Cargando…

Desktop VR Is Better Than Non-ambulatory HMD VR for Spatial Learning

Use of virtual reality (VR) technology is proliferating for designing and upgrading entertainment devices, and creating virtual environments that could be used for research and training. VR is becoming a strong research tool by providing a tighter control on the experimental environment and by allow...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Srivastava, Priyanka, Rimzhim, Anurag, Vijay, Palash, Singh, Shruti, Chandra, Sushil
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7805926/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33501066
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2019.00050
_version_ 1783636414067376128
author Srivastava, Priyanka
Rimzhim, Anurag
Vijay, Palash
Singh, Shruti
Chandra, Sushil
author_facet Srivastava, Priyanka
Rimzhim, Anurag
Vijay, Palash
Singh, Shruti
Chandra, Sushil
author_sort Srivastava, Priyanka
collection PubMed
description Use of virtual reality (VR) technology is proliferating for designing and upgrading entertainment devices, and creating virtual environments that could be used for research and training. VR is becoming a strong research tool by providing a tighter control on the experimental environment and by allowing almost limitless possibilities of creating ecologically valid stimuli. However, the enhanced fidelity between the real and virtual worlds that VR provides does not always benefit human performance. For a better understanding, and increasing VR's usability, we need to identify the relevant constituent components of immersive technologies, and differentiate their roles, for example, how visual and interaction fidelity differentially improves human performance. We conducted an experiment to examine how two common VR display modes, head mounted display (HMD) and desktop (DT), would affect spatial learning when we restrict ambulatory locomotion in HMD. This manipulation allowed examining the role of varying visual fidelity with low interaction fidelity. We used a between-group design with 40 naïve participants. They explored a virtual environment and later drew its sketch-map. Our results showed participants spent more time and perceived less motion-sickness and task effort using desktop than HMD VR. With reduced interaction fidelity, the high visual fidelity of HMD as compared to desktop resulted in similar or poorer performance on different spatial learning tasks after accounting for motion-sickness and workload effort. Participants were better in recalling spatial components related to junction and cyclic order of the navigated virtual space in desktop vs. HMD VR, and performed equally well on components related to street segments and object associations. We explain these results in terms of deficient idiothetic information in non-ambulatory HMD and lesser sensory conflicts in desktop mode. Overall, our results highlight the differential effect of visual vs. interaction fidelity on human performance based on using immersive technologies, how such an effect depends on the nature of cognitive and functional behavior users employ, and the higher usability of traditional desktop VR. These results are relevant for developing customized and sustainable virtual reality based human-computer interactions.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7805926
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-78059262021-01-25 Desktop VR Is Better Than Non-ambulatory HMD VR for Spatial Learning Srivastava, Priyanka Rimzhim, Anurag Vijay, Palash Singh, Shruti Chandra, Sushil Front Robot AI Robotics and AI Use of virtual reality (VR) technology is proliferating for designing and upgrading entertainment devices, and creating virtual environments that could be used for research and training. VR is becoming a strong research tool by providing a tighter control on the experimental environment and by allowing almost limitless possibilities of creating ecologically valid stimuli. However, the enhanced fidelity between the real and virtual worlds that VR provides does not always benefit human performance. For a better understanding, and increasing VR's usability, we need to identify the relevant constituent components of immersive technologies, and differentiate their roles, for example, how visual and interaction fidelity differentially improves human performance. We conducted an experiment to examine how two common VR display modes, head mounted display (HMD) and desktop (DT), would affect spatial learning when we restrict ambulatory locomotion in HMD. This manipulation allowed examining the role of varying visual fidelity with low interaction fidelity. We used a between-group design with 40 naïve participants. They explored a virtual environment and later drew its sketch-map. Our results showed participants spent more time and perceived less motion-sickness and task effort using desktop than HMD VR. With reduced interaction fidelity, the high visual fidelity of HMD as compared to desktop resulted in similar or poorer performance on different spatial learning tasks after accounting for motion-sickness and workload effort. Participants were better in recalling spatial components related to junction and cyclic order of the navigated virtual space in desktop vs. HMD VR, and performed equally well on components related to street segments and object associations. We explain these results in terms of deficient idiothetic information in non-ambulatory HMD and lesser sensory conflicts in desktop mode. Overall, our results highlight the differential effect of visual vs. interaction fidelity on human performance based on using immersive technologies, how such an effect depends on the nature of cognitive and functional behavior users employ, and the higher usability of traditional desktop VR. These results are relevant for developing customized and sustainable virtual reality based human-computer interactions. Frontiers Media S.A. 2019-07-09 /pmc/articles/PMC7805926/ /pubmed/33501066 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2019.00050 Text en Copyright © 2019 Srivastava, Rimzhim, Vijay, Singh and Chandra. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Robotics and AI
Srivastava, Priyanka
Rimzhim, Anurag
Vijay, Palash
Singh, Shruti
Chandra, Sushil
Desktop VR Is Better Than Non-ambulatory HMD VR for Spatial Learning
title Desktop VR Is Better Than Non-ambulatory HMD VR for Spatial Learning
title_full Desktop VR Is Better Than Non-ambulatory HMD VR for Spatial Learning
title_fullStr Desktop VR Is Better Than Non-ambulatory HMD VR for Spatial Learning
title_full_unstemmed Desktop VR Is Better Than Non-ambulatory HMD VR for Spatial Learning
title_short Desktop VR Is Better Than Non-ambulatory HMD VR for Spatial Learning
title_sort desktop vr is better than non-ambulatory hmd vr for spatial learning
topic Robotics and AI
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7805926/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33501066
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2019.00050
work_keys_str_mv AT srivastavapriyanka desktopvrisbetterthannonambulatoryhmdvrforspatiallearning
AT rimzhimanurag desktopvrisbetterthannonambulatoryhmdvrforspatiallearning
AT vijaypalash desktopvrisbetterthannonambulatoryhmdvrforspatiallearning
AT singhshruti desktopvrisbetterthannonambulatoryhmdvrforspatiallearning
AT chandrasushil desktopvrisbetterthannonambulatoryhmdvrforspatiallearning