skip to main content
research-article

The Effects on Driving Behavior When Using a Head-mounted Display in a Dynamic Driving Simulator

Authors Info & Claims
Published:06 January 2022Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Driving simulators are established tools used during automotive development and research. Most simulators use either monitors or projectors as their primary display system. However, the emergence of a new generation of head-mounted displays has triggered interest in using these as the primary display type. The general benefits and drawbacks of head-mounted displays are well researched, but their effect on driving behavior in a simulator has not been sufficiently quantified.

This article presents a study of driving behavior differences between projector-based graphics and head-mounted display in a large dynamic driving simulator. This study has selected five specific driving maneuvers suspected of affecting driving behavior differently depending on the choice of display technology. Some of these maneuvers were chosen to reveal changes in lateral and longitudinal driving behavior. Others were picked for their ability to highlight the benefits and drawbacks of head-mounted displays in a driving context.

The results show minor changes in lateral and longitudinal driver behavior changes when comparing projectors and a head-mounted display. The most noticeable difference in favor of projectors was seen when the display resolution is critical to the driving task. The choice of display type did not affect simulator sickness nor the realism rated by the subjects.

REFERENCES

  1. [1] Aykent Baris, Merienne Frederic, and Kemeny Andras. 2015. Effect of VR device-HMD and screen display- on the sickness for driving simulation. In Proceedings of the Driving Simulation Conference. Driving Simulation Association, 235236.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. [2] Benz Tobias M., Riedl Bernhard, and Chuang Lewis L.. 2019. Projection displays induce less simulator sickness than head-mounted displays in a real vehicle driving simulator. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (AutomotiveUI’19). ACM Press, New York, NY, 379387. DOI: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3342197.3344515Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. [3] Berg Leif P. and Vance Judy M.. 2017. Industry use of virtual reality in product design and manufacturing: A survey. Virt. Real. 21, 1 (Mar. 2017), 117. DOI: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-016-0293-9Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. [4] Blissing Björn and Bruzelius Fredrik. 2018. Exploring the suitability of virtual reality for driving simulation. In Proceedings of the Driving Simulation Conference. Driving Simulation Association, 163166.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. [5] Burns Peter C. and Saluäär Dennis. 1999. Intersections between driving in reality and virtual reality (VR). In Proceedings of the Driving Simulation Conference. Driving Simulation Association,153164.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. [6] Carlozzi Noelle E., Gade Venkata, Rizzo Albert “Skip”, and Tulsky David S.. 2013. Using virtual reality driving simulators in persons with spinal cord injury: Three screen display versus head mounted display. Disabil. Rehabil.: Assist. Technol. 8, 2 (Mar. 2013), 176180. DOI: DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/17483107.2012.699990Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. [7] Coates Nick, Ehrette Michel, Hayes Tony, Blackham Geoff, Heidet Alexandre, and Kemeny Andras. 2002. Head-mounted display in driving simulation applications in CARDS. In Proceedings of the Driving Simulation Conference. Driving Simulation Association, 3343.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. [8] Colombet Florent, Kemeny Andras, and George Paul. 2016. Motion sickness comparison between a CAVE and a HMD. In Proceedings of the Driving Simulation Conference. Driving Simulation Association, 201206.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. [9] Fischer Martin, Eriksson Lars, and Oeltze Katharina. 2012. Evaluation of methods for measuring speed perception in a driving simulator. In Proceedings of the Driving Simulation Conference. Driving Simulation Association, 116.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. [10] Foxlin Eric M.. 2000. Head tracking relative to a moving vehicle or simulator platform using differential inertial sensors. In Helmet- and Head-Mounted Displays V, International Society for Optics and Photonics. SPIE, 133144. DOI: 10.1117/12.389141Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. [11] Frank Lawremce H., Casali John G., and Wierwille Walter W.. 1988. Effects of visual display and motion system delays on operator performance and uneasiness in a driving simulator. Hum. Factors 30, 2 (1988), 201217. DOI: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/001872088803000207Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. [12] Glaser Sébastien, Judalet Vincent, Gruyer Dominique, Orfila Olivier, and Pechberti Steve. 2013. Virtual reality HMD for the test of ADAS system. In Future Active Safety Technology toward Zero Traffic Accidents. Nagoya, Japan.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. [13] Grabe Volker, Pretto Paolo, Giordano Paolo Robuffo, and Bülthoff Heinrich H. 2010. Influence of display type on drivers’ performance in a motion-based driving simulator. In Proceedings of the Driving Simulation Conference. Driving Simulation Association, 8188.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. [14] Harris L. R., Jenkin M. R., Zikovitz D., Redlick F., Jaekl P., Jasiobedzka U. T., Jenkin H. L., and Allison R. S.. 2002. Simulating self-motion I: Cues for the perception of motion. Virt. Real. 6, 2 (Sep. 2002), 7585. DOI: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s100550200008Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. [15] Hartfiel Bert and Stark Rainer. 2019. Influence of vestibular cues in head-mounted display-based driving simulators. In Proceedings of the Driving Simulation Conference. Driving Simulation Association, 2532.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. [16] Jerald Jason J., Whitton Mary C., and Brooks Frederick P.. 2012. Scene-motion thresholds during head yaw for immersive virtual environments. ACM Trans. Appl. Percept. 9, 1 (Mar. 2012), 123. DOI: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2134203.2134207Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. [17] Kemeny Andras. 2014. From driving simulation to virtual reality. In Proceedings of the 2014 Virtual Reality International Conference on (VRIC’14). ACM Press, New York, NY, 15. DOI: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2617841.2620721Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. [18] Kennedy Robert S., Lane Norman E., Berbaum Kevin S., and Lilienthal Michael G.. 1993. Simulator sickness questionnaire: An enhanced method for quantifying simulator sickness. Int. J Aviat. Psychol. 