Literature DB >> 33501066

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

Priyanka Srivastava1, Anurag Rimzhim2,3, Palash Vijay1, Shruti Singh1, Sushil Chandra4.   

Abstract

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.
Copyright © 2019 Srivastava, Rimzhim, Vijay, Singh and Chandra.

Entities:  

Keywords:  HMD; desktop; immersion; locomotion; motion-sickness; spatial knowledge; virtual reality; workload

Year:  2019        PMID: 33501066      PMCID: PMC7805926          DOI: 10.3389/frobt.2019.00050

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Front Robot AI        ISSN: 2296-9144


  21 in total

1.  Modulation of focused attention by faces expressing emotion: evidence from flanker tasks.

Authors:  Mark J Fenske; John D Eastwood
Journal:  Emotion       Date:  2003-12

2.  Evaluating display fidelity and interaction fidelity in a virtual reality game.

Authors:  Ryan P McMahan; Doug A Bowman; David J Zielinski; Rachael B Brady
Journal:  IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 4.579

3.  Time course of visual attention across perceptual levels and objects.

Authors:  Priyanka Srivastava; Devpriya Kumar; Narayanan Srinivasan
Journal:  Acta Psychol (Amst)       Date:  2010-11

Review 4.  A Guide to Robust Statistical Methods in Neuroscience.

Authors:  Rand R Wilcox; Guillaume A Rousselet
Journal:  Curr Protoc Neurosci       Date:  2018-01-22

5.  Active and passive spatial learning in human navigation: acquisition of graph knowledge.

Authors:  Elizabeth R Chrastil; William H Warren
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2014-11-24       Impact factor: 3.051

Review 6.  What determines our navigational abilities?

Authors:  Thomas Wolbers; Mary Hegarty
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2010-02-06       Impact factor: 20.229

7.  Active and passive spatial learning in human navigation: acquisition of survey knowledge.

Authors:  Elizabeth R Chrastil; William H Warren
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2013-04-08       Impact factor: 3.051

8.  Ecological validity of virtual environments to assess human navigation ability.

Authors:  Ineke J M van der Ham; Annemarie M E Faber; Matthijs Venselaar; Marc J van Kreveld; Maarten Löffler
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2015-05-27

9.  From cognitive maps to cognitive graphs.

Authors:  Elizabeth R Chrastil; William H Warren
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-11-12       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 10.  The Use of Virtual Reality in Psychology: A Case Study in Visual Perception.

Authors:  Christopher J Wilson; Alessandro Soranzo
Journal:  Comput Math Methods Med       Date:  2015-08-03       Impact factor: 2.238

View more
  1 in total

1.  Systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis on virtual reality and education.

Authors:  Mario A Rojas-Sánchez; Pedro R Palos-Sánchez; José A Folgado-Fernández
Journal:  Educ Inf Technol (Dordr)       Date:  2022-06-27
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.