Advertisement

Effects of depth perception cues and display types on presence and cybersickness in the elderly within a 3D virtual store

  • Cheng-Li LiuEmail author
  • Shiaw-Tsyr Uang
Original Research

Abstract

As the population ages, home computers with an Internet connection can provide the elderly with a new way to access information and services and manage Internet shopping tasks. One of the primary advantages of virtual environment (VE) technology for online shopping is its ability to provide a three-dimensional (3D) perspective to customers for a more realistic sense of the goods and the shopping environment. A sense of presence is one of the critical components required for an effective VE. However, side effects such as cybersickness may be caused by the display medium. When the quality of depth perception cues is poor, will the elderly’s experience of cybersickness influence their feeling of presence and performance of goods searching during exposure within a 3D virtual store with 3D displays? An experiment addressed associations among presence, cybersickness, and performance in a 3D virtual store with autostereoscopic, stereoscopic and monocular displays with good and poor depth perception cues in an elderly sample. The results showed that the virtual store with an autostereoscopic display with high-quality depth perception cues will produce good sense and realism in stereopsis to allow the elderly to experience presence within a virtual store. However, if the depth perception cues are poor, 3D displays, and especially stereoscopic displays, are not recommended; elderly users may lose interest in a 3D virtual store due to even more serious cybersickness than that experienced with a monocular display.

Keywords

3D virtual store Elderly Presence Cybersickness Depth perception cues 3D displays 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the National Science Council of the Republic of China for financially supporting this work under Contract No. MOST 103-2221-E-238-003.

References

  1. Barfield W, Hendrix C, Bystrom K (1999) Effects of stereopsis and head tracking on performance using desktop virtual environment displays. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ 8:237–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benzie P, Watson J, Surman P, Rakkolainen I, Hopf K, Urey H, Sainov V, von Kopylow C (2007) A survey of 3DTV displays: techniques and technologies. IEEE Trans Circuits Syst Video Technol 17:1647–1658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chu YM, Chien KW, Shieh HPD, Chang JM, Hu A, Shiu YC, Yang V (2005) 3D mobile display based on dual-directional light guides with a fast-switching liquid-crystal panel. J Soc Inf Disp 13:875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cornelissen HJ, Greiner H, Dona MJ (1999) Frontlights for reflective liquid crystal displays based on lightguides with micro-grooves. SID Symp Dig 30:912–914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Czaja S, Lee C (2003) Designing computer systems for older adults. Hum Comput Interact Handb 21:413–427Google Scholar
  6. Freeman J, Avons SE, Pearson DE, Ijsselsteijn WA (1999) Effects of sensory information and prior experience on direct subjective ratings of presence. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ 8:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hale KS, Stanney KS (2006) Effects of low stereo acuity on performance, presence and sickness within a virtual environment. Appl Ergon 37:329–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hettinger LJ, Berbaum KS, Kennedy RS, Dunlap WP, Nolan MD (1990) Vection and simulator sickness. Mil Psychol 2:171–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Howarth PA (1996) Empirical studies of accommodation, convergence, and HMD use. In: Proceedings of the HOSO-Bunka foundation symposium, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  10. Ijsselsteijn W, Ridder H, Hamberg R, Bouwhius D, Freeman J (1998) Perceived depth and the feeling of presence in 3DTV. Displays 18:208–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Johnson R, Kent S (2007) Designing universal access: web-applications for the elderly and disabled. Cogn Technol Work 9:209–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jones S, Fox S (2009) Generations online in 2009. Pew Research Center Press. http://www.pewinternet.org/2009/01/28/generations-online-in-2009/
  13. Kennedy RS, Lane NE, Berbaum KS, Lilienthal MG (1993) Simulator sickness questionnaire: an enhanced method for quantifying simulator sickness. Int J Aviat Psychol 3:203–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kennedy RS, Lanham DS, Drexler J, Essex CJM (1997) A comparison of cybersickness incidences, symptom profiles, measurement techniques, and suggestions for further research. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ 10:193–216Google Scholar
  15. Lambooij M, Ijsselsteijn W, Fortuin M, Heynderickx I (2009) Visual discomfort and visual fatigue of stereoscopic displays: a review. J Imaging Sci Technol 53:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lathan R (2001) Tutorial: a brief introduction to simulation sickness and motion programming. Real Time Graph 9:3–5Google Scholar
  17. LaViola JJ (2000) A discussion of cybersickness in virtual environment. SIGCHI Bull 32:47–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lo WT, So RHY (2001) Cybersickness in the presence of scene rotational movements along different axes. Appl Ergon 32:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mikropoulos TA, Strouboulis V (2004) Factors that influence presence in educational virtual environments. Cyberpsychol Behav 7:582–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nichols S, Haldane C, Wilson JR (2000) Measurement of presence and its consequences in virtual environments. Int J Hum Comput Stud 52:471–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sadowski W, Stanney KM (2003) Presence in virtual environments. In: Stanney KM (ed) Handbook of virtual environments: design, implementation, and applications. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, pp 791–806Google Scholar
  22. Sheridan TB (1992) Musings on telepresence and virtual presence. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ 1:120–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Singer MJ, Witmer BG (1996) Presence measures for virtual environments: background and development. Interim Report, US Army Research Institute PressGoogle Scholar
  24. Spek VD (2007) The effect of cybersickness on the affective appraisal of virtual environments. Master’s thesis, University of UtrechtGoogle Scholar
  25. Stanney KM (2002) Handbook of virtual environments. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Press, Mahwah, NJGoogle Scholar
  26. Stanney KM, Mourant RR, Kennedy RS (1998) Human factors issues in virtual environment: a review of the literature. Presence 7:327–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Steinman SB, Garzia RP (2000) Foundations of binocular vision: a clinical perspective. McGraw-Hill Professional Press, USA, pp 2–5Google Scholar
  28. Steuer J (1992) Defining virtual reality: dimensions determining telepresence. J Commun 42:73–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sylaiou S, Karoulis A, Stavropoulos Y, Patias P (2008) Presence-centered assessment of virtual museums’ technologies. J Libr Inf Technol 28:55–62Google Scholar
  30. Toyooka K (2001) The 3D display using field-sequential LCD with light direction controlling backlight. In: SID’01 digest, pp 177–180Google Scholar
  31. Waterworth JA (2000) Dextrous VR: the importance of stereoscopic display and hand-image collocation. In: Mulder JD, van Liere R (eds) Virtual environments 2000: proceedings of Eurographics workshop in Amsterdam. Springer, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  32. Wickens CD, Todd S, Seidler K (1989) Three-dimensional displays: perception, implementation, applications. Crew System Ergonomics Information Analysis CenterGoogle Scholar
  33. Wilson JR (1997) Autonomy, interaction and presence. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ 1:127–132Google Scholar
  34. Witmer BG, Singer MJ (1998) Measuring presence in virtual environments: a presence questionnaire. Presence 7:225–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Industrial ManagementVanung UniversityTaoyuanTaiwan
  2. 2.Department of Industrial Engineering and ManagementMinghsin University of Science and TechnologyXinfengTaiwan

Personalised recommendations