ABSTRACT
In this paper we evaluate the use of non-planar projections as a means to increase the Field of View (FoV) in embodied Virtual Reality (VR). Our main goal is to bring the virtual body into the user's FoV and to understand how this affects the virtual body/environment relation and quality of interaction. Subjects wore a Head Mounted Display (HMD) and were instructed to perform a selection and docking task while using either Perspective (≈ 106 ° vertical FoV), Hammer or Equirectangular (≈ 180 ° vertical FoV for both) projection. The increased FoV allowed for a shorter search time as well as less head movements. However, quality of interaction was generally inferior, requiring more time to dock, increasing docking error and producing more body/environment collisions. We also assessed cybersickness and the sense of embodiment toward the virtual body through questionnaires, for which the difference between projections seemed to be less pronounced.
References
- Ardouin, J., Lécuyer, A., Marchal, M., Riant, C., and Marchand, E. 2012. Flyviz: a novel display device to provide humans with 360 vision by coupling catadioptric camera with hmd. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM symposium on Virtual reality software and technology, ACM, 41--44. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Ardouin, J., Lécuyer, A., Marchal, M., and Marchand, E. 2013. Navigating in virtual environments with 360 omnidirectional rendering. In 3D User Interfaces (3DUI), 2013 IEEE Symposium on, IEEE, 95--98.Google Scholar
- Bourke, P. 2009. idome: Immersive gaming with the unity game engine. In Proceedings of the Computer Games & Allied Technology, 265--272.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Glaeser, G., and Gröller, E. 1999. Fast generation of curved perspectives for ultra-wide-angle lenses in vr applications. The Visual Computer 15, 7-8, 365--376. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Kennedy, M., and Koop, S. 1994. Understanding map projections. GIS by ESRI, Environmental System Research Institute.Google Scholar
- Kennedy, R. S., Lane, N. E., Berbaum, K. S., and Lilienthal, M. G. 1993. Simulator sickness questionnaire: An enhanced method for quantifying simulator sickness. The international journal of aviation psychology 3, 3, 203--220.Google Scholar
- Mulloni, A., Seichter, H., Dünser, A., Baudisch, P., and Schmalstieg, D. 2012. 360 panoramic overviews for location-based services. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, 2565--2568. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Orlosky, J., Wu, Q., Kiyokawa, K., Takemura, H., and Nitschke, C. 2014. Fisheye vision: Peripheral spatial compression for improved field of view in head mounted displays. In Proceedings of the 2Nd ACM Symposium on Spatial User Interaction, ACM, New York, NY, USA, SUI '14, ACM, 54--61. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Slater, M., Spanlang, B., Sanchez-Vives, M. V., and Blanke, O. 2010. First person experience of body transfer in virtual reality. PloS one 5, 5, e10564.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
Supplemental Material
Available for Download
Index Terms
Embodied interaction using non-planar projections in immersive virtual reality


Ronan Boulic

Comments