A Comparison of Distance Estimation in HMD-Based Virtual Environments with Different HMD-Based Conditions

被引：88

作者：

Buck, Lauren E. ^{[1
]}

Young, Mary K. ^{[1
]}

Bodenheimer, Bobby ^{[1
]}

机构：

[1] Vanderbilt Univ, 368 Jacobs Hall,400 24th Ave S, Nashville, TN 37212 USA

来源：

ACM TRANSACTIONS ON APPLIED PERCEPTION | 2018年 / 15卷 / 03期

基金：

美国国家科学基金会;

关键词：

Head-mounted displays; distance perception; field-of-view; VISUAL-PERCEPTION; REAL; LOCOMOTION; TARGET; SCALE;

D O I：

10.1145/3196885

中图分类号：

TP31 [计算机软件];

学科分类号：

081202 ; 0835 ;

摘要：

Underestimation of egocentric distances in immersive virtual environments using various head-mounted displays (HMDs) has been a puzzling topic of research interest for several years. As more commodity-level systems become available to developers, it is important to test the variation of underestimation in each system since reasons for underestimation remain elusive. In this article, we examine several different systems in two experiments and comparatively evaluate how much users underestimate distances in each one. To observe distance estimation behavior, a standard indirect blind walking task was used. An Oculus Rift DK1, weighted Oculus Rift DK1, Oculus Rift DK1 with an artificially restricted field of view, Nvis SX60, Nvis SX111, Oculus Rift DK2, Oculus Rift consumer version (CV1), and HTC Vive were tested. The weighted and restricted field of view HMDs were evaluated to determine the effect of these factors on distance underestimation; the other systems were evaluated because they are popular systems that are widely available. We found that weight and field of view restrictions heightened underestimation in the Rift DK1. Results from these conditions were comparable to the Nvis SX60 and SX111. The Oculus Rift DK1 and CV1 possessed the least amount of distance underestimation, but in general, commodity-level HMDs provided more accurate estimates of distance than the prior generation of HMDs.

引用

页数：15

共 42 条

[1]

Andrus S.M., 2014, Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Applied Perception, P130

[2]

[Anonymous], 2011, P ACM SIGGRAPH S APP, DOI 10.1145/2077451.2077464

[3]

Bodenheimer B., 2007, P 4 S APPL PERC GRAP, DOI [10.1145/1272582.1272589, DOI 10.1145/1272582.1272589]

[4] Egocentric Distance Perception in the Oculus Rift (DK2) [J].

Creem-Regehr, Sarah H. ;

Stefanucci, Jeanine K. ;

Thompson, William B. ;

Nash, Nathan ;

McCardell, Michael .

SAP 2015: ACM SIGGRAPH SYMPOSIUM ON APPLIED PERCEPTION, 2016, :47-50

[5] Perceiving Absolute Scale in Virtual Environments: How Theory and Application Have Mutually Informed the Role of Body-Based Perception [J].

Creem-Regehr, Sarah H. ;

Stefanucci, Jeanine K. ;

Thompson, William B. .

PSYCHOLOGY OF LEARNING AND MOTIVATION, VOL 62, 2015, 62 :195-224

[6] The influence of restricted viewing conditions on egocentric distance perception: Implications for real and virtual indoor environments [J].

Creem-Regehr, SH ;

Willemsen, P ;

Gooch, AA ;

Thompson, WB .

PERCEPTION, 2005, 34 (02) :191-204

[7]

Cutting J. E., 1995, Perception of space and motion. Handbook of perception and cognition, P69, DOI DOI 10.1016/B978-012240530-3/50005-5

[8] How Does Presentation Method and Measurement Protocol Affect Distance Estimation in Real and Virtual Environments? [J].

Grechkin, Timofey Y. ;

Nguyen, Tien Dat ;

Plumert, Jodie M. ;

Cremer, James F. ;

Kearney, Joseph K. .

ACM TRANSACTIONS ON APPLIED PERCEPTION, 2010, 7 (04)

[9] Distance perception in immersive virtual environments, revisited [J].

Interrante, Victoria ;

Anderson, Lee ;

Ries, Brian .

IEEE VIRTUAL REALITY 2006, PROCEEDINGS, 2006, :3-+

[10]

Jeffreys H, 1998, THEORY PROBABILITY

← 1 2 3 4 5 →