Advertisement

A Comparison Between a Natural and an Inorganic Locomotion Technique

  • Kurt Andersen
  • Lucas Calabrese
  • Andrew Flangas
  • Sergiu Dascalu
  • Frederick C. HarrisJr.Email author
Conference paper
  • 39 Downloads
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1134)

Abstract

Virtual reality is becoming a more popular attraction every year not only to researchers, but the general public as well. One of the major challenges standing in the way of virtual reality becoming even more widely accepted is the adaptation of new locomotion techniques. This paper attempts to discern between two different locomotion techniques and decide which method is more efficient based on certain parameters. The two techniques being analyzed were tested in a case study, one involving inorganic movement (touch pad control) and the other natural movement. The users tested both forms of locomotion separately by navigating through a predetermined course that is comprised of multiple checkpoints. Data such as efficiency and time were recorded via applications, as well as a post test survey that each of the participants were given. After all the data was collected, the results were analyzed and the most efficient and preferred form of movement was established.

Keywords

Virtual reality VR motion sickness Locomotion Inorganic movement Natural movement 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This material is partially based on work supported by the National Science Foundation under grant number IIA-1301726. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

IRB Approval under IRBNetID: 1487456-1.

References

  1. 1.
    Kortum, P.: HCI Beyond the GUI: Design for Haptic, Speech, Olfactory, and Other Nontraditional Interfaces, pp. 107–137. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Al Zayer, M., MacNeilage, P., Folmer, E.: Virtual locomotion: a survey. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. (Early Access), 1–20 (2018). https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8580399.  https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2018.2887379.
  3. 3.
    Unity Technologies: Unity. https://unity3d.com/. Accessed 10 Oct 2019
  4. 4.
    Valve Corporation: Steamvr Plugin (2018). https://assetstore.unity.com/packages/templates/systems/steamvr-plugin-32647. Accessed 10 Oct 2019
  5. 5.
    Zatylny, P.: Fantasy Forest Environment-Free Demo (2018). https://assetstore.unity.com/packages/3d/environments/fantasy/fantasy-forest-environment-free-demo-35361. Accessed 10 Oct 2019
  6. 6.
    Stangroom, J.: One-way Anova Calculator. https://www.socscistatistics.com/tests/anova/default2.aspx. Accessed 10 October 2019
  7. 7.
    LaViola, J.J., Kruijff, E., McMahan, R.P., Bowman, D.A., Poupyrev, I.: 3D User Interfaces: Theory and Practice, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2017)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Langbehn, E., Steinicke, F.: Redirected walking in virtual reality. In: Lee, N. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Computer Graphics and Games, pp. 1–11. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08234-9_253-1 Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Spurgeon, W.: Exploring Hands-Free Alternatives for Teleportation in VR. Master’s thesis, University of Nevada, Reno (2018). Department of Computer Science and EngineeringGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kurt Andersen
    • 1
  • Lucas Calabrese
    • 1
  • Andrew Flangas
    • 1
  • Sergiu Dascalu
    • 1
  • Frederick C. HarrisJr.
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringUniversity of Nevada, RenoRenoUSA

Personalised recommendations