Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
research-article

An Evaluation of Screen Parallax, Haptic Feedback, and Sensory-Motor Mismatch on Near-Field Perception-Action Coordination in VR

Published: 28 October 2021 Publication History

Abstract

Virtual reality (VR) displays have factors such as vergence-accommodation conflicts that negatively impact depth perception and cause users to misjudge distances to select objects. In addition, popular large-screen immersive displays present the depth of any target rendered through screen parallax information of points, which are encapsulated within stereoscopic voxels that are a distinct unit of space dictating how far an object is placed in front of or behind the screen. As they emanate from the viewers’ eyes (left and right center of projection), the density of voxels is higher in front of the screen (in regions of negative screen parallax) than it is behind the screen (in regions of positive screen parallax), implying a higher spatial resolution of depth in front of the screen than behind the screen. Our experiment implements a near-field fine-motor pick-and-place task in which users pick up a ring and place it around a targeted peg. The targets are arranged in a linear configuration of 3, 5, and 7 pegs along the front-and-back axis with the center peg placed in the same depth as the screen. We use this to evaluate how users manipulate objects in positive versus negative screen parallax space by the metrics of efficiency, accuracy, and economy of movement. In addition, we evaluate how users’ performance is moderated by haptic feedback and mismatch between visual and proprioceptive information. Our results reveal that users perform more efficiently in negative screen parallax space and that haptic feedback and visuo-proprioceptive mismatch have effects on placement efficiency. The implications of these findings are described in the later sections of the article.

References

[1]
S. J. Adelson, A. N. Badre, and L. F. Hodges. 1991. Comparison of 3-D display and depth enhancement techniques. Proceedings of the Society for Information Display 32, 1 (1991), 25–29.
[2]
Mayra Donaji Barrera Machuca, and Wolfgang Stuerzlinger. 2019. The effect of stereo display deficiencies on virtual hand pointing. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 207.
[3]
Anil Ufuk Batmaz and Wolfgang Stuerzlinger. 2019. The effect of rotational jitter on 3D pointing tasks. In Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–6.
[4]
Ayush Bhargava, Jeffrey W. Bertrand, Anand K. Gramopadhye, Kapil C. Madathil, and Sabarish V. Babu. 2018. Evaluating multiple levels of an interaction fidelity continuum on performance and learning in near-field training simulations. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 24, 4 (2018), 1418–1427.
[5]
David Brickler, Robert J. Teather, Andrew T. Duchowski, and Sabarish V. Babu. 2020. A Fitts’ law evaluation of visuo-haptic fidelity and sensory mismatch on user performance in a near-field disc transfer task in virtual reality. ACM Transactions on Applied Perception (TAP) 17, 4 (2020), 1–20.
[6]
David Brickler, Matias Volonte, Jeffrey W. Bertrand, Andrew T. Duchowski, and Sabarish V. Babu. 2019. Effects of stereoscopic viewing and haptic feedback, sensory-motor congruence and calibration on near-field fine motor perception-action coordination in virtual reality. In 2019 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR’19). IEEE, 28–37.
[7]
Gerd Bruder, Fernando Argelaguet Sanz, Anne-Hélène Olivier, and Anatole Lécuyer. 2015. Distance estimation in large immersive projection systems, revisited. In 2015 IEEE Virtual Reality (VR’15). IEEE, 27–32.
[8]
Timothy R. Coles, Nigel W. John, Derek Gould, and Darwin G. Caldwell. 2011. Integrating haptics with augmented reality in a femoral palpation and needle insertion training simulation. IEEE Transactions on Haptics 4, 3 (2011), 199–209.
[9]
Heather Culbertson and Katherine J. Kuchenbecker. 2016. Importance of matching physical friction, hardness, and texture in creating realistic haptic virtual surfaces. IEEE Transactions on Haptics 10, 1 (2016), 63–74.
[10]
James E. Cutting and Peter M. Vishton. 1995. Perceiving layout and knowing distances: The integration, relative potency, and contextual use of different information about depth. In Perception of Space and Motion. Elsevier, 69–117.
[11]
Elham Ebrahimi, Sabarish V. Babu, Christopher C. Pagano, and Sophie Jörg. 2016. An empirical evaluation of visuo-haptic feedback on physical reaching behaviors during 3D interaction in real and immersive virtual environments. ACM Transactions on Applied Perception (TAP) 13, 4 (2016), 1–21.
[12]
Shaghayegh Esmaeili, Brett Benda, and Eric D. Ragan. 2020. Detection of scaled hand interactions in virtual reality: The effects of motion direction and task complexity. In 2020 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR’20). 453–462.
[13]
Lucas S. Figueiredo, Edvar Vilar Neto, Ermano Arruda, João Marcelo Teixeira, and Veronica Teichrieb. 2014. Fishtank everywhere: Improving viewing experience over 3D content. In International Conference of Design, User Experience, and Usability. Springer, 560–571.
[14]
Gerald M. Fried. 2008. FLS assessment of competency using simulated laparoscopic tasks. Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery 12, 2 (2008), 210–212.
[15]
Michael J. Fu, Andrew D. Hershberger, Kumiko Sano, and M. Cenk Çavuşoğlu. 2011. Effect of visuo-haptic co-location on 3D Fitts’ task performance. In 2011 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. IEEE, 3460–3467.
[16]
Joy Paul Guilford and Wayne S. Zimmerman. 1948. The Guilford-Zimmerman aptitude survey.Journal of Applied Psychology 32, 1 (1948), 24.
[17]
Sandra G. Hart and Lowell E. Staveland. 1988. Development of NASA-TLX (task load index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In Advances in Psychology. Vol. 52. Elsevier, 139–183.
[18]
Larry F. Hodges. 2020. Stereoscopic display. Electro-Optical Displays (2020), 291.
[19]
Larry F. Hodges and Elizabeth Thorpe Davis. 1993. Geometric considerations for stereoscopic virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments 2, 1 (1993), 34–43.
[20]
David M. Hoffman, Ahna R. Girshick, Kurt Akeley, and Martin S. Banks. 2008. Vergence–accommodation conflicts hinder visual performance and cause visual fatigue. Journal of Vision 8, 3 (2008), 33–33.
[21]
J. Adam Jones, Darlene Edewaard, Richard A. Tyrrell, and Larry F. Hodges. 2016. A schematic eye for virtual environments. In 2016 IEEE Symposium on 3D User Interfaces (3DUI’16). IEEE, 221–230.
[22]
Michael Wayne Jones. 1996. Partial Pixels: A Real-Time Three-Dimensional Display Architecture. Ph.D. Dissertation. The University of Alabama in Huntsville.
[23]
Alaa Khalifa, Ahmed Ramadan, Khalil Ibrahim, Mohamed Fanni, Samy Assal, and Ahmed Abo-Ismail. 2014. Workspace mapping and control of a teleoperated endoscopic surgical robot. In 2014 19th International Conference on Methods and Models in Automation and Robotics (MMAR’14). IEEE, 675–680.
[24]
Luv Kohli, Mary C. Whitton, and Frederick P. Brooks. 2012. Redirected touching: The effect of warping space on task performance. In 2012 IEEE Symposium on 3D User Interfaces (3DUI’12). IEEE, 105–112.
[25]
Jialei Li, Isaac Cho, and Zachary Wartell. 2018. Evaluation of cursor offset on 3D selection in VR. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Spatial User Interaction. 120–129.
[26]
I. Scott MacKenzie and William Buxton. 1992. Extending Fitts’ law to two-dimensional tasks. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 219–226.
[27]
I. Scott MacKenzie and Poika Isokoski. 2008. Fitts’ throughput and the speed-accuracy tradeoff. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 1633–1636.
[28]
Thomas H. Massie, J. Kenneth Salisbury, et al. 1994. The phantom haptic interface: A device for probing virtual objects. In Proceedings of the ASME Winter Annual Meeting, Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems, Vol. 55. Citeseer, 295–300.
[29]
John P. McIntire, Paul R. Havig, and Eric E. Geiselman. 2014. Stereoscopic 3D displays and human performance: A comprehensive review. Displays 35, 1 (2014), 18–26.
[30]
Shane William McWhorter, Larry F. Hodges, and Walter E. Rodriguez. 1991. Evaluation of Display Parameters Affecting User Performance of an Interactive Task in a Virtual Environment. Technical Report. Georgia Institute of Technology.
[31]
Kouta Minamizawa, Domenico Prattichizzo, and Susumu Tachi. 2010. Simplified design of haptic display by extending one-point kinesthetic feedback to multipoint tactile feedback. In 2010 IEEE Haptics Symposium. IEEE, 257–260.
[32]
Dan Morris, Hong Tan, Federico Barbagli, Timothy Chang, and Kenneth Salisbury. 2007. Haptic feedback enhances force skill learning. In 2nd Joint EuroHaptics Conference and Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems (WHC’07). IEEE, 21–26.
[33]
Phillip E. Napieralski, Bliss M. Altenhoff, Jeffrey W. Bertrand, Lindsay O. Long, Sabarish V. Babu, Christopher C. Pagano, Justin Kern, and Timothy A. Davis. 2011. Near-field distance perception in real and virtual environments using both verbal and action responses. ACM Transactions on Applied Perception (TAP) 8, 3 (2011), 1–19.
[34]
Allison M. Okamura, Jack T. Dennerlein, and Robert D. Howe. 1998. Vibration feedback models for virtual environments. In Proceedings of the 1998 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (Cat. No. 98CH36146), Vol. 1. IEEE, 674–679.
[35]
Lucian Panait, Ehab Akkary, Robert L. Bell, Kurt E. Roberts, Stanley J. Dudrick, and Andrew J. Duffy. 2009. The role of haptic feedback in laparoscopic simulation training. Journal of Surgical Research 156, 2 (2009), 312–316.
[36]
Matthieu Poyade, Michael Kargas, and Victor Portela. 2014. Haptic Plug-In for Unity3D. Digital Design Studio/Glasgow School of Art.
[37]
M. Poyade, L. Molina-Tanco, A. Reyes-Lecuona, A. Langley, M. D’Cruz, E. Frutos, and S. Flores. 2012. Validation of a haptic virtual reality simulation in the context of industrial maintenance. In Joint Virtual Reality Conference of ICAT, EGVE and EuroVR, 2012. 85.
[38]
Gideon Sroka, Liane S. Feldman, Melina C. Vassiliou, Pepa A. Kaneva, Raad Fayez, and Gerald M. Fried. 2010. Fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery simulator training to proficiency improves laparoscopic performance in the operating room—a randomized controlled trial. The American Journal of Surgery 199, 1 (2010), 115–120.
[39]
Zachary Wartell, Larry F. Hodges, and William Ribarsky. 1999. Balancing fusion, image depth and distortion in stereoscopic head-tracked displays. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques. 351–358.
[40]
Robert Sessions Woodworth. 1899. Accuracy of voluntary movement.The Psychological Review: Monograph Supplements 3, 3 (1899), i.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Assessing the Effects of Sensory Modality Conditions on Object Retention across Virtual Reality and Projected Surface Display EnvironmentsProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36981378:ISS(255-282)Online publication date: 24-Oct-2024
  • (2024)Investigating the Effects of Avatarization and Interaction Techniques on Near-field Mixed Reality Interactions with Physical ComponentsIEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics10.1109/TVCG.2024.337205030:5(2756-2766)Online publication date: 4-Mar-2024
  • (2024)P‐38: The Influence of Parallax and Shape Type Factors on the Perception of AR Equipment in Dark EnvironmentSID Symposium Digest of Technical Papers10.1002/sdtp.1784255:1(1515-1518)Online publication date: 30-Jul-2024
  • Show More Cited By

