paper.pdf (online September, 2007)

  21. Narayan M, Waugh L, Zhang X, Baína P, Bownan D (2005) Quantifying the benefits of immersion for collaboration in virtual environments. Symp Virtual Real Softw Technol 05:78–81 doi:10.1145/1101616.1101632

    Google Scholar 

  22. Pausch R, Proffitt D, Williams G (1997) Quantifying immersion in virtual reality. In: Proceedings of 24th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, pp 13–18

  23. Parush A, Berman D (2004) Navigation and orientation in 3D user interfaces: the impact of navigation aids and landmarks. Int J Human Comput Stud 61:375–395 doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2003.12.018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Patel H, Stefani O, Sharples S, Hoffmann H, Karaseitanidis I, Amditis A (2006) Human centred design of 3D interaction devices to control virtual environments. Int J Human Comput Stud 64:207–220

    Google Scholar 

  25. Polys N, Seoho K, Bowman D (2005) Effects of information layout, screen size, and field of view on user performance in information-rich virtual environments. In: Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology’05, pp 46–55

  26. Prabhat M, Forsberg A, Slater M, Wharton K, Katzourin M (2008) A comparative study of desktop, fish tank and cave systems for the exploration of volume rendered confocal data sets. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 14(3):551–563 doi:10.1109/TVCG.2007.70433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Qi W, Taylor R, Healey C, Martens JB (2006) A comparison of immersive HMD, fish tank VR and fish tank with haptics displays for volume visualization. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Symposium on Applied Perception in Graphics and Visualization, pp 51–58

  28. Raja D, Bowman D, Lucas J, North C (2004) Exploring the benefits of immersion in abstract information visualization. In: Proceedings of Immersive Projection Technology Workshop, http://infovis.cs.vt.edu/papers/IPT2004-Dheva.pdf (online August 2007)

  29. Robertson G, Czeminski M, van Dantzich M (1997) Immersion in desktop virtual reality. In: Proceedings of the10th Annual Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, ACM UIST’97, pp 11–19

  30. Robinson G, Ritchie J, Day P, Dewar W (2007) System design and user evaluation of co-star: an immersive stereoscopic system for cable harness design. Comput Aided Des 39:245–257 doi:10.1016/j.cad.2006.12.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Ruddle R, Payne S, Jones D (1999) Navigating large-scale virtual environments: what differences occur between helmet-mounted and desk-top displays? Presence Teleoperators VR 8(2):157–168 doi:10.1162/105474699566143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Ruddle R, Péruch P (2004) Effects of proprioceptive feedback and environmental characteristics on special learning in virtual environments. Int J Human Comput Stud 60:299–326 doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2003.10.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Sebok A, Nystad E, Helgar S (2004) Navigation in desktop virtual environments: an evaluation and recommendations for supporting usability. Virtual Real 8:26–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Smith R, Fisher B, Sandin D, Westin S (2005) VR—a reality check? Proc IEEE Conf Virtual Real 2005:301

  35. Statistica 6.0, http://www.statsoft.com, (on-line September/2007)

  36. Steed A, Parker C (2005) Evaluating effectiveness of interaction techniques across immersive virtual environmental systems. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ 14(5):511–527 doi:10.1162/105474605774918750

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Usoh M, Arthur K, Whitto M, Bastos R, Steed A, Slater M et al (1999) Walking > walking-in-place>flying, in virtual environments. Proc SIGGRAPH 99:359–364

    Google Scholar 

  38. Waller D, Hunt E, Knapp D (1998) The transfer of spatial knowledge in virtual environment training presence. Teleoperators Virtual Environ 7(2):129–143 doi:10.1162/105474698565631

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Williams B, Narasimham G, McNamara T, Carr T, Rieser J, Bodenheimer B (2006) Updating orientation in large virtual environments using scaled translational gain. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Symposium on Applied Perception in Graphics and Visualization, APCV2006, pp 21–28

  40. Wilson J (2006) Interaction with virtual environments. Int J Human Comput Stud 64:157

    Google Scholar 

  41. Wilson J, D’Cruz M (2006) Virtual and interactive environments for work of the future. Int J Human Comput Stud 64:158–169

    Google Scholar 

  42. Witmer B, Bailey J, Knerr B, Parsons K (1996) Virtual spaces and real world places: transfer of route knowledge. Int J Hum Comput Stud 45:413–428 doi:10.1006/ijhc.1996.0060

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Pauline van der Horst, Frank van Huussen and Dr. Rafael Bidarra for their suggestions, as well as all the participants in the study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departamento de Electrónica, Telecomunicações e Informática, Univ. de Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal

    Beatriz Sousa Santos, Paulo Dias, Samuel Silva & Joaquim Madeira

  2. IEETA—Instituto de Engenharia Electrónica e Telemática de Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal

    Beatriz Sousa Santos, Paulo Dias, Samuel Silva & Joaquim Madeira

  3. Departamento de Economia, Gestão e Engenharia Industrial, Univ. de Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal

    Angela Pimentel & Carlos Ferreira

  4. Faculty EEMCS, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

    Jan-Willem Baggerman

  5. CIO—Centro de Investigação Operacional, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal

    Carlos Ferreira

Authors
  1. Beatriz Sousa Santos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paulo Dias
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Angela Pimentel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jan-Willem Baggerman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Carlos Ferreira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Samuel Silva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Joaquim Madeira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Beatriz Sousa Santos.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sousa Santos, B., Dias, P., Pimentel, A. et al. Head-mounted display versus desktop for 3D navigation in virtual reality: a user study. Multimed Tools Appl 41, 161–181 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-008-0223-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-008-0223-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation