skip to main content
research-article

Experience Matters: Longitudinal Changes in Sensitivity to Rotational Gains in Virtual Reality

Published:11 November 2022Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Redirected walking techniques use rotational gains to guide users away from physical obstacles as they walk in a virtual world, effectively creating the illusion of a larger virtual space than is physically present. Designers often want to keep users unaware of this manipulation, which is made possible by limitations in human perception that render rotational gains imperceptible below a certain threshold. Many aspects of these thresholds have been studied; however, no research has yet considered whether these thresholds may change over time as users gain more experience with them. To study this, we recruited 20 novice VR users (no more than 1 hour of prior experience with an HMD) and provided them with an Oculus Quest to use for 4 weeks on their own time. They were tasked to complete an activity assessing their sensitivity to rotational gain once each week, in addition to whatever other activities they wanted to perform. No feedback was provided to participants about their performance during each activity, minimizing the possibility of learning effects accounting for any observed changes over time. We observed that participants became significantly more sensitive to rotation gains over time, underscoring the importance of considering prior user experience in applications involving rotational gain, as well as how prior user experience may affect other, broader applications of VR.

REFERENCES

  1. [1] Bailenson Jeremy N. and Yee Nick. 2006. A longitudinal study of task performance, head movements, subjective report, simulator sickness, and transformed social interaction in collaborative virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperat. Virt. Environ. 15, 6 (2006), 699716.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. [2] Bates Douglas, Mächler Martin, Bolker Ben, and Walker Steve. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67, 1 (2015), 148. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. [3] Bingham Geoffrey and Romack Jennifer L.. 1999. The rate of adaptation to displacement prisms remains constant despite acquisition of rapid calibration. J. Exp. Psychol.: Hum. Percept. Perf. 25, 5 (1999), 1331.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. [4] Bingham Geoffrey P. and Pagano Christopher C.. 1998. The necessity of a perception–action approach to definite distance perception: Monocular distance perception to guide reaching. J. Exp. Psychol.: Hum. Percept. Perf. 24, 1 (1998), 145.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. [5] Bruder Gerd, Interrante Victoria, Phillips Lane, and Steinicke Frank. 2012. Redirecting walking and driving for natural navigation in immersive virtual environments. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 18, 4 (2012), 538545.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. [6] Brument Hugo, Marchal Maud, Olivier Anne-Hélène, and Argelaguet Ferran. 2020. Influence of dynamic field of view restrictions on rotation gain perception in virtual environments. In International Conference on Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality. Springer, 2040.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. [7] Dalton Pamela, Doolittle Nadine, and Breslin Paul A. S.. 2002. Gender-specific induction of enhanced sensitivity to odors. Nat. Neurosci. 5, 3 (2002), 199200.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. [8] Mendes Felipe Augusto dos Santos, Pompeu José Eduardo, Lobo Alexandra Modenesi, Silva Keyte Guedes da, Oliveira Tatiana de Paula, Zomignani Andrea Peterson, and Piemonte Maria Elisa Pimentel. 2012. Motor learning, retention and transfer after virtual-reality-based training in Parkinson’s disease—Effect of motor and cognitive demands of games: A longitudinal, controlled clinical study. Physiotherapy 98, 3 (2012), 217223.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. [9] Dużmańska Natalia, Strojny Paweł, and Strojny Agnieszka. 2018. Can simulator sickness be avoided? A review on temporal aspects of simulator sickness. Front. Psychol. 9 (2018), 2132.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. [10] Ebrahimi Elham, Robb Andrew, Hartman Leah S., Pagano Christopher C., and Babu Sabarish V.. 2018. Effects of anthropomorphic fidelity of self-avatars on reach boundary estimation in immersive virtual environments. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM Symposium on Applied Perception. 18.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. [11] Faria A. L., Couras J., Cameirão M. S., Paulino T., Costa G. M., and Badia S. Bermúdez i. 2016. Impact of combined cognitive and motor rehabilitation in a virtual reality task: An on-going longitudinal study in the chronic phase of stroke. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Disability, Virtual Reality and Associated Technologies (ICDVRAT’16). 1–10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. [12] Freeman Daniel, Thompson C., Vorontsova Natasha, Dunn G., Carter L.-A., Garety P., Kuipers E., Slater Mel, Antley Angus, Glucksman Ed, et al. 2013. Paranoia and post-traumatic stress disorder in the months after a physical assault: A longitudinal study examining shared and differential predictors. Psychol. Med. 43, 12 (2013), 26732684.