Advertisement

Virtual Reality

, Volume 8, Issue 4, pp 231–241 | Cite as

A two visual systems approach to understanding voice and gestural interaction

  • Barry A. Po
  • Brian D. Fisher
  • Kellogg S. BoothEmail author
Article

Abstract

It is important to consider the physiological and behavioral mechanisms that allow users to physically interact with virtual environments. Inspired by a neuroanatomical model of perception and action known as the two visual systems hypothesis, we conducted a study with two controlled experiments to compare four different kinds of spatial interaction: (1) voice-based input, (2) pointing with a visual cursor, (3) pointing without a visual cursor, and (4) pointing with a time-lagged visual cursor. Consistent with the two visual systems hypothesis, we found that voice-based input and pointing with a cursor were less robust to a display illusion known as the induced Roelofs effect than pointing without a cursor or even pointing with a lagged cursor. The implications of these findings are discussed, with an emphasis on how the two visual systems model can be used to understand the basis for voice and gestural interactions that support spatial target selection in large screen and immersive environments.

Keywords

Two visual systems Pointing Cursors Visual feedback Voice input Visual illusions 

Abbreviations

VR

Virtual reality

HCI

Human–computer interaction

ANOVA

Analysis of variance

CAD

Computer-aided design

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC).

References

  1. 1.
    Sutherland IE (1965) The ultimate display. Proc IFIP Cong 65:506–508Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bolt RA (1980) “Put-that-there”: voice and gesture at the graphics interface. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on computer graphics and interactive techniques (SIGGRAPH), pp 262–270Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Oviatt SL Cohen PR (2000) Multimodal interfaces that process what comes naturally. Commun ACM 43(3):45–53Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Trevarthen CB (1968) Two mechanisms of vision in primates. Psychol Forsch 31:299–337CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Milner AD, Goodale MA (1995) The visual brain in action. Oxford Psychology Series 27. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bridgeman B, Peery S, Anand S (1997) Interaction of cognitive and sensorimotor maps of visual space. Percept Psychophys 59(3):456–469PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Po BA, Fisher BD, Booth KS (2003) Pointing and visual feedback for spatial interaction in large-screen display environments. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international symposium on smart graphics, pp 22–38Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Roelofs C (1935) Optische localisation (Optical localization). Archiv für Augenheilkd 109:395–415Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schneider GE (1969) Two visual systems: brain mechanisms for localization and discrimination are dissociated by tectal and cortical lesions. Science 163:895–902PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ungerleider LG, Mishkin W (1982) Analysis of visual behaviour. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bridgeman B, Lewis S Heit, G, Nagle W (1979) Relation between cognitive and motor-oriented systems of visual position perception. Exp Psychol: Hum Percept Perform 5:692–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bridgeman B, Kirch M, Sperling A (1981) Segregation of cognitive and motor aspects of visual function using induced motion. Percept Psychophys 29(4):336–342PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Michaels CF (2000) Information, perception, and action: what should ecological psychologists learn from Milner and Goodale (1995)?. Ecol Psychol 12(3):241–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kerzel D, Hommel B, Bekkering H (2001) A Simon effect induced by motion and location: evidence for a direct linkage of cognitive and motor maps. Percept Psychophys 63(5):862–874PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bridgeman B, Dassonville P, Bala J, Thiem P (2003) What is stored in the sensorimotor visual system: map or egocentric calibration?. In: Proceedings of the 3rd annual meeting of the vision sciences society, pp 10Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Po BA, Fisher BD, Booth KS (2004). Mouse and touchscreen selection in the upper and lower visual fields. In: Proceedings of the ACM conference on human factors in computing (CHI), pp 359–366Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Luckiesh M (1965) Visual illusions: their causes, characteristics, and applications. Dover Publications, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Myers BA, Bhatnagar R, Nichols J, Peck CH, Kong D, Miller R, Long AC (2002) Interacting a distance: measuring the performance of laser pointers and other devices. In: Proceedings of the ACM conference on human factors in computing (CHI), pp 33–40Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vicente KJ, Torenvliet GL (2000) The earth is spherical (p < 0.05): alternative methods of statistical inference. Theor Issues Ergon Sci 1(3):248–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barry A. Po
    • 1
  • Brian D. Fisher
    • 1
  • Kellogg S. Booth
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations