skip to main content
10.1145/3225153.3225175acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessapConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access

Evaluating the effects of four VR locomotion methods: joystick, arm-cycling, point-tugging, and teleporting

Published:10 August 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

In this work we present two novel methods of exploring a large immersive virtual environment (IVE) viewed through a head-mounted display (HMD) using the tracked controllers that come standard with commodity-level HMD systems. With the first method, "Point-Tugging," users reach and pull the controller trigger at a point in front of them and move in the direction of the point they "tug" with the controller. With the second method, "Arm-Cycling," users move their arms while pulling the trigger on the hand-held controllers to translate in the yaw direction that their head is facing. We perform a search task experiment to directly compare four locomotion techniques: Joystick, Arm-Cycling, Point-Tugging, and Teleporting. In the joystick condition, a joystick is used to translate the user in the yaw direction of gaze with physical rotations matching virtual rotations. In the teleporting condition, the controllers create an arched beam that allows the user to select a point on the ground and instantly teleport to this location. We find that Arm-Cycling has advantages over the other methods and could be suitable for wide-spread use.

References

  1. 2017. Virtual Reality (VR) Market by Hardware and Software for (Consumer, Commercial, Enterprise, Medical, Aerospace and Defense, Automotive, Energy and Others): Global Industry Perspective, Comprehensive Analysis and Forecast, 2016--2022. Zion Market Research Report. (9 2017). https://www.zionmarketresearch.com/report/virtual-reality-market.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. 2018. U.S. Consumer Technology Sales and Forecasts. Consumer Technology Association. (1 2018). https://www.cta.tech.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Costas Boletsis. 2017. The New Era of Virtual Reality Locomotion: A Systematic Literature Review of Techniques and a Proposed Typology. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction 1, 4 (2017), 24.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Benjamin Bolte, Frank Steinicke, and Gerd Bruder. 2011. The jumper metaphor: an effective navigation technique for immersive display setups. In Proceedings of Virtual Reality Intern. Conf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Doug Bowman, Ernst Kruijff, Joseph LaViola, and Ivan Poupyrev. 2004. 3D User Interfaces: Theory and Practice. Addison-Wesley. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Doug A Bowman, David Koller, and Larry F Hodges. 1997. Travel in immersive virtual environments: An evaluation of viewpoint motion control techniques. In Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium, 1997., IEEE 1997. IEEE, 45--52. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Evren Bozgeyikli, Andrew Raij, Srinivas Katkoori, and Rajiv Dubey. 2016. Point & Teleport Locomotion Technique for Virtual Reality. In ACM CHI PLAY. 205--216. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Chris G Christou and Poppy Aristidou. 2017. Steering Versus Teleport Locomotion for Head Mounted Displays. In Augmented Reality, Virtual Reality and Computer Graphics. Springer, 431--446.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Rudolph P Darken and Barry Peterson. 2014. Spatial Orientation, Wayfinding, and Representation. (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. L Puchalla Fiore, Ella Coben, Samantha Merritt, Peng Liu, and Victoria Interrante. 2013. Towards enabling more effective locomotion in vr using a wheelchair-based motion platform. In Joint Virtual Reality Conference. Eurographics Association, 83--90. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Jacob Habgood, David Moore, David Wilson, and Sergio Alapont. 2018. Rapid, continuous movement between nodes as an accessible virtual reality locomotion technique. (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Abraham M Hashemian and Bernhard E Riecke. 2017. Leaning-Based 360° Interfaces: Investigating Virtual Reality Navigation Interfaces with Leaning-Based-Translation and Full-Rotation. In International Conference on Virtual, Augmented and Mixed Reality. Springer, 15--32.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Jonathan Kelly, Lisa Donaldson, Lori Sjolund, and Jacob Freiberg. 2013. More than just perception-action recalibration: Walking through a VE causes rescaling of perceived space. Attn., Perc., & Psych. 75 (2013), 1473--1485.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Robert S Kennedy, Norman E Lane, Kevin S Berbaum, and Michael G Lilienthal. 1993. Simulator sickness questionnaire: An enhanced method for quantifying simulator sickness. Inter. J of Aviation Psych. 3, 3 (1993), 203--220.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Alexandra Kitson, Abraham M Hashemian, Ekaterina R Stepanova, Ernst Kruijff, and Bernhard E Riecke. 2017. Lean into it: Exploring leaning-based motion cueing interfaces for virtual reality movement. In IEEE VR. 215--216.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Christopher Alan Lewis and Kate Loewenthal. 2015. An introduction to psychological tests and scales. Psychology Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Morgan McCullough, Hong Xu, Joel Michelson, Matthew Jackoski, Wyatt Pease, William Cobb, William Kalescky, Joshua Ladd, and Betsy Williams. 2015. Myo Arm: Swinging to Explore a VE. In ACM Symposium on Applied Perception (SAP '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 107--113. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Kara Murias, Kathy Kwok, Adrian Gil Castillejo, Irene Liu, and Giuseppe Iaria. 2016. The effects of video game use on performance in a virtual navigation task. Comp. in Hum. Behav. 58 (2016), 398--406. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Amelia Nybakke, Ramya Ramakrishnan, and Victoria Interrante. 2012. From virtual to actual mobility: Assessing the benefits of active locomotion through an immersive VE using a motorized wheelchair. In IEEE 3DUI. 27--30.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Lisa Rebenitsch. 2015. Managing Cybersickness in Virtual Reality. XRDS 22, 1 (Nov. 2015), 46--51. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Bernhard E. Riecke, Bobby Bodenheimer, Timothy P. McNamara, Betsy Williams, Peng Peng, and Daniel Feuereissen. 2010. Do we need to walk for effective VR navigation? Physical rotations alone may suffice. In 7th Inter. Conf. on Spat. Cogn. 234--247. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Roy Ruddle and Simon Lessels. 2006. For Efficient Navigational Search, Humans Require Full Physical Movement, but Not a Rich Visual Scene. Psych. Sci. 17, 6 (June 2006), 460--465.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Roy A Ruddle and Simon Lessels. 2009. The benefits of using a walking interface to navigate virtual environments. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 16, 1 (2009), 5. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Bhuvaneswari Sarupuri, Simon Hoermann, Frank Steinicke, and Robert W. Lindeman. 2017. Triggerwalking: A Biomechanically-inspired Locomotion User Interface for Efficient Realistic Virtual Walking. In Symp. on Spatial User Interaction (SUI '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 138--147. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Evan Suma, Gerd Bruder, Frank Steinicke, David Krum, and Mark Bolas. 2012. A taxonomy for deploying redirection techniques in immersive VE. In IEEE VR. 43--46. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Anette Von Kapri, Tobias Rick, and Steven Feiner. 2011. Comparing steering-based travel techniques for search tasks in a cave. In Virtual Reality Conference (VR), 2011 IEEE. IEEE, 91--94. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. David Waller and Eric Hodgson. 2013. Sensory contributions to spatial knowledge of real and virtual environments. In Human Walking in VEs. Springer, 3--26.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Betsy Williams, Gayathri Narasimham, Westerman, John Rieser, and Bobby Bodenheimer. 2007. Funct. similarities in spatial representations between real and VEs. TAP 4, 2 (2007). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Preston Wilson, William Kalescky, Ansel MacLaughlin, and Betsy Williams. 2016. VR locomotion: walking > walking in place > arm swinging. In ACM VRCAI. 243--249. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Mary K. Young, Graham B. Gaylor, Scott M. Andrus, and Bobby Bodenheimer. 2014. A Comparison of Two Cost-differentiated Virtual Reality Systems for Perception and Action Tasks. In ACM Symposium on Applied Perception (SAP '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 83--90. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Daniel Zielasko, Sven Horn, Sebastian Freitag, Benjamin Weyers, and Torsten W Kuhlen. 2016. Evaluation of hands-free HMD-based navigation techniques for immersive data analysis. In IEEE 3DUI. 113--119.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Evaluating the effects of four VR locomotion methods: joystick, arm-cycling, point-tugging, and teleporting

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        SAP '18: Proceedings of the 15th ACM Symposium on Applied Perception
        August 2018
        162 pages
        ISBN:9781450358941
        DOI:10.1145/3225153

        Copyright © 2018 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 10 August 2018

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate43of94submissions,46%

        Upcoming Conference

        SAP '24
        ACM Symposium on Applied Perception 2024
        August 30 - 31, 2024
        Dublin , Ireland

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader