Three levels of metric for evaluating wayfinding
Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments - Special issue: 2004 workshop on VR design and evaluation
Analyses of human sensitivity to redirected walking
Proceedings of the 2008 ACM symposium on Virtual reality software and technology
The benefits of using a walking interface to navigate virtual environments
ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI)
The whys, how tos, and pitfalls of user studies
ACM SIGGRAPH 2009 Courses
Shake-your-head: revisiting walking-in-place for desktop virtual reality
Proceedings of the 17th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology
Walking improves your cognitive map in environments that are large-scale and large in extent
ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI)
Perceptually inspired methods for naturally navigating virtual worlds
SIGGRAPH Asia 2011 Courses
Reorientation during body turns
JVRC'09 Proceedings of the 15th Joint virtual reality Eurographics conference on Virtual Environments
EGVE - JVRC'11 Proceedings of the 17th Eurographics conference on Virtual Environments & Third Joint Virtual Reality
Learning to walk in virtual reality
ACM Transactions on Applied Perception (TAP)
Hi-index | 0.00 |
To compare and evaluate locomotion interfaces for users who are (virtually) moving on foot in VEs, we performed a study to characterize task behavior and task performance with different visual and locomotion interfaces. In both a computer-generated environment and a corresponding real environment, study participants walked to targets on walls and stopped as close to them as they could without making contact. In each of five experimental conditions participants used a combination of one of three locomotion interfaces (really walking, walking-in-place, and joystick flying), and one of three visual conditions (head-mounted display, unrestricted natural vision, or field-of-view-restricted natural vision). We identified metrics and collected data that captured task performance and the underlying kinematics of the task. Our results show: 1) Over 95% of the variance in simple motion paths is captured in three critical values: peak velocity; when, in the course of a motion, the peak velocity occurs; and peak deceleration. 2) Correlations of those critical value data for the conditions taken pairwise suggest a coarse ordering of locomotion interfaces by "naturalness." 3) Task performance varies with interface condition, but correlations of that value for conditions taken pairwise do not cluster by naturalness. 4) The perceptual variable, 驴 (also known as the time-to-contact) calculated at the point of peak deceleration has higher correlation with task performance than 驴 calculated at peak velocity.