3, 3 (Jul. 1993), 203220. DOI: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327108ijap0303_3Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. [19] Koulieris G. A., Aksit K., Stengel M., Mantiuk R. K., Mania K., and Richardt C.. 2019. Near-Eye display and tracking technologies for virtual and augmented reality. Comput. Graph. Forum 38, 2 (May 2019), 493519. DOI: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cgf.13654Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. [20] Koulieris George-Alex, Bui Bee, Banks Martin S., and Drettakis George. 2017. Accommodation and comfort in head-mounted displays. ACM Trans. Graph. 36, 4 (Jul. 2017), 111. DOI: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3072959.3073622Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. [21] Kreylos Oliver. 2018. The Display Resolution of Head-mounted Displays, Revisited. Retrieved January 29, 2020 from http://doc-ok.org/?p=1694.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. [22] Lassagne Antoine, Kemeny Andras, Posselt Javier, and Merienne Frederic. 2017. Comparing tangible and fully virtual haptic systems for HMI studies in driving situations. In Proceedings of the Driving Simulation Conference. Driving Simulation Association, 163166.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. [23] Mareck Sebastian and Macedo Vitor. 2020. Stationäre Messung der Bildqualität von HMDs. Technical Report 10. Virtual Dimension Center, Fellbach. DOI: DOI: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.13275062Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. [24] Mareck Sebastian, Macedo Vitor, and Runde Christoph. 2020. Head-Mounted Displays: Messung Des Sichtfelds. Technical Report 8. Virtual Dimension Center, Fellbach. DOI: DOI: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.13200149Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. [25] Nordmark Staffan, Jansson Håkan, Palmkvist Göran, and Sehammar Håkan. 2004. The new VTI driving simulator - multi purpose moving base with high performance linear motion. In Proceedings of the Driving Simulation Conference. Driving Simulation Association, 4555.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. [26] Panerai Francesco, Droulez J., Kelada J. M., Kemeny Andras, Balligand E., and Favre B.. 2001. Speed and safety distance control in truck driving: Comparison of simulation and real-world environment. In Proceedings of the Driving Simulation Conference. Driving Simulation Association, 91107.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. [27] Patterson Robert, Winterbottom Marc D., and Pierce Byron J.. 2006. Perceptual issues in the use of head-mounted visual displays. Hum. Factors 48, 3 (Sep. 2006), 555573. DOI: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1518/001872006778606877Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. [28] Reason James T. and Brand Joan J.. 1975. Motion Sickness. Academic Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. [29] Renner Rebekka S., Velichkovsky Boris M., and Helmert Jens R.. 2013. The perception of egocentric distances in virtual environments—A review. Comput. Surv. 46, 212 (2013), 140. DOI: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2543581.2543590Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. [30] Runde Christoph and Mareck Sebastian. 2020. Head Mounted Displays: Dynamische Messungen Der Bildqualität. Technical Report 12. Virtual Dimension Center, Fellbach. DOI: DOI: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.13352699Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. [31] Schill Volkhard, Schmieder Hannsjörg, Bode Christoph, Schulz Thomas, and Luedemann Sven. 2019. New high-end visual system for the daimler motion based simulator. In Product Solutions Book of the Driving Simulation Conference. Driving Simulation Association, 6770.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. [32] Schill Volkhard, Schmieder Hannsjörg, and Gottlieb Wolfgang. 1997. Car research using virtual reality at daimler-benz. In Proceedings of the Driving Simulation Conference. Driving Simulation Association, 3543.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. [33] Communities The Commission of the European. 2013. Official Journal of the European Union. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32009L0112.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. [34] Veen Hendrik A. H. C. Van, Distler Hartwig K., Braun Stephan J., and Bülthoff Heinrich H.. 1998. Navigating through a virtual city: Using virtual reality technology to study human action and perception. Fut. Gener. Comput. Syst. 14, 3–4 (1998), 231242. DOI: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0167-739x(98)00027-2Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. [35] Committee Visual Functions. 1988. Visual acuity measurement standard. Ital. J. Ophthalmol. II/I (1988), 115.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. [36] Weidner Florian, Hoesch Anne, Poeschl Sandra, and Broll Wolfgang. 2017. Comparing VR and non-VR driving simulations: An experimental user study. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality (VR’17). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 281282. DOI: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/VR.2017.7892286Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. [37] Zöller Chris, Müller Andreas, Eggert Lukas, Winner Hermann, and Abendroth Bettina. 2019. Applicability of head-mounted displays in driving simulation. In Proceedings of the Driving Simulation Conference. Driving Simulation Association, 915.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. The Effects on Driving Behavior When Using a Head-mounted Display in a Dynamic Driving Simulator

        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

        Full Access

        • Published in

          cover image ACM Transactions on Applied Perception
          ACM Transactions on Applied Perception  Volume 19, Issue 1
          January 2022
          75 pages
          ISSN:1544-3558
          EISSN:1544-3965
          DOI:10.1145/3505204
          Issue’s Table of Contents

          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 the author(s) 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: 6 January 2022
          • Accepted: 1 August 2021
          • Revised: 1 March 2021
          • Received: 1 January 2020
          Published in tap Volume 19, Issue 1

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article
          • Refereed
        • Article Metrics

          • Downloads (Last 12 months)127
          • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)10

          Other Metrics

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader

        Full Text

        View this article in Full Text.

        View Full Text

        HTML Format

        View this article in HTML Format .

        View HTML Format