VE Input Devices

VE Input Devices

Doug BowmanVirginia Tech

(C) 2005 Doug Bowman, Virginia Tech 2

Goals and Motivation

Provide practical introduction to the input devices used in VEs

Examine common and state of the art input devices look for general trends spark creativity

Advantages and disadvantages Discuss how different input devices affect interface

design


Input devices

Hardware that allows the user to communicate with the system

Input device vs. interaction techniqueSingle device can implement many ITs


Human-computer interface

SystemSoftwareU

ser i

nter

face

sof

twar

e

User

Inputdevices

Outputdevices

ITs


Human-VE interface

Tracking system

Env. modelSimulation loop:-render-check for events-respond to events-iterate simulation-get new tracker data

Display(s)

Input device(s)


Input device characteristics

Degrees of Freedom (DOFs) & DOF composition (integral vs. separable)

Range of reported values: discrete/continuous/hybrid

User action required: active/passive/hybrid Intended use: locator, valuator, choice, … Frame of reference: relative vs. absolute Properties sensed: position, motion, force, …


Practical classification system

Desktop devices Keyboards, 2D mice and trackballs, pen-based

tables, joysticks, 6DOF devices for the desktop

Tracking devices 3D mice Special-purpose devices Direct human input


Desktop devices: keyboards

Chord keyboards1

Arm-mounted keyboards2

“Soft” keyboards (logical devices)


Desktop devices: 6-DOF devices

6 DOFs without tracking

Often isometricExs: Fig. 4.4

SpaceBall 5000, SpaceMouse Plus, SpaceOrb


Motion Tracking

Critical characteristics Range, latency, jitter (noise or instability), and

accuracy Different motion trackers

Magnetic Mechanical Acoustic Inertial Optical Hybrid


Electromagnetic trackers

Exs: Polhemus Fastrak, Ascension Flock of Birds

Most common Used with conventional

monitors (for fishtank VR) Small workbench displays

Transmitter Receiver(s) Noisy Affected by metal objects ->

distort the magnetic field


Inertial trackers

Exs: Intersense IS-300, Intertrax2

Less noise, lag Only 3 DOFs

(orientation)


Optical/vision-based trackers

Exs: Vicon, HiBall, ARToolkit Advantages

accurate can capture a large volume allow for untethered tracking

Disadvantages may require light emitting

diodes(LEDs) image processing techniques occlusion problem


Hybrid tracking

Ex: IS-600 / 900 inertial (orient.) acoustic (pos.) additional

complexity, cost


Tracking devices: eye tracking


Tracking devices: bend-sensing gloves CyberGlove7, 5DT Reports hand

posture Gesture:

single postureseries of posturesposture(s) + location

or motion


Tracking devices: pinch gloves

Conductive cloth at fingertips

Any gesture of 2 to 10 fingers, plus combinations of gestures

> 115,000 gestures


Case study: Pinch Gloves

Pinch gloves are designed to be a combination device (add a position tracker)

Very little has been done with Pinch Gloves in VEs - usually 1 or 2 gestures for:Object selectionTool selectionTravel


Characteristics of Pinch Gloves

Relatively low costVery lightUser’s hand becomes the deviceUser’s hand posture can changeAllow two-handed interactionHuge number of possible gestures


Characteristics of Pinch Gloves II

Much more reliable than data glovesSupport eyes-off inputCan diminish “Heisenberg effect”Support context-sensitive gesture

interpretation


Pinch Gloves in SmartScene13

Lots of two-handed gesturesScale worldRotate worldTravel by “grabbing

the air”Menu selection


Pinch Gloves for menus

TULIP system14

ND hand selects menu, D hand selects item within menu

Limited to comfortable gestures

Visual feedback on virtual hands


Pinch Gloves for text input

Pinch Keyboard14

Emulate QWERTY Pinch finger to thumb to

type letter under that finger

Move/rotate hands to change active letters

Visual feedback


3D mice

Ring Mouse Fly Mouse Wand Cubic Mouse Dragonfly …


Special-purpose devices: using conductive clothVirtual toolbelt

Used to select virtual toolsGood use of proprioceptive cues

Interaction slippers3

Step on displayed optionsClick heels to “go home”