Index Terms

  1. An Evaluation of Screen Parallax, Haptic Feedback, and Sensory-Motor Mismatch on Near-Field Perception-Action Coordination in VR

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

        Information & Contributors

        Information

        Published In

        cover image ACM Transactions on Applied Perception
        ACM Transactions on Applied Perception  Volume 18, Issue 4
        October 2021
        74 pages
        ISSN:1544-3558
        EISSN:1544-3965
        DOI:10.1145/3492443
        Issue’s Table of Contents

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        Published: 28 October 2021
        Accepted: 01 August 2021
        Received: 01 August 2021
        Published in TAP Volume 18, Issue 4

        Permissions

        Request permissions for this article.

        Check for updates

        Author Tags

        1. Screen parallax
        2. near-field VR
        3. perception-action
        4. haptics
        5. stereoscopy
        6. voxalization
        7. VR

        Qualifiers

        • Research-article
        • Refereed

        Funding Sources

        • National Science Foundation

        Contributors

        Other Metrics

        Bibliometrics & Citations

        Bibliometrics

        Article Metrics

        • Downloads (Last 12 months)97
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)10
        Reflects downloads up to 12 Nov 2024

        Other Metrics

        Citations

        Cited By

        View all
        • (2024)Assessing the Effects of Sensory Modality Conditions on Object Retention across Virtual Reality and Projected Surface Display EnvironmentsProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36981378:ISS(255-282)Online publication date: 24-Oct-2024
        • (2024)Investigating the Effects of Avatarization and Interaction Techniques on Near-field Mixed Reality Interactions with Physical ComponentsIEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics10.1109/TVCG.2024.337205030:5(2756-2766)Online publication date: 4-Mar-2024
        • (2024)P‐38: The Influence of Parallax and Shape Type Factors on the Perception of AR Equipment in Dark EnvironmentSID Symposium Digest of Technical Papers10.1002/sdtp.1784255:1(1515-1518)Online publication date: 30-Jul-2024
        • (2024)P‐3.9: The Influence of Parallax and Shape Type Factors on the Perception of AR Equipment in Dark EnvironmentSID Symposium Digest of Technical Papers10.1002/sdtp.1719255:S1(745-748)Online publication date: 27-Jun-2024

        View Options

        Get Access

        Login options

        Full Access

        View options

        PDF

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader

        Full Text

        View this article in Full Text.

        Full Text

        HTML Format

        View this article in HTML Format.

        HTML Format

        Media

        Figures

        Other

        Tables

        Share

        Share

        Share this Publication link

        Share on social media