The impact of the input interface in a virtual environment: the Vive controller and the Myo armband

  • Lucio Tommaso De Paolis
  • Valerio De LucaEmail author
Original Article


Gesture-based touchless devices are becoming a widespread alternative to traditional gaming devices such as joysticks or gamepads. However, the impact of such devices on the user experience has to be evaluated, especially if we consider that most users are more familiar with classical handheld gaming controllers. In virtual reality applications, they influence not only the traditional usability, but also the user perception related to some peculiarities of immersive environments. In this paper, we evaluate both these aspects by comparing the user experience with the Myo armband touchless interface and the Vive controller distributed with the HTC Vive headset. We focused on a virtual navigator we developed for HTC Vive to allow users exploring the organs of the human body and navigating inside them. We recruited 78 subjects to test the virtual environment and asked them to fill in a questionnaire: we combined two generic purpose questionnaires focusing on the system usability (UMUX and SUS) and a presence questionnaire, which was specifically designed for virtual environments. We conducted a statistical analysis to study the effects of a touchless interaction on the user experience. The results revealed a better usability of the Myo armband, even though the effort to learn how to use the two devices is similar. In particular, difficulties in using Myo have a significant impact on immersion and adaptation in the virtual environment.


Touchless interaction Gesture User experience Usability Presence Virtual environment 



  1. Anwar S, Sinha SK, Vivek S, Ashank V (2019) Hand gesture recognition: a survey. In: Lecture notes in electrical engineering, pp 365–371Google Scholar
  2. Argelaguet F, Andujar C (2013) A survey of 3D object selection techniques for virtual environments. Comput Graph (Pergamon) 37(3):121–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Assila A, Marçal De Oliveira K, Ezzedine H (2016) Standardized usability questionnaires: features and quality focus. J Comput Sci Inf Technol (eJCSIT) 6:15–31Google Scholar
  4. Bachmann D, Weichert F, Rinkenauer G (2018) Review of three-dimensional human–computer interaction with focus on the leap motion controller. Sensors 18:2194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bailey SK, Johnson CI, Sims VK (2019) Using natural gesture interactions leads to higher usability and presence in a computer lesson. In: Advances in intelligent systems and computing, pp 663–671Google Scholar
  6. Bartlett MS (1937) Properties of sufficiency and statistical tests. Proc R Soc Lond Ser A Math Phys Sci 160(901):268–282zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bhattacharyya A, Mazumder O, Chakravarty K, Chatterjee D, Sinha A, Gavas R (2018) Development of an interactive gaming solution using MYO sensor for rehabilitation. In: 2018 international conference on advances in computing, communications and informatics, ICACCI 2018, pp 2127–2130Google Scholar
  8. Borges M, Symington A, Coltin B, Smith T, Ventura R (2018) HTC Vive: analysis and accuracy improvement. In: IEEE international conference on intelligent robots and systems, pp 2610–2615Google Scholar
  9. Borrego A, Latorre J, Alcañiz M, Llorens R (2018) Comparison of Oculus Rift and HTC Vive: feasibility for virtual reality-based exploration, navigation, exergaming, and rehabilitation. Games Health J 7(3):151–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Borsci S, Federici S, Lauriola M (2009) On the dimensionality of the system usability scale: a test of alternative measurement models. Cognit Process 10(3):193–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bowman DA, McMahan RP (2007) Virtual reality: how much immersion is enough? Computer 40(7):36–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bowman DA, Coquillart S, Froehlich B, Hirose M, Kitamura Y, Kiyokawa K, Stuerzlinger W (2008) 3D user interfaces: new directions and perspectives. IEEE Comput Graph Appl 28(6):20–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brooke J (1996) SUS—a quick and dirty usability scale. In: Jordan PW, Thomas B, McClelland IL, Weerdmeester B (eds) Usability evaluation in industry. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  14. Caggianese G, Gallo L, Neroni P (2019) The vive controllers vs. leap motion for interactions in virtual environments: a comparative evaluation. In: smart innovation, systems and technologies, pp 24–33Google Scholar
