Specimen Box: A Tangible Interaction Technique for World-Fixed Virtual Reality Displays Regis Kopper David J. Zielinski Derek Nankivil Dept. of Mechanical Engineering Duke immersive Virtual Environment Dept. of Biomedical Engineering and Materials Science Duke University, USA Duke University, USA Duke University, USA
Let’s discuss some terminology and background… 2
Some terminology: Head-Mounted Displays Hand-held Displays World-Fixed Displays (Jerald 2015) CAVE-type displays Powerwalls Domes 3
Why World-Fixed Displays? Extremely Increased presence Social group Autostereoscopy and reduced experience high frame rates completely unencumbered operation > 1000 fps simulator sickness via DLP projectors (peterka 2007) (Juan 2009, Kim 2014) (lincoln 2016) 4
Tangible Interaction in World-Fixed Displays Tangible interfaces elicit Interaction in VR often indirect more realistic responses (Insko 2001) 5
Prior Passive Haptic Interfaces Translucent Sketchpad (Encarnacao 1999) Virtual Palette (Coquillart 1999) ● Clear plastic “tablet” type interface ● Tangible interface in a world-fixed display ● Flat content, not volumetric 6
More Prior Passive Haptic Interfaces Project onto objects IP lenses for autostereo (Inami 1999, Kawakami 2000) (Lopez-Gulliver 2008) ● “Object Oriented Displays” give tangibility ● Diffcult to see scene behind objects 7
Proposed Technique: Specimen Box ● Clear acrylic box ● User can touch the box ● Can't reach contents Inspiration: Normally hard to do tangible interfaces in Historical “Specimen Jars” world-fixed systems, as they are visible to user. Late 1700s. 8
Virtual Reality Display Apparatus ● Duke University DiVE ● 12 Christie WU7K-M projectors (1920x1920 per wall) ● Active Stereo. 120hz / 60fps effective ● Intersense IS-900 LT tracking 9
Experimental Comparison “Grab-and-Twirl” (Cutler 1997) Specimen Box ● Line created between hands ● 26 cm (10.2 in), 2.1 kg (4.6 lbs) ● Additional rotation around the line ● $100 USD ● 6-DOF ● Tethered tracking sensor 10
Let’s see the experimental conditions ! 11
Cognitively Loaded Inspection Task “Stroop Effect” (1935) Red Red congruent incongruent Face Counting Task congruent congruent incongruent 3 Levels of Difficulty w/ congruent distractors w/ no distractors w/ incongruent (all faces filled) distractors (all faces filled) Example Questions: How many faces have words colored green? 12 Have many faces have the word green?
Experimental Design 10 Subjects Specimen Box (SB) Grab and Twirl (GT) Specimen Box (SB) 10 Subjects Grab and Twirl (GT) Grab and Twirl (GT) Specimen Box (SB) 36 trials per interaction technique 13 12 12 12
Data Analysis ● 4-way mixed ANOVA ○ 3 within-subjects factors (interaction technique, difficulty, trial) ○ 1 between-subjects factor (ordering) ○ 3 Measures (time, rotation rate, translation rate) ● Vast majority of trials were accurate (98.5%), so did not perform analysis on accuracy metric. 14
Difficulty: Incongruent is Harder Significant Main effect for Time p<.01 Pairwise comparisons significant between D1 and D3 p<.05 Replicates Stroop effect 15
Specimen Box Faster, Less Rotation Specimen box: time significantly lower p<.05 rotation significantly lower p<.0001 translation (not pictured) not significant p=.984 16
Interesting Interaction Effects No main effect of ordering p=.55 (e.g if second device was always faster) However, significant interaction of ordering + IT p<.005 Pairwise comparisons show: GT first = SB Faster p<.0001 SB first = not significant p=.253 17
Subjective Survey Responses Presence: higher presence with Grab-and-Twirl p<0.05 (3 questions from SUS) Overall Preference: 70% preferred Grab-and-Twirl Freeform comments: 70% box was too heavy 18
SB Faster and Less Rotation? Specimen Box faster: ● Accuracy of user’s movements? ● Less overshoot? ● Proprioception? ● Need additional experiments! Specimen Box rotation less: ● Avoid spending additional energy with weighted object? ● Good for training transfer? 19
Learning Effects? When Specimen Box was first, did it help prime the user? Teach them a more optimal strategy, to then use with Grab-and-Twirl? 20
Specimen Box Showed Lower Presence? ● Could presence be higher in Grab-and-Twirl because world is entirely virtual? ● Could box limitations (especially weight) be too distracting? ● Box moves immediately, but virtual content is lagged. ● More experiments are needed! 21
Limitations Box was too heavy (2.1kg) Could make walls thinner, make box smaller. Reflections on Box Walls Anti-reflection coatings? Could be expensive. Visible Tracking Sensor As tracking systems get smaller, may not be an issue. Could also utilize different tracking system (camera based?) Occlusion from User’s Hand Most of the time the user held box on the sides. A problem in general with world-fixed displays. 22
Extensions to the Paradigm Multiple Boxes, Multiple Sizes Spherical Shape more expensive more refraction issues 23
Conclusions ● Tangible interaction possibility for world-fixed display systems ● Specimen Box outperformed a virtual technique in our inspection task. ● Experience with Specimen Box increased performance of the virtual counterpart. Future Work ● Compare to other interaction techniques ● More ecologically valid inspection task ● Manipulation of objects beyond rotation (translation + placement) 24
Thank You! Questions? Comments? David J. Zielinski djzielin@duke.edu http://people.duke.edu/~djzielin/ 25
Recommend
More recommend
