11 MCW & FPB 10/28/02 MCW & FPB 10/28/02

Wildcatting — VE EffectivenessWildcatting — VE Effectiveness

Fred BrooksFred Brooks

Mary WhittonMary Whitton

University of North Carolina University of North Carolina at Chapel Hillat Chapel Hill

www.cs.unc.edu/~brookswww.cs.unc.edu/~brooks

Fred BrooksFred Brooks

Mary WhittonMary Whitton

University of North Carolina University of North Carolina at Chapel Hillat Chapel Hill

www.cs.unc.edu/~brookswww.cs.unc.edu/~brooks

22 MCW & FPB 10/28/02 MCW & FPB 10/28/02

The Scientific QuestionsThe Scientific Questions

• Can we make effective virtual environments?Can we make effective virtual environments?

• If so, so what?If so, so what? Can we interact with computers Can we interact with computers better better thus thus than with desktop graphics? than with desktop graphics?

• How can we How can we measure measure effectiveness?effectiveness?

• Can we make effective virtual environments?Can we make effective virtual environments?

• If so, so what?If so, so what? Can we interact with computers Can we interact with computers better better thus thus than with desktop graphics? than with desktop graphics?

• How can we How can we measure measure effectiveness?effectiveness?

33 MCW & FPB 10/28/02 MCW & FPB 10/28/02

EVE Team, Spring 2002EVE Team, Spring 2002

• Fred BrooksFred Brooks

• Mary WhittonMary Whitton

• Sharif RazzaqueSharif Razzaque

• Ben LokBen Lok

• (Mike Meehan–2001)(Mike Meehan–2001)

• Fred BrooksFred Brooks

• Mary WhittonMary Whitton

• Sharif RazzaqueSharif Razzaque

• Ben LokBen Lok

• (Mike Meehan–2001)(Mike Meehan–2001)

• Angus AntleyAngus Antley

• Greg CoombeGreg Coombe

• Mark Harris Mark Harris

• Jason JeraldJason Jerald

• Samir NaikSamir Naik

• Thorsten ScheuermanThorsten Scheuerman

• Paul ZimmonsPaul Zimmons

• Angus AntleyAngus Antley

• Greg CoombeGreg Coombe

• Mark Harris Mark Harris

• Jason JeraldJason Jerald

• Samir NaikSamir Naik

• Thorsten ScheuermanThorsten Scheuerman

• Paul ZimmonsPaul Zimmons

Collaborators:Collaborators: Mark Hollins, UNC Psychology Mark Hollins, UNC Psychology Mel Slater, Anthony Steed, Univ. College LondonMel Slater, Anthony Steed, Univ. College London Roger Hubbold, Univ. ManchesterRoger Hubbold, Univ. Manchester

44 MCW & FPB 10/28/02 MCW & FPB 10/28/02

People: Our Crucial ProductPeople: Our Crucial Product

• 1997 Mark Miné1997 Mark Miné

• 1998 David Luebke1998 David Luebke

• 1999 Rui Bastos1999 Rui Bastos

• 2000 Kevin Arthur2000 Kevin Arthur

• 2001 Brent Insko2001 Brent Insko

• 2001 Mike Meehan2001 Mike Meehan

• 2002 Ben Lok2002 Ben Lok

• 1997 Mark Miné1997 Mark Miné

• 1998 David Luebke1998 David Luebke

• 1999 Rui Bastos1999 Rui Bastos

• 2000 Kevin Arthur2000 Kevin Arthur

• 2001 Brent Insko2001 Brent Insko

• 2001 Mike Meehan2001 Mike Meehan

• 2002 Ben Lok2002 Ben Lok

55 MCW & FPB 10/28/02 MCW & FPB 10/28/02

Measuring EffectivenessMeasuring Effectiveness

• • Physiological Physiological measures measures of effectivenessof effectiveness

• Took the easiest possible caseTook the easiest possible case

• Enables a program of researchEnables a program of research

• • Physiological Physiological measures measures of effectivenessof effectiveness

• Took the easiest possible caseTook the easiest possible case

• Enables a program of researchEnables a program of research

66 MCW & FPB 10/28/02 MCW & FPB 10/28/02

Physiological Measures: Stress ReactionPhysiological Measures: Stress Reaction

77 MCW & FPB 10/28/02 MCW & FPB 10/28/02

What Makes the Illusion Work?What Makes the Illusion Work?

• UNC User Studies so far:UNC User Studies so far:– Field of view Field of view on search and maze taskon search and maze task

performance: 176°>112°>48° performance: 176°>112°>48°– Method of travel Method of travel on presence: walking>flyingon presence: walking>flying– Physiological measures of presencePhysiological measures of presence– Frame rate Frame rate on presence: 30>20>15~>10 fpson presence: 30>20>15~>10 fps– Passive haptics Passive haptics on presence, training: >on presence, training: >– Dynamic real objects Dynamic real objects on performance, presence on performance, presence – Imperceptible redirection Imperceptible redirection on walking directionon walking direction– Latency Latency on presence: 50 ms > 90 ms !on presence: 50 ms > 90 ms !

• UNC User Studies so far:UNC User Studies so far:– Field of view Field of view on search and maze taskon search and maze task

performance: 176°>112°>48° performance: 176°>112°>48°– Method of travel Method of travel on presence: walking>flyingon presence: walking>flying– Physiological measures of presencePhysiological measures of presence– Frame rate Frame rate on presence: 30>20>15~>10 fpson presence: 30>20>15~>10 fps– Passive haptics Passive haptics on presence, training: >on presence, training: >– Dynamic real objects Dynamic real objects on performance, presence on performance, presence – Imperceptible redirection Imperceptible redirection on walking directionon walking direction– Latency Latency on presence: 50 ms > 90 ms !on presence: 50 ms > 90 ms !

88 MCW & FPB 10/28/02 MCW & FPB 10/28/02

Dynamic Real Objects in VEsDynamic Real Objects in VEs

•• Insert the models Insert the models into the VE into the VE

• • Make them interact Make them interact properly properly

• • Using cameras, build visual hull 3D models Using cameras, build visual hull 3D models of real objects of real objects

99 MCW & FPB 10/28/02 MCW & FPB 10/28/02

User Feels the Real, User Feels the Real, Sees the VirtualSees the Virtual

1010 MCW & FPB 10/28/02 MCW & FPB 10/28/02

NASA User TrialNASA User Trial

1111 MCW & FPB 10/28/02 MCW & FPB 10/28/02

Redirected WalkingRedirected Walking

Blue:Blue: perceived pathperceived pathRed:Red: actual pathactual path

1212 MCW & FPB 10/28/02 MCW & FPB 10/28/02

SIGGRAPH ‘02 Latency StudySIGGRAPH ‘02 Latency Study

• Demonstrated system to 192 peopleDemonstrated system to 192 people

• Full pit demo with physiological sensingFull pit demo with physiological sensing

• End-to-end latencies of 50 and 90 msEnd-to-end latencies of 50 and 90 ms

• Same frame rates for both, >60 fps.Same frame rates for both, >60 fps.

• Usable data from ~66 subjectsUsable data from ~66 subjects

• 50 ms sig. More “present” than 90 ms, 50 ms sig. More “present” than 90 ms, after correction for nausea. Surprise!after correction for nausea. Surprise!

• Demonstrated system to 192 peopleDemonstrated system to 192 people

• Full pit demo with physiological sensingFull pit demo with physiological sensing

• End-to-end latencies of 50 and 90 msEnd-to-end latencies of 50 and 90 ms

• Same frame rates for both, >60 fps.Same frame rates for both, >60 fps.

• Usable data from ~66 subjectsUsable data from ~66 subjects

• 50 ms sig. More “present” than 90 ms, 50 ms sig. More “present” than 90 ms, after correction for nausea. Surprise!after correction for nausea. Surprise!

1313 MCW & FPB 10/28/02 MCW & FPB 10/28/02

Many Thanks for FundingMany Thanks for Funding

• National Institutes of HealthNational Institutes of Health

–National Center for Research Resources National Center for Research Resources

–National Institute of Biomedical ImagingNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering and Bioengineering

• Office of Naval ResearchOffice of Naval Research VIRTE Project VIRTE Project

• National Institutes of HealthNational Institutes of Health

–National Center for Research Resources National Center for Research Resources

–National Institute of Biomedical ImagingNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering and Bioengineering

• Office of Naval ResearchOffice of Naval Research VIRTE Project VIRTE Project