Liz Bathrick Dr. Gallimore - HFE606 WSU - Fall 2002

Liz BathrickDr. Gallimore - HFE606WSU - Fall 2002

Liz BathrickDr. Gallimore - HFE606WSU - Fall 2002

Bathrick, HFE 606 Fall 2002 - #2 Bathrick, HFE 606 Fall 2002 - #2

An artificial environment created with computer hardware and software and presented to the user in such a way that it appears and feels like a real environment. (webopedia)

Complex DMT CAVE

Fully Immersive

Simple Games - “Myst” Web Portals


Interactive

Immersive

Colla

bora

tive


“Virtual Reality” Used & Abused (Games) Relatively Expensive Currently most true VEs are research or

training oriented - Military Training & Analysis Institutional / Educational

Biomedical Research Science & Engineering Education & Training

Some entertainment venues (Disney, movies, games)


Human Performance &

Efficiency Health & Safety Problems Potential Behavioral & Social

Issues


Specific Study Areas: HMD ease of use & comfort in

VEs Human visual performance

viewing Computer Generated VEs.

Tactile, haptic & force feedback Design & evaluation of VE

training systems.


Discussion with Rotocraft Pilot’s Associate (RPA) HMD Designer - Reid Benes Augmented RealityA Keiser Optical Helmet

Full glass display 3D Spatial audio

Design issues RPA HMD


Field of View (FOV)As large as possible - slower update

time, but subject will have stronger feeling of immersion

Display should closely match scene FOV Large differences can lead to errors &

difficulty in spatial judgements for depth & size of objects.

For augmented environments matching FOV is extremely important. e.g. Target acquistion overlay


NavigationWalking while looking around in rich

VE can cause more problems then moving straight ahead through an VE (like flying).

Speed of navigation in VEs can contribute to simulator sickness.

Bathrick, HFE 606 Fall 2002 - #10


Color - Full color displays bestHead Tracking - Very tricky

Can deter from the experience - esp. if yaw & roll are not well compensated for (3D head tracking)

Can be physically complicated if the user is moving around interacting in the VE - headtracking systems require close proximity to the sensors.



Stereoscopic ViewAllows system to put information at

different focal lengths for user to perceive 3D information - necessary for immersive systems.

Fixed focal length at infinity so user can see the outside world. RPA looked at being able to display different

types of information at different areas in the visual field & also at different focal lengths to reduce clutter and information overload.



System Trust -Very important for applications trying

to augment or model real world - e.g. surgical applications or flight decks.

Trusting VE too much when data isn't reliable can lead to errors or accidents.

Some current discussions about how to display error bars, or data reliability in the environment.



Fixed Focus/Vergence & Line of SightField of View - Diag, Vert, HorizEyewear compatibilityBinocular Rivalry w/Monocular HMDsInterpupilary Distance Exit PupilWeight & BalanceBrightness & Contrast Ratio



“Cybersickness” vs. Motion sickness User may not be actually moving Effect may be residual after VE experience for hours or even days

Sensory Conflict Theory Perceived cues don’t add up - see one thing, feel /hear another - Usually visual & vestibular mismatch

Poison Theory Body is physiologically fooled into reacting like it has been poisoned



Postural Instability Theory Instability in the control of the posture of the body and/or its segments - Most predictive through vibration and oscillation experiments

Contributing Factors System: Position tracking, lag, flicker, resolution Subject: Age, gender, health, experience Task: Scene content, movement quantity, control, & duration



Largely related to HMDs

Synchronization of Visual, Audio & Haptic devices - lag time, logical movements, LOS

The basic question is: Will this system meet or exceed the visual requirements of the human user?



Movie file removed



Gloves, Levitation Wands,Trackballs, Robotic Arms... Degrees-of-freedom (DOF) Spatial resolution Resistance (isotonic vs isometric) Body-centered interaction (“naturalness"

of design and interaction) Size, weight, comfort, mobility &

portability Mulitple users’ interactions



How well people learn information is based on: How information is presented How students may interact with it while

they are learning

Intentional Psychology: interaction techniques and biological constraints

Experiential Design: functionally aesthetic environments



Situated Learning Theory (Intentional psychology) Realistic task performance in authentic setting

provides stronger context and application of learning objectives

Key components: Apprenticeship, Collaboration, Reflection, Coaching, Multiple practice, Articulation of learning skills, Realistic representations & technology

Cognitive Models (Experiential Design) Artificial intelligence, agents Can be represented by avatars or actors in VEs



“Presence” - how immersed is subject? Fidelity - how much is necessary?

Which factors produce correct transfer/coding e.g. Military Flight Simulation

Part task trainers - Control systems Full mission trainers - Tactical /Team ops

Trainee Decision-making in semi-realismCompensations acquired in VE

experience can negatively impact real-world performance



Social Cognitive Theory

Arousal Theory - desensitization

Identity Construction



Social Isolation

Impact on development of imaginative and creative skills

Group dynamics & social positioning

Communication feedback - gestures, reactions



Some real potential benefits to the physically or mentally challenged

Cool Education (as opposed to training)Virtual Gorilla Exhibit Design - Exploration of 15th C. Florence Interaction with historical figures or characters in literature



VE Technical Group Interests

Human Performance & Efficiency HMDs, Haptics, Training & Education

Health & Safety Problems Simulator Sickness

Potential Behavioral & Social Issues



How much is too much? Some things are really useful and others are just gimmicky.

Process of Discovery

With all this technology we need to make sure we don’t forget the human!



Benes, Reid. Personal Interview. November 15, 2002. W. Bricken, G. Coco, "The VEOS Project", Technical report, Human Interface

Technology Lab, University of Washington,(1993). Gabbard, J., Hix, D. “Taxonomy of Usability Characteristics in Virtual

Environments”. Final Report to the Office of Naval Research. (November 1997) LaViola, Joseph J., Jr. “A Discussion of Cybersickness in Virtual Environments”

SIGCHI Bulletin Volume 32, Number 1 (January 2000) Stanney, Kay M. Handbook of Virtual Environments : Design, Implementation,

and Applications Human Factors and Ergonomics. Mahwah, N.J. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 2002.

Chpater 3 - Vision and Virtual Environments Chapter 24 - Spatial Orientation, Wayfinding,And Representation Chapter 33 -The Social Impact of Virtual Environment Technology

Winn, William. “Learning in Interactive and Immersive Environments” Presented at the Conference "Media and Higher Education” National Institute for Multimedia Education Chiba, Japan,(November, 1995)



Cybersickness.org http://www.cybersickness.org/web_index.htm Motion Sickness: Human And Medical Factors Index Page, Marbella 1997

http://www.ait.nrl.navy.mil/MSC/marbella_abstracts.htm#a11 HFES VE Tech Group http://vered.rose.utoronto.ca/HFESVE.html McLaughlin Consulting Group - “Human Factors Impact on Near-eye Design”

http://www.mcgweb.com/reports/usdc_doe.htm VISERG - Visual Ergonomics Research Group Loughborough University

http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/hu/groups/viserg/viserg1.htm

http://www.cybersickness.org/web_index.htm

http://www.ait.nrl.navy.mil/MSC/marbella_abstracts.htm#a11

http://www.mcgweb.com/reports/usdc_doe.htm

http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/hu/groups/viserg/viserg1.htm

Documents

Liz Bathrick Dr. Gallimore - HFE606 WSU - Fall 2002