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. [13] Han Eugy, Miller Mark Roman, Ram Nilam, Nowak Kristine L., and Bailenson Jeremy N.. 2022. Understanding group behavior in virtual reality: A large-scale, longitudinal study in the metaverse. In Proceedings of the 72nd Annual International Communication Association Conference.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. [14] Hernandez-Mocholi M. A., Dominguez-Muñoz F. J., Corzo H., Silva S. C. S., Adsuar J. C., and Gusi N.. 2016. Whole body vibration training improves vibration perception threshold in healthy young adults: A randomized clinical trial pilot study. J. Musculoskel. Neuron. Interact. 16, 1 (2016), 12.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. [15] Hill Tanya and Preez Hanneke du. 2021. A longitudinal study of students’ perceptions of immersive virtual reality teaching interventions. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference of the Immersive Learning Research Network (iLRN’21). IEEE, 17.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. [16] Huang Xieyining, Funsch Kensie M., Park Esther C., Conway Paul, Franklin Joseph C., and Ribeiro Jessica D.. 2021. Longitudinal studies support the safety and ethics of virtual reality suicide as a research method. Sci. Rep. 11, 1 (2021), 112.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. [17] 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 (1993), 203220.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. [18] Khojasteh Negar and Won Andrea Stevenson. 2021. Working together on diverse tasks: A longitudinal study on individual workload, presence and emotional recognition in collaborative virtual environments. Front. Virt. Reality 2 (2021), 53.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. [19] Kim Hyun-Jin, Lee Seulki, Jung Dooyoung, Hur Ji-Won, Lee Heon-Jeong, Lee Sungkil, Kim Gerard J, Cho Chung-Yean, Choi Seungmoon, Lee Seung-Moo, et al. 2020. Effectiveness of a participatory and interactive virtual reality intervention in patients With social anxiety disorder: Longitudinal questionnaire study. J. Med. Internet Re. 22, 10 (2020), e23024.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. [20] Kreft Ita G. G., Leeuw Jan De, and Aiken Leona S.. 1995. The effect of different forms of centering in hierarchical linear models. Multivar. Behav. Res. 30, 1 (1995), 121.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. [21] Krueger Charlene and Tian Lili. 2004. A comparison of the general linear mixed model and repeated measures ANOVA using a dataset with multiple missing data points. Biol. Res. Nurs. 6, 2 (2004), 151157.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. [22] Kuhl Scott A., Creem-Regehr Sarah H., and Thompson William B.. 2008. Recalibration of rotational locomotion in immersive virtual environments. ACM Trans. Appl. Percept. 5, 3 (2008), 111.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. [23] Linares Daniel and López-Moliner Joan. 2016. quickpsy: An R package to fit psychometric functions for multiple groups. R J. 8, 1 (2016), 122131. https://journal.r-project.org/archive/2016-1/linares-na.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. [24] Meteyard Lotte and Davies Robert A. I.. 2020. Best practice guidance for linear mixed-effects models in psychological science. J. Memory Lang. 112 (2020), 1–22. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. [25] Moustafa Fares and Steed Anthony. 2018. A longitudinal study of small group interaction in social virtual reality. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology. 110.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. [26] Nilsson Niels Christian, Suma Evan, Nordahl Rolf, Bolas Mark, and Serafin Stefania. 2016. Estimation of detection thresholds for audiovisual rotation gains. In Proceedings of the IEEE Virtual Reality (VR’16). IEEE, 241242.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. [27] Oyanagi Akimi, Narumi Takuji, Aoyama Kazuma, Ito Kenichiro, Amemiya Tomohiro, and Hirose Michitaka. 2021. Impact of long-term use of an avatar to IVBO in the social VR. In International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Springer, 322336.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. [28] Paludan Anders, Elbaek Jacob, Mortensen Mathias, Zobbe Morten, Nilsson Niels Christian, Nordahl Rolf, Reng Lars, and Serafin Stefania. 2016. Disguising rotational gain for redirected walking in virtual reality: Effect of visual density. In Proceedings of the IEEE Virtual Reality (VR’16). IEEE, 259260.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. [29] Peck Tabitha C., Sockol Laura E., and Hancock Sarah M.. 2020. Mind the gap: The underrepresentation of female participants and authors in virtual reality research. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 26, 5 (2020), 19451954.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. [30] Peckmann Carina, Kannen Kyra, Pensel Max C., Lux Silke, Philipsen Alexandra, and Braun Niclas. 2022. Virtual reality induces symptoms of depersonalization and derealization: A longitudinal randomised control trial. Comput. Hum. Behav. 131 (2022), 107233.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. [31] Polat Uri, Ma-Naim Tova, Belkin Michael, and Sagi Dov. 2004. Improving vision in adult amblyopia by perceptual learning. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 101, 17 (2004), 66926697.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. [32] III John Porter, Boyer Matthew, and Robb Andrew. 2018. Guidelines on successfully porting non-immersive games to virtual reality: A case study in minecraft. In Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play. 405415.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. [33] III John Porter and Robb Andrew. 2019. An analysis of longitudinal trends in consumer thoughts on presence and simulator sickness in VR games. In Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play. 277285.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. [34] Team R. Core. 2017. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. [35] Ricca Aylen, Chellali Amine, and Otrnane Samir. 2021. The influence of hand visualization in tool-based motor-skills training, a longitudinal study. In Proceedings of the IEEE Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR’21). IEEE, 103112.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. [36] Sakono Hiroaki, Matsumoto Keigo, Narumi Takuji, and Kuzuoka Hideaki. 2021. Redirected walking using continuous curvature manipulation. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 27, 11 (2021), 42784288.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. [37] Serafin Stefania, Nilsson Niels C., Sikstrom Erik, Goetzen Amalia De, and Nordahl Rolf. 2013. Estimation of detection thresholds for acoustic based redirected walking techniques. In Proceedings of the IEEE Virtual Reality (VR’13). IEEE, 161162.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. [38] Smith Sherrill J., Farra Sharon, Ulrich Deborah L., Hodgson Eric, Nicely Stephanie, and Matcham William. 2016. Learning and retention using virtual reality in a decontamination simulation. Nurs. Educ. Perspect. 37, 4 (2016), 210214.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. [39] Steinicke Frank, Bruder Gerd, Jerald Jason, Frenz Harald, and Lappe Markus. 2008. Analyses of human sensitivity to redirected walking. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology. 149156.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. [40] Steinicke Frank, Bruder Gerd, Jerald Jason, Frenz Harald, and Lappe Markus. 2009. Estimation of detection thresholds for redirected walking techniques. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 16, 1 (2009), 1727.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. [41] Takala Tuukka M., Malmi Lauri, Pugliese Roberto, and Takala Tapio. 2016. Empowering students to create better virtual reality applications: A longitudinal study of a VR capstone course. Inf. Educ. 15, 2 (2016), 287317.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. [42] Tarnanas Ioannis, Schlee Winfried, Tsolaki Magda, Müri René, Mosimann Urs, and Nef Tobias. 2013. Ecological validity of virtual reality daily living activities screening for early dementia: Longitudinal study. JMIR Ser. Games 1, 1 (2013), e2778.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. [43] Venkatesh Viswanath and Johnson Philip. 2002. Telecommuting technology implementations: A within-and between-subjects longitudinal field study. Person. Psychol. 55, 3 (2002), 661687.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. [44] Cesko C. Voeten. 2021. buildmer: Stepwise Elimination and Term Reordering for Mixed-Effects Regression. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=buildmer R package version 2.1.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. [45] Wickham Hadley. 2009. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. [46] Williams Niall L. and Peck Tabitha C.. 2019. Estimation of rotation gain thresholds considering fov, gender, and distractors. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 25, 11 (2019), 31583168.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  47. [47] Winkler-Schwartz Alexander, Bajunaid Khalid, Mullah Muhammad A. S., Marwa Ibrahim, Alotaibi Fahad E., Fares Jawad, Baggiani Marta, Azarnoush Hamed, Zharni Gmaan Al, Christie Sommer, et al. 2016. Bimanual psychomotor performance in neurosurgical resident applicants assessed using NeuroTouch, a virtual reality simulator. J. Surg. Educ. 73, 6 (2016), 942953.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. [48] Zhang Jingxin, Langbehn Eike, Krupke Dennis, Katzakis Nicholas, and Steinicke Frank. 2018. Detection thresholds for rotation and translation gains in 360 video-based telepresence systems. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 24, 4 (2018), 16711680.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. [49] Zhang Ruimin and Kuhl Scott A.. 2013. Human sensitivity to dynamic rotation gains in head-mounted displays. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Applied Perception. 7174.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Experience Matters: Longitudinal Changes in Sensitivity to Rotational Gains in Virtual Reality

    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 4
      October 2022
      95 pages
      ISSN:1544-3558
      EISSN:1544-3965
      DOI:10.1145/3567477
      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: 11 November 2022
      • Online AM: 8 September 2022
      • Accepted: 17 August 2022
      • Received: 2 August 2022
      Published in tap Volume 19, Issue 4

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Refereed

    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