  15. Cain B (2004) A review of the mental workload literature. NATO RTO-TR-HFM-121-Part-IIGoogle Scholar
  16. Caputo FM, Giachetti A (2015) Evaluation of basic object manipulation modes for low-cost immersive virtual reality. In: Proceedings of the 11th biannual conference on Italian SIGCHI chapter. ACM, New York, pp 74–77Google Scholar
  17. Chen MY, Tung YC, Wu PJ, Hsu CY, Chyou S, Valstar A, Wang HY, Lin JW (2015) User-defined game input for smart glasses in public spaceGoogle Scholar
  18. Cook H, Nguyen QV, Simoff S, Trescak T, Preston D (2015) A close-range gesture interaction with Kinect. In: 2015 big data visual analytics, BDVA 2015, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  19. Csapo AB, Nagy H, Kristjansson A, Wersenyi G (2017) Evaluation of human-Myo gesture control capabilities in continuous search and select operations. In: 7th IEEE international conference on cognitive infocommunications, CogInfoCom 2016Google Scholar
  20. De Paolis LT (2016) A touchless gestural platform for the interaction with the patients data. In: XIV Mediterranean conference on medical and biological engineering and computing 2016 (MEDICON 2016), March 31st–April 2nd 2016, Paphos, Cyprus, IFMBE Proceedings. Springer, Berlin, pp 880–884Google Scholar
  21. De Paolis LT (2018) Augmented visualization and touchless interaction with virtual organs. In: International conference on bioinformatics and biomedical engineering (IWBBIO 2018) Granada, Spain, April 25–27, 2018. Lecture notes in bioinformatics, LNBI 10814. Springer, Berlin, pp 118–127Google Scholar
  22. De Paolis LT, De Luca V (2019) Augmented visualization with depth perception cues to improve the surgeon’s performance in minimally invasive surgery. Med Biol Eng Comput 57(5):995–1013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. De Paolis LT, De Mauro A, Raczkowsky J, Aloisio G (2009) Virtual model of the human brain for neurosurgical simulation. Stud Health Technol Inform 150:811–815Google Scholar
  24. De Paolis LT, Pulimeno M, Aloisio G (2010) Advanced visualization and interaction systems for surgical pre-operative planning. J Comput Inf Technol 18(4):385–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. De Paolis LT, De Luca V, Paladini GI (2019) Touchless navigation in a multimedia application: the effects perceived in an educational context. In: Sixth international conference augmented and virtual reality, and computer graphics (AVR 2019), Santa Maria al Bagno, Italy, June 24–27, 2019. Lecture notes in computer science, LNCS 11614. Springer, Berlin, pp 348–367Google Scholar
  26. Dong H, Figueroa N, El Saddik A (2016) An elicitation study on gesture attitudes and preferences towards an interactive hand-gesture vocabularyGoogle Scholar
  27. Duvinage M, Castermans T, Petieau M, Hoellinger T, Cheron G, Dutoit T (2013) Performance of the Emotiv Epoc headset for P300-based applications. BioMed Eng Online 12(1):56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Emotiv (2019) Emotiv EPOC+. Retrieved 15 November 2019, from
  29. Figueiredo L, Rodrigues E, Teixeira J, Techrieb V (2018) A comparative evaluation of direct hand and wand interactions on consumer devices. Comput Graph (Pergamon) 77:108–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Finstad K (2010) The usability metric for user experience. Interact Comput 22(5):323–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Frankenstein J, Brüssow S, Ruzzoli F, Hölscher C (2012) The language of landmarks: the role of background knowledge in indoor wayfinding. Cognit Process 13(1):165–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gabriel KR (1971) The biplot graphic display of matrices with application to principal component analysis. Biometrika 58(3):453–467MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gamer PC (2019) Valve index review. Retrieved 15 November 2019, from
  34. Garber L (2013) Gestural technology: moving interfaces in a new direction. Computer 46(10):22–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Grandhi SA, Joue G, Mittelberg I (2011) Understanding naturalness and intuitiveness in gesture production—insights for touchless gestural interfaces. In: Proceedings of the international conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI’11), New York, NY, USA, pp 821–824Google Scholar
  36. Gusai E, Bassano C, Solari F, Chessa M (2017) Interaction in an immersive collaborative virtual reality environment: a comparison between Leap Motion and HTC controllers. In: Lecture notes in computer science, pp 290–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Guzsvinecz T, Szucs V, Sik-Lanyi C (2019) Suitability of the Kinect sensor and Leap Motion controller—a literature review. Sensors 19:1072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hauser N, Wade E (2018) Detecting reach to grasp activities using motion and muscle activation data. In: Proceedings of the annual international conference of the IEEE engineering in medicine and biology society, EMBS, pp 3264–3267Google Scholar
  39. Hilliges O, Kim D, Izadi S, Weiss M, Wilson A (2012) HoloDesk: direct 3D interactions with a situated see-through display Otmar. In: Proceedings of the 2012 ACM annual conference on human factors in computing systems-CHI ’12, New York, NY, USA, pp 2421–2430Google Scholar
  40. HTC (2019a) HTC Vive controller. Retrieved 15 November 2019, from
  41. HTC (2019b) HTC Vive. Retrieved 15 November 2019, from
  42. HTC (2019c) VIVE wireless adapter. Retrieved 15 November 2019, from
  43. Hudson S, Matson-Barkat S, Pallamin N, Jegou G (2019) With or without you? Interaction and immersion in a virtual reality experience. J Bus Res 100:459–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Indraccolo C, De Paolis LT (2017) Augmented reality and MYO for a touchless interaction with virtual organs. In: Fourth international conference augmented and virtual reality, and computer graphics (AVR 2017), Ugento, Italy, June 12–15, 2017. Lecture notes in computer science, LNCS 10325, pp 63–73Google Scholar
  45. Invitto S, Faggiano C, Sammarco S, De Luca V, De Paolis LT (2015) Interactive entertainment, virtual motion training and brain ergonomy. In: 7th international conference on intelligent technologies for interactive entertainment (INTETAIN 2015), Torino, Italy, June 10–12, 2015, pp 88–94Google Scholar
  46. Invitto S, Faggiano C, Sammarco S, De Luca V, De Paolis LT (2016) Haptic, virtual interaction and motor imagery: entertainment tools and psychophysiological testing. Sensors 16(3):394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kaiser HF (1958) The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis. Psychometrika 23(3):187–200zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kruskal WH, Wallis WA (1952) Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis. J Am Stat Assoc 47(260):583–621zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lachat E, Macher H, Landes T, Grussenmeyer P (2015) Assessment and calibration of a RGB-D camera (Kinect v2 Sensor) towards a potential use for close-range 3D modeling. Remote Sens 7(10):13070–13097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lewis JR (2018) Measuring perceived usability: the CSUQ, SUS, and UMUX. Int J Hum Comput Interact 34(12):1148–1156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lewis JR, Sauro J (2009) The factor structure of the system usability scale. In: Lecture notes in computer science, pp 94–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lewis JR, Utesch BS, Maher DE (2015) Investigating the correspondence between UMUX-LITE and SUS scores. In: Lecture notes in computer science, pp 204–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Livatino S, De Paolis LT, D’Agostino M, Zocco A, Agrimi A, De Santis A, Bruno LV, Lapresa M (2015) Stereoscopic visualization and 3-D technologies in medical endoscopic teleoperation. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 62(1):525–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lucas JF, Kim JS, Bowman DA (2005) Resizing beyond widgets: object resizing techniques for immersive virtual environments. In: Proceedings of ACM CHI 2005 conference on human factors in computing systems, New York, NY, USA, pp 1601–1604Google Scholar
  55. Lund BAM (2001) Measuring usability with the USE questionnaire. STC usability SIG newsletterGoogle Scholar
  56. McMahan RP, Gorton D, Gresock J, McConnell W, Bowman DA (2007) Separating the effects of level of immersion and 3D interaction techniques. In: Proceedings of the ACM symposium on virtual reality software and technology. ACM, New York, pp 108–111Google Scholar
  57. Méndez R, Flores J, Castelló E, Viqueira JR (2019) Natural interaction in virtual TV sets through the synergistic operation of low-cost sensors. Univ Access Inf Soc 18(1):17–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Microsoft (2019a) Azure Kinect DK. Retrieved 15 November 2019, from
  59. Microsoft (2019b) Microsoft Hololens. Retrieved 15 November 2019, from
  60. Motion Leap (2019) Leap Motion. Retrieved 15 November 2019, from
  61. Moustafa K, Luz S, Longo L (2017) Assessment of mental workload: a comparison of machine learning methods and subjective assessment techniques. In: Communications in computer and information science, pp 30–50Google Scholar
  62. Niehorster DC, Li L, Lappe M (2017) The accuracy and precision of position and orientation tracking in the HTC vive virtual reality system for scientific research. i-Perception 8(3):2041669517708205Google Scholar
  63. Nintendo (2019) Wii Remote. Retrieved 15 November 2019, from
  64. Oculus VR (2019a) Oculus Rift. Retrieved 15 November 2019, from
  65. Oculus VR (2019b) Oculus Touch. Retrieved 15 November 2019, from
  66. Pai YS, Dingler T, Kunze K (2018) Assessing hands-free interactions for VR using eye gaze and electromyography. Virtual Real 23:119–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Polygon (2019) Oculus Go review. Retrieved 15 November 2019, from
  68. Rechy-Ramirez EJ, Marin-Hernandez A, Rios-Figueroa HV (2018) Impact of commercial sensors in human computer interaction: a review. J Ambient Intell Humaniz Comput 9:1479–1496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Ruddle R (2006) Review: 3D user interfaces: theory and practice. In: Bowman DA, Kruijff E, LaViola JJ Jr, Poupyrev I (eds) Presence: teleoperators and virtual environments. Addison-Wesley, BostonGoogle Scholar
  70. Samsung (2019) Samsung Gear VR. Retrieved 15 November 2019, from
  71. Santos MEC, Sandor C, Kato H, Yamamoto G, Taketomi T, Polvi J (2014) A usability scale for handheld augmented reality. In: Proceedings of the 20th ACM symposium on virtual reality software and technology. ACM, New York, pp 167–176Google Scholar
  72. Santos MEC, Polvi J, Taketomi T, Yamamoto G, Sandor C, Kato H (2015) Toward standard usability questionnaires for handheld augmented reality. IEEE Comput Graph Appl 35(5):66–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Santos-Torres A, Zarraonandia T, Díaz P, Aedo I (2018) Exploring interaction mechanisms for map interfaces in virtual reality environments. In: Proceedings of the XIX international conference on human computer interaction. ACM, New York, pp 1–7Google Scholar
  74. Sarbolandi H, Lefloch D, Kolb A (2015) Kinect range sensing: structured-light versus Time-of-Flight Kinect. Comput Vis Image Underst 139:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Sayin FS, Ozen S, Baspinar U (2018) Hand gesture recognition by using sEMG signals for human machine interaction applications. In: Signal processing—algorithms, architectures, arrangements, and applications conference proceedings, SPA, pp 27–30Google Scholar
  76. Shapiro SS, Wilk MB (1965) An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika 52(3/4):591–611MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Shu Y, Huang YZ, Chang SH, Chen MY (2018) Do virtual reality head-mounted displays make a difference? A comparison of presence and self-efficacy between head-mounted displays and desktop computer-facilitated virtual environments. Virtual Real. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Somrak A, Humar I, Hossain MS, Alhamid MF, Hossain MA, Guna J (2019) Estimating VR sickness and user experience using different HMD technologies: an evaluation study. Future Gener Comput Syst 94:302–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Sony (2019) PlayStation Move. Retrieved15 November 2019, from
  80. Spitzley KA, Karduna AR (2019) Feasibility of using a fully immersive virtual reality system for kinematic data collection. J Biomech 87:172–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Stanney KM, Mollaghasemi M, Reeves L, Breaux R, Graeber DA (2003) Usability engineering of virtual environments (VEs): Identifying multiple criteria that drive effective VE system design. Int J Hum Comput Stud 58(4):447–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Steam (2019) SteamVR. Retrieved 15 November 2019, from
  83. Sun R, Wu YJ, Cai Q (2018) The effect of a virtual reality learning environment on learners’ spatial ability. Virtual Real. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Sun C, Hu W, Xu D (2019) Navigation modes, operation methods, observation scales and background options in UI design for high learning performance in VR-based architectural applications. J Comput Des Eng 6(2):189–196Google Scholar
  85. Tcha-Tokey K, Loup-Escande E, Christmann O, Richir S (2017) Effects on user experience in an edutainment virtual environmentGoogle Scholar
  86. Thalmic Labs (2019) Myo armband. Retrieved 15 November 2019, from
  87. Tullis T, Albert B (2013) Measuring the user experience: collecting, analyzing, and presenting usability metrics, 2nd edn. Morgan Kaufmann, Los AltosGoogle Scholar
  88. Ullmer B, Ishii H (2010) Emerging frameworks for tangible user interfaces. IBM Syst J 39:915–931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Uloziene I, Totiliene M, Paulauskas A, Blažauskas T, Marozas V, Kaski D, Ulozas V (2017) Subjective visual vertical assessment with mobile virtual reality system. Medicina (Lithuania) 53(6):394–402Google Scholar
  90. Unity Technologies (2019) Unity3D. Retrieved 15 November 2019, from
  91. UploadVR (2019a) Oculus Quest review. Retrieved 15 November 2019, from
  92. UploadVR (2019b) OC6: Oculus Quest is getting camera-based finger tracking early next year. Retrieved 15 November 2019, from
  93. UploadVR (2019c) Oculus Rift S is official. Retrieved 15 November 2019, from
  94. Vosinakis S, Koutsabasis P (2018) Evaluation of visual feedback techniques for virtual grasping with bare hands using Leap Motion and Oculus Rift. Virtual Real 22(1):47–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Vrellis I, Moutsioulis A, Mikropoulos TA (2014) Primary school students’ attitude towards gesture based interaction: a comparison between Microsoft Kinect and mouse. In: Proceedings—IEEE 14th international conference on advanced learning technologies, ICALT 2014, pp 678–682Google Scholar
  96. Webster R, Dues J (2017) System usability scale (SUS): Oculus Rift® DK2 and Samsung Gear VR®. In: 2017 ASEE annual conference & exposition, ASEE conferences, Columbus, OhioGoogle Scholar
  97. Witmer BG, Singer MJ (1998) Measuring presence in virtual environments: a presence questionnaire. Presence Teleoper Virtual Environ 7(3):225–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Witmer BG, Jerome CJ, Singer MJ (2005) The factor structure of the presence questionnaire. Presence Teleoper Virtual Environ 14:298–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Wobbrock JO, Aung HH, Rothrock B, Myers BA (2005) Maximizing the guessability of symbolic input. In: CHI ’05 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems. ACM, New York, pp 1869–1872Google Scholar
  100. Yu M, Zhou R, Wang H, Zhao W (2019) An evaluation for VR glasses system user experience: the influence factors of interactive operation and motion sickness. Appl Ergon 74:206–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Engineering for InnovationUniversity of SalentoLecceItaly

Personalised recommendations