Special-purpose devices: Painting Table4


Special-purpose devices: ShapeTape11


Human input: speech

Frees handsAllows multimodal inputNo special hardwareSpecialized softwareIssues: recognition, ambient noise,

training, false positives, …


Human input: Bioelectric Control


Human input: Body Sensing Devices


More human input

Breathing device - OSMOSE

Brain-body actuated controlmuscle movements thoughts!


Locomotion devices

TreadmillsStationary cyclesVMC / magic carpetWalking/flying simulations (use

trackers)


UNIPORT

First Locomotion Device For U.S. Army (1994)

Proof-of-concept demonstration

Developed in six weeks Difficult to change direction

of travel Small motions such as side-

stepping are impossible


Treadport

Developed in 1995 Based on a standard

treadmill with the user being monitored and constrained by mechanical attachment to the user’s waist

User actually walks or jogs instead of pedaling

Physical movement is constrained to one direction


Individual Soldier Mobility Simulator (Biport) Most sophisticated locomotion

device Designed for the conduct of

locomotion studies Hydraulic-based locomotion

driven w/ force sensors at the feet

Safeguards limited responsiveness

Too awkward to operate


Omni-Directional Treadmill15,16

Most recently developed locomotion device for U.S. Army

Revolutionary device that enables bipedal locomotion in any direction of travel

Consists of two perpendicular treadmills Two fundamental types of movement

User initiated movementSystem initiated movement


Torus treadmill


ODT video


Virtual Motion Controller17

Weight sensors in platform sense user’s position over platform

Step in direction to move that direction

Step further to go faster


Walking in place18,19

Analyze tracker information from head, body, feet

Neural network (Slater)GAITER project (Templeman)Shown to be better than purely

virtual movement, but worse than real walking20


Classification of locomotion devices/techniques

Virtual turning Real turning

Virtual motion

Desktop VEsVehicle simulators

CAVE wand

Most HMD systemsWalking in place

VMC

Real motion

Stationary cyclesTreadport

Biport

Wide-area trackingUNIPORT

ODT


Input and output with a single deviceClassic example - touch screenLCD tablets or PDAs with pen-based

inputPhantom haptic deviceFEELEX haptic device21


PDA as ideal VE device?22

Offers both input and outputHas on-board memoryWireless communicationPortable, light, robustAllows text / number inputCan be tracked to allow spatial input


Conclusions

When choosing a device, consider: Cost Generality DOFs Ergonomics / human factors Typical scenarios of use Output devices Interaction techniques


Acknowledgments

Joe LaViola, Brown University, for slides and discussions

Ron Spencer, presentation on locomotion devices used by the Army


References [1] Matias, E., MacKenzie, I., & Buxton, W. (1993). Half-QWERTY: A One-handed Keyboard Facilitating Skill Transfer from

QWERTY. Proceedings of ACM INTERCHI, 88-94. [2] Thomas, B., Tyerman, S., & Grimmer, K. (1998). Evaluation of Text Input Mechanisms for Wearable Computers. Virtual Reality:

Research, Development, and Applications, 3, 187-199. [3] LaViola, J., Acevedo, D., Keefe, D., & Zeleznik, R. (2001). Hands-Free Multi-Scale Navigation in Virtual Environments.

Proceedings of ACM Symposium on Interactive 3D Graphics, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 9-15. [4] Keefe, D., Feliz, D., Moscovich, T., Laidlaw, D., & LaViola, J. (2001). CavePainting: A Fully Immersive 3D Artistic Medium and

Interactive Experience. Proceedings of ACM Symposium on Interactive 3D Graphics, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 85-93.

