A comparison of immersive HMD, fish tank VR and fish tank with haptics displays for volume visualization

ABSTRACT

Although a wide range of virtual reality (VR) systems are in use, there are few guidelines to help system and application developers select the components most appropriate for the domain problem they are investigating. Using the results of an empirical study, we developed such guidelines for the choice of display environment for four specific, but common, volume visualization problems: identification and judgment of the size, shape, density, and connectivity of objects present in a volume. These tasks are derived from questions being asked by collaborators studying Cystic Fibrosis (CF). We compared user performance in three different stereo VR systems: (1) head-mounted display (HMD); (2) fish tank VR (fish tank); and (3) fish tank VR augmented with a haptic device (haptic). HMD participants were placed "inside" the volume and walked within it to explore its structure. Fish tank and haptic participants saw the entire volume on-screen and rotated it to view it from different perspectives. Response time and accuracy were used to measure performance. Results showed that the fish tank and haptic groups were significantly more accurate at judging the shape, density, and connectivity of objects and completed the tasks significantly faster than the HMD group. Although the fish tank group was itself significantly faster than the haptic group, there were no statistical differences in accuracy between the two. Participants classified the HMD system as an "inside-out" display (looking outwards from inside the volume), and the fish tank and haptic systems as "outside-in" displays (looking inwards from outside the volume). Including haptics added an inside-out capability to the fish tank system through the use of touch. We recommend an outside-in system because it offers both overview and context, two visual properties that are important for the volume visualization tasks we studied. In addition, based on the haptic group's opinion (80% positive) that haptic feedback aided comprehension, we recommend supplementing the outside-in visual display with inside-out haptics when possible.

References

1. Arthur, K. W., Booth, K. S., and Ware, C. 1993. Evaluating 3D task performance for fish tank virtual worlds. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst 11, 3, 239--265.
2. Bowman, D. A., Datey, A., Ryu, Y. S., Farooq, U., and Vasnaik, O. 2002. Empirical comparison of human behavior and performance with different display devices for virtual environments. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 2134--2138.
3. Brederson, J., Ikits, M., Johnson, C., and Hansen, C. 2000. The visual haptic workbench. In Proceedings of PHAN-ToM Users Group Workshop, Aspen, CO, 46--49.
4. Brooks, F., Ouh-Young, M., Batter, J., and Kilpatrick, P. 1990. Project GROPE - haptic displays for scientific visualization. Computer Graphics 24, 4, 177--185.
5. Brooks, F. P. 1999. What's real about virtual reality? IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications. 19, 16--27.
6. Bryson, S. 1996. Virtual reality in scientific visualization. Comm. ACM 39, 62--71.
7. Burdea, G. 1996. Force and Touch Feedback for Virtual Reality. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., NY.
8. Cruz-Neira, C., Sandin, D., and DeFanti, T. 1993. Surround-screen projection-based virtual reality: The design and implementation of the CAVE. ACM Computer Graphics 27, 2 (July), 135--142.
9. Demiralp, C., Laidlaw, D. H., Jackson, C., Keefe, D., and Zhang, S. 2003. Subjective usefulness of CAVE and Fish Tank VR display systems for a scientific visualization application. In Proceedings of IEEE Visualization, IEEE Press, Seattle, WA, USA.
10. Ernst, M., and Banks, M. 2002. Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion. Nature 415, 6870, 429--433.
11. Hansen, C. D., and Johnson, C. R. 2004. The Visualization Handbook. Elsevier Butterworth Heinemann, Massachusetts.
12. Kosara, R., Healey, C. G., Interrante, V., Laidlaw, D. H., and Ware, C. 2003. User studies: Why, how, and when? IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 23, 4, 20--25.
13. Kreuger, W., Bohn, C., Froehlich, B., Schueth, H., Strauss, W., and Wesche, G. 1995. The responsive work-bench: A virtual work environment. IEEE Computer. 28, 7 (July), 42--48.
14. Lundin, K., Ynnerman, A., and Gudmundsson, B. 2002. Proxy-based haptic feedback from volumetric density data. In Proc. of Eurohaptics 2002, 104--109.
15. Meehan, M., Whitton, M., and Jr., F. P. B. 2002. Physiological measures of presence in stressful virtual environments. In Proceedings of ACM SIGGRAPH 2002, vol. 21, 645--652.
16. Oman, C. M., Shebilske, W. L., Richards, J. T., Tubr, T. C., Beall1, A. C., and Natapoff, A. 2000. Three dimensional spatial memory and learning in real and virtual environments., Spatial Cognition and Computation 2, 4, 355--372.
17. Razzaque, S. Z., and Whitton, M. 2001. Redirected walking. In Proceedings of Eurographics 2001, ACM Press/ACM SIGGRAPH, Manchester, ACM, 289--294.
18. Schroeder, W. J., Avila, L. S., and Hoffman, W. 2000. Visualizing with VTK: A tutorial. IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl. 20, 5, 20--27.
19. Schulze, J., Forsberg, A., Kleppe, R. Z., and Laidlaw, D. H. 2005. Characterizing the effect of level of immersion on a 3D marking task. In Proceedings of HCI International, HCI International, 447--452.
20. Sutherland, I. 1968. A head-mounted three-dimensional display. In Proceeding of the Fall Joint Computer Conference, AFIPS, 757--764.
21. Taylor, R. M., Chen, J., Okimoto, S., Llopis-Artime, N., Chi, V. L., Brooks, F. P., and et al;. 1997. Pearls found on the way to the ideal interface for scanned-probe microscopes. In Proceedings of Proceedings of IEEE Visualization, IEEE Computer Society Press., 467--470.
22. Taylor, R. M., Hudson, T. C., Seeger, A., Weber, H., Juliano, J., and Helser, A. T. 2001. VRPN: a device-independent, network-transparent VR peripheral system. In VRST '01: Proceedings of the ACM symposium on Virtual reality software and technology, ACM Press, New York, NY, USA, 55--61.
23. Ware, C., and Franck, G. 1996. Evaluating stereo and motion cues for visualizing information nets in three dimensions. ACM Trans. Graph. 15, 2, 121--140.
24. Ware, C., Arthur, K., and Booth, K. 1993. Fish tank virtual reality. In Proceedings of CHI 93, ACM and IFIP, 37--42.

Index Terms

• Computing methodologies

  • Computer graphics

    • Graphics systems and interfaces

      • Virtual reality

• Human-centered computing

  • Human computer interaction (HCI)