Advertisement

Effects of End-to-end Latency on User Experience and Performance in Immersive Virtual Reality Applications

  • Polona CasermanEmail author
  • Michelle Martinussen
  • Stefan Göbel
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11863)

Abstract

Immersive virtual reality (IVR) offers an opportunity to immerse oneself into a virtual world and experience an exciting adventure. However, latency between a user’s movement and visual feedback has a big impact on user experience and performance. In this paper, we explore the effect of increased end-to-end latency in IVR applications by conducting a user study. Firstly, in the searching task, we analyze cybersickness level based on simulator sickness questionnaire. Secondly, in the reaching task, we measure the user performance by tracking the time they need to reach a target and the error they make during the execution. Lastly, in the embodiment task, we measure the sense of body ownership, agency, presence, and latency perception when only one body side is impaired by latency. We apply the Friedman test with Conover’s test of multiple comparisons as a post-hoc test on all dependent variables to find significant results. Results show that the end-to-end latency above 63 ms induces significant cybersickness symptoms. In addition, user performance decreases with increasing delay and with end-to-end latency above 69 ms, the users need significantly longer to complete the task. Results also show that end-to-end latency affects body ownership significant later, namely, not until 101 ms.

Keywords

Immersive virtual reality End-to-end latency Cybersickness User experience Simultaneity perception Body ownership Sense of agency Sense of presence Full-body motion reconstruction 

References

  1. 1.
    Albert, R., Patney, A., Luebke, D., Kim, J.: Latency requirements for foveated rendering in virtual reality. ACM Trans. Appl. Percept. 14(4), 25:1–25:13 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Attig, C., Rauh, N., Franke, T., Krems, J.F.: System latency guidelines then and now – is zero latency really considered necessary? In: Harris, D. (ed.) EPCE 2017. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 10276, pp. 3–14. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58475-1_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    DiZio, P., Lackner, J.R.: Motion sickness side effects and aftereffects of immersive virtual environments created with helmet-mounted visual displays. Technical report, Ashton Graybiel Spatial Orientation Laboratory, Brandeis University (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Friston, S., Steed, A.: Measuring latency in virtual environments. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 20(4), 616–625 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Garcia-Agundez, A., Reuter, C., Caserman, P., Konrad, R., Göbel, S.: Identifying cybersickness through heart rate variability alterations. Int. J. Virtual Reality 19(1), 1–10 (2019)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kasahara, S., et al.: Malleable embodiment: changing sense of embodiment by spatial-temporal deformation of virtual human body. In: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 6438–6448. ACM, New York (2017)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kawamura, S., Kijima, R.: Effect of HMD latency on human stability during quiescent standing on one foot. In: 2016 IEEE Symposium on 3D User Interfaces (3DUI), pp. 141–144 (2016)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kennedy, R.S., Lane, N.E., Berbaum, K.S., Lilienthal, M.G.: Simulator sickness questionnaire: an enhanced method for quantifying simulator sickness. Int. J. Aviat. Psychol. 3(3), 203–220 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kondo, R., Sugimoto, M., Minamizawa, K., Hoshi, T., Inami, M., Kitazaki, M.: Illusory body ownership of an invisible body interpolated between virtualhands and feet via visual-motor synchronicity. Sci. Rep. 8(1), 7541 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Meehan, M., Razzaque, S., Whitton, M.C., Brooks, F.P.: Effect of latency on presence in stressful virtual environments. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Virtual Reality, pp. 141–148 (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Niehorster, D.C., Li, L., Lappe, M.: The accuracy and precision of position and orientation tracking in the HTC vive virtual reality system for scientific research. i-Perception 8(3), 0–23 (2017)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Papadakis, G., Mania, K., Coxon, M., Koutroulis, E.: The effect of tracking delay on awareness states in immersive virtual environments: an initial exploration. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Virtual Reality Continuum and Its Applications in Industry, pp. 475–482 (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Reason, J.T., Brand, J.J.: Motion Sickness. Academic Press, Cambridge (1975)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Samaraweera, G., Perdomo, A., Quarles, J.: Applying latency to half of a self-avatar’s body to change real walking patterns. In: 2015 IEEE Virtual Reality (VR), pp. 89–96 (2015)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shafer, D.M., Carbonara, C.P., Korpi, M.F.: Factors affecting enjoyment of virtual reality games: a comparison involving consumer-grade virtual reality technology. Games Health J. 8(1), 15–23 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stanney, K.M., Kennedy, R.S., Drexler, J.M.: Cybersickness is not simulator sickness. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 1138–1142 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stauffert, J., Niebling, F., Latoschik, M.E.: Effects of latency jitter on simulator sickness in a search task. In: 2018 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR), pp. 121–127 (2018)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Waltemate, T., et al.: The impact of latency on perceptual judgments and motor performance in closed-loop interaction in virtual reality. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM Conference on Virtual Reality Software and Technology, pp. 27–35. ACM (2016)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ware, C., Balakrishnan, R.: Reaching for objects in VR displays: lag and frame rate. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 1(4), 331–356 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Multimedia Communications Lab - KOMTechnische Universität DarmstadtDarmstadtGermany

Personalised recommendations