[5] Bowman, D., Wineman, J., Hodges, L., & Allison, D. (1998). Designing Animal Habitats Within an Immersive VE. IEEE Computer Graphics & Applications, 18(5), 9-13.

[6] Hinckley, K., Pausch, R., Goble, J., & Kassell, N. (1994). Passive Real-World Interface Props for Neurosurgical Visualization. Proceedings of CHI: Human Factors in Computing Systems, 452-458.

[7] Kessler, G., Hodges, L., & Walker, N. (1995). Evaluation of the CyberGlove(TM) as a Whole Hand Input Device. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 2(4), 263-283.

[8] LaViola, J., & Zeleznik, R. (1999). Flex and Pinch: A Case Study of Whole-Hand Input Design for Virtual Environment Interaction. Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Graphics and Imaging, 221-225.

[9] Ware, C., & Jessome, D. (1988). Using the Bat: a Six-Dimensional Mouse for Object Placement. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 8(6), 65-70.

[10] Zeleznik, R. C., Herndon, K. P., Robbins, D. C., Huang, N., Meyer, T., Parker, N., & Hughes, J. F. (1993). An Interactive 3D Toolkit for Constructing 3D Widgets. Proceedings of ACM SIGGRAPH, Anaheim, CA, USA, 81-84.


References (2) [11] Balakrishnan, R., Fitzmaurice, G., Kurtenbach, G., & Singh, K. (1999). Exploring Interactive Curve and Surface Manipulation

Using a Bend and Twist Sensitive Input Strip. Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Interactive 3D Graphics, 111-118. [12] Froehlich, B., & Plate, J. (2000). The Cubic Mouse: A New Device for Three-Dimensional Input. Proceedings of ACM CHI. [13] Mapes, D., & Moshell, J. (1995). A Two-Handed Interface for Object Manipulation in Virtual Environments. Presence:

Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 4(4), 403-416. [14] Bowman, D., Wingrave, C., Campbell, J., & Ly, V. (2001). Using Pinch Gloves for both Natural and Abstract Interaction

Techniques in Virtual Environments. Proceedings of HCI International, New Orleans, Louisiana. [15] Darken, R., Cockayne, W., & Carmein, D. (1997). The Omni-directional Treadmill: A Locomotion Device for Virtual Worlds.

Proceedings of ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, 213-221. [16] Iwata, H. (1999). Walking About Virtual Environments on an Infinite Floor. Proceedings of IEEE Virtual Reality, Houston, Texas,

286-293. [17] Wells, M., Peterson, B., & Aten, J. (1996). The Virtual Motion Controller: A Sufficient-Motion Walking Simulator. Proceedings of

IEEE Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium, 1-8. [18] Slater, M., Usoh, M., & Steed, A. (1995). Taking Steps: The Influence of a Walking Technique on Presence in Virtual Reality.

ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 2(3), 201-219. [19] Slater, M., Steed, A., & Usoh, M. (1995). The Virtual Treadmill: A Naturalistic Metaphor for Navigation in Immersive Virtual

Environments, Virtual Environments '95: Selected Papers of the Eurographics Workshops (pp. 135-148). New York: SpringerWien. [20] Usoh, M., Arthur, K., Whitton, M., Bastos, R., Steed, A., Slater, M., & Brooks, F. (1999). Walking > Walking-in-Place > Flying, in

Virtual Environments. Proceedings of ACM SIGGRAPH, 359-364.


References (3) [21] Iwata, H., Yano, H., Nakaizumi, F., & Kawamura, R. (2001). Project FEELEX: adding haptic surface to graphics. Proceedings of ACM

SIGGRAPH, Los Angeles, 469-476. [22] Watsen, K., Darken, R., & Capps, M. (1999). A Handheld Computer as an Interaction Device to a Virtual Environment. Proceedings of the

Third Immersive Projection Technology Workshop. [23] Zhai, S. (1998). User Performance in Relation to 3D Input Device Design. Computer Graphics, 32(4), 50-54.

Documents

VE Input Devices