Specimen Box: A Tangible Interaction Technique for World-Fixed - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶

Nov 19, 2022 332 likes •600 views

Specimen Box: A Tangible Interaction Technique for World-Fixed Virtual Reality Displays Regis Kopper David J. Zielinski Derek Nankivil Dept. of Mechanical Engineering Duke immersive Virtual Environment Dept. of Biomedical Engineering and

SLIDE 1

Specimen Box: A Tangible Interaction Technique for World-Fixed Virtual Reality Displays

Regis Kopper

Dept. of Mechanical Engineering

and Materials Science Duke University, USA

David J. Zielinski

Duke immersive Virtual Environment Duke University, USA

Derek Nankivil

Dept. of Biomedical Engineering

Duke University, USA

SLIDE 2

Let’s discuss some terminology and background…

SLIDE 3

Some terminology:

World-Fixed Displays

(Jerald 2015)

CAVE-type displays Powerwalls Domes

Head-Mounted Displays Hand-held Displays

SLIDE 4

Why World-Fixed Displays?

Social group experience Extremely high frame rates

> 1000 fps via DLP projectors (lincoln 2016)

Autostereoscopy

completely unencumbered

peration

(peterka 2007)

Increased presence and reduced simulator sickness

(Juan 2009, Kim 2014)

SLIDE 5

Tangible Interaction in World-Fixed Displays

Interaction in VR often indirect

Tangible interfaces elicit more realistic responses

(Insko 2001)

SLIDE 6

Prior Passive Haptic Interfaces

Translucent Sketchpad (Encarnacao 1999) Virtual Palette (Coquillart 1999)

Clear plastic “tablet” type interface
Tangible interface in a world-fixed display
Flat content, not volumetric

SLIDE 7

More Prior Passive Haptic Interfaces

“Object Oriented Displays” give tangibility
Diffcult to see scene behind objects

Project onto objects

(Inami 1999, Kawakami 2000)

IP lenses for autostereo

(Lopez-Gulliver 2008)

SLIDE 8

Proposed Technique: Specimen Box

Inspiration: Historical “Specimen Jars” Late 1700s.

Clear acrylic box
User can touch the box
Can't reach contents

Normally hard to do tangible interfaces in world-fixed systems, as they are visible to user.

SLIDE 9

Virtual Reality Display Apparatus

Duke University DiVE
12 Christie WU7K-M projectors

(1920x1920 per wall)

Active Stereo.

120hz / 60fps effective

Intersense IS-900 LT tracking

SLIDE 10

Experimental Comparison

“Grab-and-Twirl” (Cutler 1997)

Line created between hands
Additional rotation around the line
6-DOF

Specimen Box

26 cm (10.2 in), 2.1 kg (4.6 lbs)
$100 USD
Tethered tracking sensor

SLIDE 11

Let’s see the experimental conditions !

SLIDE 12

Cognitively Loaded Inspection Task

“Stroop Effect” (1935) Red Red congruent incongruent Face Counting Task 3 Levels of Difficulty congruent

w/ no distractors

congruent

w/ congruent distractors (all faces filled)

incongruent

w/ incongruent distractors (all faces filled) Example Questions: How many faces have words colored green? Have many faces have the word green?

SLIDE 13

Experimental Design

36 trials per interaction technique

Grab and Twirl (GT) Specimen Box (SB) Specimen Box (SB) Grab and Twirl (GT)

10 Subjects 10 Subjects

Specimen Box (SB) Grab and Twirl (GT)

12 12 12

SLIDE 14

Data Analysis

4-way mixed ANOVA

○ 3 within-subjects factors (interaction technique, difficulty, trial) ○ 1 between-subjects factor (ordering) ○ 3 Measures (time, rotation rate, translation rate)

Vast majority of trials were accurate (98.5%), so did not

perform analysis on accuracy metric.

SLIDE 15

Difficulty: Incongruent is Harder

Significant Main effect for Time

p<.01

Pairwise comparisons significant between D1 and D3

p<.05

Replicates Stroop effect

SLIDE 16

Specimen Box Faster, Less Rotation

Specimen box: time

significantly lower p<.05

rotation

significantly lower p<.0001

translation (not pictured)

not significant p=.984

SLIDE 17

Interesting Interaction Effects

No main effect of ordering p=.55

(e.g if second device was always faster)

However, significant interaction

f ordering + IT p<.005

Pairwise comparisons show: GT first = SB Faster p<.0001 SB first = not significant p=.253

SLIDE 18

Subjective Survey Responses

Presence: higher presence with Grab-and-Twirl p<0.05

(3 questions from SUS)

Overall Preference: 70% preferred Grab-and-Twirl Freeform comments: 70% box was too heavy

SLIDE 19

SB Faster and Less Rotation?

Specimen Box faster:

Accuracy of user’s movements?
Less overshoot?
Proprioception?
Need additional experiments!

Specimen Box rotation less:

Avoid spending additional energy

with weighted object?

Good for training transfer?

SLIDE 20

Learning Effects?

When Specimen Box was first, did it help prime the user? Teach them a more optimal strategy, to then use with Grab-and-Twirl?

SLIDE 21

Specimen Box Showed Lower Presence?

Could presence be higher in

Grab-and-Twirl because world is entirely virtual?

Could box limitations

(especially weight) be too distracting?

Box moves immediately, but

virtual content is lagged.

More experiments are

needed!

SLIDE 22

Limitations

Box was too heavy (2.1kg)

Could make walls thinner, make box smaller.

Reflections on Box Walls

Anti-reflection coatings? Could be expensive.

Visible Tracking Sensor

As tracking systems get smaller, may not be an issue. Could also utilize different tracking system (camera based?)

Occlusion from User’s Hand

Most of the time the user held box on the sides. A problem in general with world-fixed displays.

SLIDE 23

Extensions to the Paradigm

Multiple Boxes, Multiple Sizes Spherical Shape

more expensive more refraction issues

SLIDE 24

Conclusions

Tangible interaction possibility

for world-fixed display systems

Specimen Box outperformed a virtual

technique in our inspection task.

Experience with Specimen Box increased

performance of the virtual counterpart.

Future Work

Compare to other interaction techniques
More ecologically valid inspection task
Manipulation of objects beyond rotation

(translation + placement)

SLIDE 25