10.1145/2821592.2821603acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesvrstConference Proceedings
research-article

Embodied interaction using non-planar projections in immersive virtual reality

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

  1. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Bourke, P. 2009. idome: Immersive gaming with the unity game engine. In Proceedings of the Computer Games & Allied Technology, 265--272.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Kennedy, M., and Koop, S. 1994. Understanding map projections. GIS by ESRI, Environmental System Research Institute.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Supplemental Material

Index Terms

  1. Embodied interaction using non-planar projections in immersive virtual reality

      Comments

      Login options

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

      Sign in

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader
      About Cookies On This Site

      We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

      Learn more

      Got it!