Advertisement

Is VR Better than a Workstation? A Report on Human Performance Experiments in Progress

  • David Mizell
  • Stephen Jones
  • Paul Jackson
  • Dasal Pickett
Conference paper
Part of the Eurographics book series (EUROGRAPH)

Abstract

This paper is a preliminary report on a set of experiments designed to compare an immersive, head-tracked VR system to a typical graphics workstation display screen, with respect to whether VR makes it easier for a user to comprehend complex, 3-D objects. Experimental subjects were asked to build a physical replica of a three-dimensional “wire sculpture” which they viewed either physically, on a workstation screen, or in a stereoscopic “boom” VR display. Preliminary results show less speed but slightly fewer errors with the VR display. The slower speed is probably explainable by the overhead involved in moving to and grasping the boom display.

Keywords

Virtual Reality Virtual Environment Immersive Virtual Environment Main Landing Gear IEEE Virtual Reality 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Chung, J. A Comparison of Head-tracked and Non-head-tracked Steering Modes in Targeting of Radiotherapy Treatment Beams. In Proceedings, 1992 Symposium on Interactive 3D Graphics, April 1992, pp. 193–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arthur, K., Booth, K., Ware, C. Evaluating 3D Task Performance for Fish Tank Virtual Worlds. ACM Transactions on Information Systems Vol. 11 no. 3, July 1993, pp. 239–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Henry, D., Furness, T. Spatial Perception in Virtual Environments: Evaluating an Architectural Application. Proceedings, IEEE Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium, September 1993, pp. 33–40.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Johnson, N., Kotz, S. Encyclopedia of Statistical Sciences, Wiley, New York, 1989.MATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jones, B., Kenward, M. G. Design and Analysis of Cross-Over Trials, Chapman and Hall, New York, 1989.MATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mowafy, L., Russo, T., Miller, L. “Is Presence a Training Issue?” Proceedings, IEEE Symposium on Research Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 1993, pp. 124–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pausch, R., Schelford, M., Proffitt, D. A. A User Study Comparing Head-Mounted and Stationary Displays. IEEE Symposium on Research Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 1993, pp. 41–45.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Piantanida, T., Boman, D., Gille, J. Human Perceptual Issues and Virtual Reality. Virtual Reality Systems, Vol. 1, no. 1, March 1993.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ratkowsky, D. A., Evans, M. A., Alldredge, J. R. Cross-Over Experiments, Marcel Dekker, 1993.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Slater, M., Usoh, M. Presence in Immersive Virtual Environments. Proceedings, IEEE Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium, September 1993, pp. 90–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ware, C., Osborne, S. “Exploration and Virtual Camera Control in Virtual Three Dimensional Environments.” Computer Graphics Vol. 24 no. 2, March 1990, pp. 175–183.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zahi, S., Milgram, P. “Human Performance Evaluation of Manipulation Schemes in Virtual Environments.” Proceedings, IEEE Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium, September 1993, pp. 155–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag/Wien 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Mizell
    • 1
  • Stephen Jones
    • 1
  • Paul Jackson
    • 2
  • Dasal Pickett
    • 3
  1. 1.Research & Technology OrganizationBoeing Information and Support ServicesUSA
  2. 2.Texas A&M UniversityUSA
  3. 3.Morris Brown CollegeUSA

Personalised recommendations