Advertisement

Switch Techniques to Recover Spatial Consistency Between Virtual and Real World for Navigation with Teleportation

  • Yiran ZhangEmail author
  • Nicolas LadevèzeEmail author
  • Cédric FleuryEmail author
  • Patrick BourdotEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11883)

Abstract

In many virtual reality systems, user physical workspace is superposed with a particular area in a virtual environment. The spatial consistency between the real and virtual interactive space allows users to take advantage of physical workspace to walk and to interact intuitively with the real and virtual contents. To maintain such spatial consistency, application designers usually deactivate user virtual navigation capability. This limits user reachable virtual area, and segments the spatial consistency required sub-task from a continuous scenario mixing large scale navigation. In order to provide users with a continuous virtual experience, we introduce two switch techniques to help users to recover the spatial consistency in some predefined virtual areas with teleportation navigation: simple switch and improved switch. We conducted a user study with a box-opening task in a CAVE-like system to evaluate the performance and usability of these techniques under different conditions. The results highlight that assisting the user on switching back to a spatially consistent situation ensures entire workspace accessibility and decreases time and cognitive effort used to complete the sub-task. The simple switch results in less task completion time, less cognitive load, and is globally preferred by users. With additional visual feedback of user switch destination, the improved switch seems to provide the user with a better understanding of the resulting spatial configuration of the switch.

Keywords

Virtual reality 3D interaction Teleportation 

References

  1. 1.
    Aguerreche, L., Duval, T., Lécuyer, A.: Comparison of three interactive techniques for collaborative manipulation of objects in virtual reality. In: CGI 2010 (Computer Graphics International) (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bolte, B., Steinicke, F., Bruder, G.: The jumper metaphor: an effective navigation technique for immersive display setups. In: Proceedings of Virtual Reality International Conference (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bowman, D., Kruijff, E., LaViola Jr., J.J., Poupyrev, I.P.: 3D User Interfaces: Theory and Practice, CourseSmart eTextbook. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bowman, D.A., Koller, D., Hodges, L.F.: Travel in immersive virtual environments: an evaluation of viewpoint motion control techniques. In: Proceedings of IEEE 1997 Annual International Symposium on Virtual Reality, pp. 45–52. IEEE (1997)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bozgeyikli, E., Raij, A., Katkoori, S., Dubey, R.: Point & teleport locomotion technique for virtual reality. In: Proceedings of the 2016 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play, pp. 205–216. ACM (2016)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Butterworth, J.: 3DM: a three-dimensional modeler using a head-mounted display (1992)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chen, W., Plancoulaine, A., Férey, N., Touraine, D., Nelson, J., Bourdot, P.: 6DOF navigation in virtual worlds: comparison of joystick-based and head-controlled paradigms. In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology, pp. 111–114. ACM (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cheng, L.P., Chang, L., Marwecki, S., Baudisch, P.: iTurk: turning passive haptics into active haptics by making users reconfigure props in virtual reality. In: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, p. 89. ACM (2018)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cheng, L.P., Marwecki, S., Baudisch, P.: Mutual human actuation. In: Proceedings of the 30th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pp. 797–805. ACM (2017)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cirio, G., Marchal, M., Regia-Corte, T., Lécuyer, A.: The magic barrier tape: a novel metaphor for infinite navigation in virtual worlds with a restricted walking workspace. In: Proceedings of the 16th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology, pp. 155–162. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fleury, C., Chauffaut, A., Duval, T., Gouranton, V., Arnaldi, B.: A generic model for embedding users’ physical workspaces into multi-scale collaborative virtual environments. In: ICAT 2010 (20th International Conference on Artificial Reality and Telexistence) (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Freitag, S., Rausch, D., Kuhlen, T.: Reorientation in virtual environments using interactive portals. In: 2014 IEEE Symposium on 3D User Interfaces (3DUI), pp. 119–122. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Galyean, T.A.: Guided navigation of virtual environments. In: Proceedings of the 1995 Symposium on Interactive 3D Graphics, pp. 103-ff. ACM (1995)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hirose, M., Schmalstieg, D., Wingrave, C., Nishimura, K.: Collaborative interaction in co-located two-user scenarios (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hoffman, H.G.: Physically touching virtual objects using tactile augmentation enhances the realism of virtual environments. In: Proceedings. IEEE 1998 Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium (Cat. No. 98CB36180), pp. 59–63. IEEE (1998)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Keefe, D.F., Feliz, D.A., Moscovich, T., Laidlaw, D.H., LaViola Jr, J.J.: Cavepainting: a fully immersive 3D artistic medium and interactive experience. In: Proceedings of the 2001 Symposium on Interactive 3D Graphics, pp. 85–93. Citeseer (2001)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Reason, J.T., Brand, J.J.: Motion Sickness. Academic Press, New York (1975)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Salzmann, H., Jacobs, J., Froehlich, B.: Collaborative interaction in co-located two-user scenarios. In: Proceedings of the 15th Joint virtual reality Eurographics conference on Virtual Environments, pp. 85–92. Eurographics Association (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Salzmann, H., Moehring, M., Froehlich, B.: Virtual vs. real-world pointing in two-user scenarios. In: 2009 IEEE Virtual Reality Conference, VR 2009, pp. 127–130. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schild, J., Lerner, D., Misztal, S., Luiz, T.: Epicsave–enhancing vocational training for paramedics with multi-user virtual reality. In: 2018 IEEE 6th International Conference on Serious Games and Applications for Health (SeGAH), pp. 1–8. IEEE (2018)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Simeone, A.L., Velloso, E., Gellersen, H.: Substitutional reality: using the physical environment to design virtual reality experiences. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 3307–3316. ACM (2015)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Simon, A.: First-person experience and usability of co-located interaction in a projection-based virtual environment. In: Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology, pp. 23–30. ACM (2005)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Suma, E.A., Lipps, Z., Finkelstein, S., Krum, D.M., Bolas, M.: Impossible spaces: maximizing natural walking in virtual environments with self-overlapping architecture. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 18(4), 555–564 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Suzuki, K., Wakisaka, S., Fujii, N.: Substitutional reality system: a novel experimental platform for experiencing alternative reality. Sci. Rep. 2, 459 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Weissker, T., Kulik, A., Froehlich, B.: Multi-ray jumping: comprehensible group navigation for collocated users in immersive virtual reality. IEEE (2019)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Usoh, M., et al.: Walking\(>\) walking-in-place\(>\) flying, in virtual environments. In: Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, pp. 359–364. ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing Co. (1999)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wei\(\beta \)ker, T., Kunert, A., Frohlich, B., Kulik, A.: Spatial updating and simulator sickness during steering and jumping in immersive virtual environments. In: 2018 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR), pp. 97–104. IEEE (2018)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wernert, E.A., Hanson, A.J.: A framework for assisted exploration with collaboration. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Visualization 1999: Celebrating Ten Years, pp. 241–248. IEEE Computer Society Press (1999)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Witmer, B.G., Singer, M.J.: Measuring presence in virtual environments: a presence questionnaire. Presence 7(3), 225–240 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Xu, M., Murcia-López, M., Steed, A.: Object location memory error in virtual and real environments. In: 2017 IEEE Virtual Reality (VR), pp. 315–316. IEEE (2017)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.VENISE Team, LIMSI, CNRS, Univ. Paris-Sud, Université Paris-SaclayOrsayFrance
  2. 2.Univ. Paris-Sud, CNRS, Inria, Université Paris-SaclayOrsayFrance

Personalised recommendations