Remote Object Translation Methods for Immersive Virtual Environments

  • Jurriaan D. Mulder
Part of the Eurographics book series (EUROGRAPH)


In this paper, seven methods are described to perform remote object translations with a six degree-of-freedom input device in an immersive virtual environment. By manipulating objects remotely, a number of disadvantages of the real-world ‘direct grab and drag’ metaphor can be avoided. The different methods are evaluated with a pilot user experiment. From the results of the experiment, some initial recommendations are formulated on the use of the methods for different manipulation tasks.


Virtual Environment Goal Position Velocity Control Rest Position Immersive Virtual Environment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. [1]
    D.A. Bowman and L.F. Hodges. An evaluation of techniques for grabbing and manipulating remote objects in immersive virtual environments. In S.N. Spencer, editor, 1997 Symposium on Interactive 3D Graphics, pages 35–38, 1997.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    S. Bryson. Approaches to the successful design and implementation of VR applications. In R.A. Earnshaw, J.A. Vince, and H. Jones, editors, Virtual Reality Applications, pages 3–15. Academic Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    C. Cruz-Neira, D.J. Sandin, and T.A. DeFanti. Surround-screen projection-based virtual reality: The design and implementation of the CAVE. In Computer Graphics (SIGGRAPH ‘93 Proceedings), volume 27, pages 135–142, 1993.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    L.D. Cutler, B. Fröhlich, and P. Hanrahan. Two-handed direct manipulation on the responsive workbench. In S.N. Spencer, editor, Proceedings of the 1997 Symposium on Interactive 3D Graphics, pages 107–114, 1997.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    K. Hinckley, R. Pausch, J.C. Goble, and N.F. Kassell. A survey of design issues in spatial input. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST’ 94), pages 213–222, 1994.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    W.S. Kim, F. Tendick, S.R. Ellis, and L.W. Stark. A comparison of position and rate control for telemanipulators with consideration of manipulator dynamics. IEEE Journal of Robotics and Automation, RA-3(5):426–436, October 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    J.D. Mulder and J.J. van Wijk. 3D computational steering with parametrized geometric objects. In G.M. Nielson and D. Silver, editors, Visualization’ 95 (Proceedings of the 1995 Visualization Conference), pages 304–311, 1995.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    C. Schmandt. Spatial input/display correspondence in a stereoscopic computer graphic work station. Computer Graphics, 17(3):253–261, 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    J.W. Tukey. Exploratory Data Analysis. Addison-Wesley, 1977.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    C. Ware. Using hand position for virtual object placement. Visual Computer, 6(5):245–253, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    S. Zhai and P. Milgram. Human performance evaluation of manipulation schemes in virtual environments. In Proceedings of the 1993 IEEE Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium, pages 155–161, 1993.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    S. Zhai, P. Milgram, and A. Rastogi. Anisotropic human performance in six degree-of-freedom tracking: An evaluation of three-dimensional display and control devices. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics Part A: Systems and Humans, 27(4):518–528, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag/Wien 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jurriaan D. Mulder
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Mathematics and Computer Science CWIAmsterdamthe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations