4.7 Article

The Effects of Avatars, Stereo Vision and Display Size on Reaching and Motion Reproduction

期刊

出版社

IEEE COMPUTER SOC
DOI: 10.1109/TVCG.2015.2440231

关键词

Virtual reality; 3D interaction; avatars; motion capture; perception; training systems

资金

  1. US National Science Foundation (NSF) [CNS-1305196]
  2. HSRI San Joaquin Valley eHealth Network seed grant - ATT
  3. Direct For Computer & Info Scie & Enginr
  4. Division Of Computer and Network Systems [1305196] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Thanks to recent advances on motion capture devices and stereoscopic consumer displays, animated virtual characters can now realistically interact with users in a variety of applications. We investigate in this paper the effect of avatars, stereo vision and display size on task execution in immersive virtual environments. We report results obtained with three experiments in varied configurations that are commonly used in rehabilitation applications. The first experiment analyzes the accuracy of reaching tasks under different system configurations: with and without an avatar, with and without stereo vision, and employing a 2D desktop monitor versus a large multi-tile visualization display. The second experiment analyzes the use of avatars and user-perspective stereo vision on the ability to perceive and subsequently reproduce motions demonstrated by an autonomous virtual character. The third experiment evaluates the overall user experience with a complete immersive user interface for motion modeling by direct demonstration. Our experiments expose and quantify the benefits of using stereo vision and avatars, and show that the use of avatars improve the quality of produced motions and the resemblance of replicated msotions; however, direct interaction in user-perspective leads to tasks executed in less time and to targets more accurately reached. These and additional tradeoffs are important for the effective design of avatar-based training systems.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据