skip to main content
10.1145/3131277.3132183acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessuiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Smooth immersion: the benefits of making the transition to virtual environments a continuous process

Published:16 October 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

In this paper we discuss the benefits and the limitations, as well as different implementation options for smooth immersion into a HMD-based IVE. We evaluated our concept in a preliminary user study, in which we have tested users' awareness, reality judgment and experience in the IVE, when using different transition techniques to enter it. Our results show that a smooth transition to the IVE improves the awareness of the user and may increase the perceived interactivity of the system.

References

  1. N. Akkiraju, H. Edelsbrunner, Ping Fu, and Jiang Qian. 1996. Viewing geometric protein structures from inside a CAVE. Computer Graphics and Applications, IEEE 16, 4 (Jul 1996), 58--61. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. P. Backlund, H. Engstrom, C. Hammar, M. Johannesson, and M. Lebram. 2007. Sidh - a Game Based Firefighter Training Simulation. In Information Visualization, 2007. IV '07. 11th International Conference. 899--907. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Rosa María Baños, Cristina Botella, Azucena Garcia-Palacios, Helena Villa Martín, Concepción Perpiñá, and Mariano Alcañiz Raya. 2000. Presence and Reality Judgment in Virtual Environments: A Unitary Construct? Cyberpsy., Behavior, and Soc. Networking 3, 3 (2000), 327--335. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Doug A. Bowman, Elizabeth Thorpe Davis, Larry F. Hodges, and Albert N. Badre. 1999. Maintaining Spatial Orientation during Travel in an Immersive Virtual Environment. Presence 8, 6 (1999), 618--631. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Gerd Bruder, Frank Steinicke, Dimitar Valkov, and Klaus H. Hinrichs. 2010. Augmented Virtual Studio for Architectural Exploration. In Proceedings of the Virtual Reality International Conference (VRIC). IEEE Press, 1--8. http://viscg.uni-muenster.de/publications/2010/BSVH10aGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Lung-Pan Cheng, Thijs Roumen, Hannes Rantzsch, Sven Köhler, Patrick Schmidt, Robert Kovacs, Johannes Jasper, Jonas Kemper, and Patrick Baudisch. 2015. Turk-Deck: Physical Virtual Reality Based on People. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software & Technology (UIST '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 417--426. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Dustin B. Chertoff, Brian Goldiez, and Joseph J. LaViola Jr. 2010. Virtual Experience Test: A virtual environment evaluation questionnaire. In IEEE Virtual Reality Conference, VR 2010, Waltham, Massachusetts, USA, March 20--24, 2010. 103--110. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Dustin B. Chertoff and Sae Lynne Schatz. 2014. Beyond Presence: How Holistic Experience Drives Training and Education. In Handbook of Virtual Environments - Design, Implementation, and Applications, Second Edition. 857--871. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Wijnand A. IJsselsteijn, Jonathan Freeman, and Huib de Ridder. 2001. Presence: Where Are We? Cyberpsy., Behavior, and Soc. Networking 4, 2 (2001), 179--182. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Brent Edward Insko. 2001. Passive Haptics Significantly Enhances Virtual Environments. Ph.D. Dissertation. Advisor(s) Brooks,Jr., Frederick P. AAI3007820.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. V. Interrante, B. Ries, and L. Anderson. 2006. Distance Perception in Immersive Virtual Environments, Revisited. In Virtual Reality Conference, 2006. 3--10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Luv Kohli. 2013. Redirected Touching. Ph.D. Dissertation. Chapel Hill, NC, USA. Advisor(s) Brooks,Jr., Frederick P. AAI3562754.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Luv Kohli, Eric Burns, Dorian Miller, and Henry Fuchs. 2005. Combining Passive Haptics with Redirected Walking. In Proceedings of the 2005 International Conference on Augmented Tele-existence (ICAT '05). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 253--254. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. T C. Peck, H Fuchs, and M C. Whitton. 2011. An Evaluation of Navigational Ability Comparing Redirected Free Exploration with Distractors to Walking-in-Place and Joystick Locomotio Interfaces. In Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE Virtual Reality Conference (VR '11). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, 55--62. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Vaughan Powell and Wendy Anne Powell. 2014. Locating objects in virtual reality âĂŞ the effect of visual properties on target acquisition in unrestrained reaching. In I10th Intl Conf. on Disability, Virtual Reality and Assoc. Technologies.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Michael J. Proulx, Orlin S. Todorov, Amanda Taylor Aiken, and Alexandra A. de Sousa. 2016. Where am I? Who am I? The Relation Between Spatial Cognition, Social Cognition and Individual Differences in the Built Environment. Frontiers in Psychology 7 (2016), 64. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. A. L. Simeone, I. Mavridou, and W. Powell. 2017. Altering User Movement Behaviour in Virtual Environments. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 23, 4 (April 2017), 1312--1321. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Adalberto L. Simeone, Eduardo Velloso, and Hans Gellersen. 2015. Substitutional Reality: Using the Physical Environment to Design Virtual Reality Experiences. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 3307--3316. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. M. Slater, P. Khanna, J. Mortensen, and Insu Yu. 2009. Visual Realism Enhances Realistic Response in an Immersive Virtual Environment. Computer Graphics and Applications, IEEE 29, 3 (May 2009), 76--84. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Mel Slater, Anthony Steed, and J. Marinelli. 1998. The virtual anteroom: Assessing presence through expectation and surprise. In In Eurographics Workshop on Virtual Environments.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Mel Slater, Martin Usoh, and Anthony Steed. 1994. Depth of Presence in Virtual Environments. Presence: Teleoper. Virtual Environ. 3, 2 (Jan. 1994), 130--144. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Misha Sra, Sergio Garrido-Jurado, Chris Schmandt, and Pattie Maes. 2016. Procedurally Generated Virtual Reality from 3D Reconstructed Physical Space. In Proceedings of the 22Nd ACM Conference on Virtual Reality Software and Technology (VRST '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 191--200. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Frank Steinicke, Gerd Bruder, Klaus H. Hinrichs, and Anthony Steed. 2010. Gradual Transitions and their Effects on Presence and Distance Estimation. Computers & Graphics 34, 1 (2010), 26--33. http://viscg.uni-muenster.de/publications/2010/SBHS10 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Frank Steinicke, Gerd Bruder, Anthony Steed, Klaus H. Hinrichs, and Alexander Gerlach. 2009. Does a Gradual Transition to the Virtual World increase Presence?. In Proceedings of the IEEE Virtual Reality (VR 2009). IEEE Press, 203--210. http://viscg.uni-muenster.de/publications/2009/SBSHG09 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. K. Vasylevska and H. Kaufmann. 2017. Towards efficient spatial compression in self-overlapping virtual environments. In 2017 IEEE Symposium on 3D User Interfaces (3DUI). 12--21. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. E. Vonach, C. Gatterer, and H. Kaufmann. 2017. VRRobot: Robot actuated props in an infinite virtual environment. In 2017 IEEE Virtual Reality (VR). 74--83. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. André Zenner and Antonio Krüger. 2017. Shifty: A Weight-Shifting Dynamic Passive Haptic Proxy to Enhance Object Perception in Virtual Reality. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 23, 4 (2017), 1285--1294. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Smooth immersion: the benefits of making the transition to virtual environments a continuous process

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

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

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      SUI '17: Proceedings of the 5th Symposium on Spatial User Interaction
      October 2017
      167 pages
      ISBN:9781450354868
      DOI:10.1145/3131277

      Copyright © 2017 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 16 October 2017

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate86of279submissions,31%

      Upcoming Conference

      SUI '24
      ACM Symposium on Spatial User Interaction
      October 7 - 8, 2024
      Trier , Germany

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader