Advertisement

Evaluating the Performance of Virtual Reality Navigation Techniques for Large Environments

  • Kurtis DanylukEmail author
  • Wesley Willett
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11542)

Abstract

We present results from two studies comparing the performance of four different navigation techniques (flight, teleportation, world-in-miniature, and 3D cone-drag) and their combinations in large virtual reality map environments. While prior work has individually examined each of these techniques in other settings, our study presents the first direct comparison between them in large open environments, as well as one of the first comparisons in the context of current-generation virtual reality hardware. Our first study compared common techniques (flight, teleportation, and world-in-miniature) for search and navigation tasks. A follow-up study compared these techniques against 3D cone drag, a direct-manipulation navigation technique used in contemporary tools like Google Earth VR. Our results show the strength of flight as a stand-alone navigation technique, but also highlight five specific ways in which viewers can combine teleportation, world-in-miniature, and 3D cone drag with flight, drawing on the relative strengths of each technique to compensate for the weaknesses of others.

Keywords

Human computer interaction (HCI) Virtual reality Digital maps Navigation 

Notes

Acknowledgement

We acknowledge the support of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) [RGPIN-2016-04564] as well as our colleagues who helped test and give feedback on the techniques and paper.

References

  1. 1.
    Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 6th edn. American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C. (2017)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Argelaguet, F., Maignant, M.: GiAnt: stereoscopic-compliant multi-scale navigation in VEs. In: ACM VRST, pp. 269–277 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1145/2993369.2993391
  3. 3.
    Bowman, D.A., Johnson, D.B., Hodges, L.F.: Testbed evaluation of virtual environment interaction techniques. Presence: Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 10, 75–95 (2001).  https://doi.org/10.1162/105474601750182333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bowman, D.A., Koller, D., Hodges, L.F.: Travel in immersive virtual environments: an evaluation of viewpoint motion control techniques. In: IEEEVR, pp. 45–52 (1997)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cumming, G.: The new statistics: why and how. Psychol. Sci. 25(1), 7–29 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jankowski, J., Hachet, M.: Advances in interaction with 3D environments. In: Computer Graphics Forum, vol. 34, pp. 152–190. Wiley Online Library (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wang, J., Lindeman, R.W.: Comparing isometric and elastic surfboard interfaces for leaning-based travel in 3D virtual environments. In: IEEE 3DUI, pp. 31–38. IEEE (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1109/3DUI.2012.6184181
  8. 8.
    Käser, D.P., et al.: The making of Google Earth VR. In: ACM SIGGRAPH 2017 Talks, pp. 63:1–63:2. ACM (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1145/3084363.3085094
  9. 9.
    Kopper, R., Ni, T., Bowman, D.A., Pinho, M.: Design and evaluation of navigation techniques for multiscale virtual environments. IEEEVR 2006, 175–182 (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1109/VR.2006.47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Krekhov, A., Cmentowski, S., Emmerich, K., Masuch, M., Krüger, J.: GulliVR. In: CHI PLAY, pp. 243–256. ACM Press (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1145/3242671.3242704
  11. 11.
    Liu, J., Parekh, H., Al-Zayer, M., Folmer, E.: Increasing walking in VR using redirected teleportation. In: ACM UIST, pp. 521–529 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1145/3242587.3242601
  12. 12.
    McCrae, J., Mordatch, I., Glueck, M., Khan, A.: Multiscale 3D navigation. In: I3D, pp. 7–14. ACM (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1145/1507149.1507151
  13. 13.
    Montello, D.R.: Spatial cognition and architectural space: research perspectives. Architect. Des., 74–79 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1002/ad.1811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Peck, T.C., Fuchs, H., Whitton, M.C.: The design and evaluation of a large-scale real-walking locomotion interface. IEEE TVCG 18(7), 1053–1067 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2011.289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Slater, M., Usoh, M., Steed, A.: Taking steps: the influence of a walking technique on presence in virtual reality. ACM TOCHI 2, 201–219 (1995).  https://doi.org/10.1145/210079.210084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stoakley, R., Conway, M.J., Pausch, R.: Virtual reality on a WIM: interactive worlds in miniature. In: ACM SIGCHI, pp. 265–272 (1995).  https://doi.org/10.1145/223904.223938
  17. 17.
    Trindade, D.R., Raposo, A.B.: Improving 3D navigation in multiscale environments using Cubemap-based techniques. In: ACM SAC, pp. 1215–1221 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1145/1982185.1982454
  18. 18.
    Ware, C., Osborne, S.: Exploration and virtual camera control in virtual three dimensional environments. SIGGRAPH Comput. Graph., 175–183 (1990).  https://doi.org/10.1145/91394.91442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yan, Z., Lindeman, R.W., Dey, A.: Let your fingers do the walking: a unified approach for efficient short-, medium-, and long-distance travel in VR. In: IEEE 3DUI, pp. 27–30 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1109/3DUI.2016.7460027

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of CalgaryCalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations