Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A framework for fidelity evaluation of immersive virtual reality systems

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Virtual Reality Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Developments in visual and tracking systems have expanded virtual reality (VR) applications and led to VR becoming a powerful tool for decision making, planning, and conducting training and experiments across several fields. VR’s goal is to fully immerse a user in a virtual environment through simulating the same kinds of physical and psychological reactions they would experience in the real world. Fidelity is a common and useful concept for distinguishing different VR systems, as a common goal for VR is to provide a high-fidelity experience similar to the real world. The purpose of this study was to provide a comprehensive framework and a scale for evaluating the fidelity of VR systems by addressing their architecture and the factors that affect overall fidelity with respect to the digital sensory and tracking systems used. The proposed framework characterizes itself from other fidelity evaluation frameworks in the involvement of integration and synchronization of VR system data and devices as the main factors in fidelity evaluation. Also, it presents a scale for fidelity evaluation of VR systems and defines high-level useful concepts for distinguishing different VR systems with respect to fidelity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aggarwal R, Ward J, Balasundaram I, Sains P, Athanasiou T, Darzi A (2007) Proving the effectiveness of virtual reality simulation for training in laparoscopic surgery. Ann Surg 246(5):771–779

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becher A, Angerer J, Grauschopf T (2018) Novel approach to measure motion-to-photon and mouth-to-ear latency in distributed virtual reality systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.06320

  • Bowman DA, McMahan RP (2007) Virtual reality: how much immersion is enough? Computer 40(7):36–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowman DA, McMahan RP, Ragan ED (2012) Questioning naturalism in 3D user interfaces. Commun ACM 55(9):78–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cabrera ME, Wachs JP (2017) A human-centered approach to one-shot gesture learning. Front Robot AI 4:8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carmack, J. (2013). Latency mitigation strategies, https://danluu.com/latency-mitigation/. Accessed in July 2020

  • Cipresso P, Giglioli IAC, Raya MA, Riva G (2018) The past, present, and future of virtual and augmented reality research: a network and cluster analysis of the literature. Front Psychol 9:2086

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper N, Milella F, Pinto C, Cant I, White M, Meyer G (2018) The effects of substitute multisensory feedback on task performance and the sense of presence in a virtual reality environment. PloS one 13(2):e0191846

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummings JJ, Bailenson JN (2016) How immersive is enough? A meta-analysis of the effect of immersive technology on user presence. Media Psychol 19(2):272–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dmitrenko D, Maggioni E, Obrist M (2017) OSpace: towards a systematic exploration of olfactory interaction spaces. In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM international conference on interactive surfaces and spaces, pp 171–180

  • Elor A, Powell M, Mahmoodi E, Hawthorne N, Teodorescu M, Kurniawan S (2020) On shooting stars: comparing cave and HMD immersive virtual reality exergaming for adults with mixed ability. ACM Trans Comput Healthc 1(4):1–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franzluebbers A, Johnsen K (2018) Performance benefits of high-fidelity passive haptic feedback in virtual reality training. In: Proceedings of the symposium on spatial user interaction, pp 16–24

  • Frithioff A, Frendø M, Mikkelsen PT,  Sørensen MS, Andersen SAW (2020) Ultra-high-fidelity virtual reality mastoidectomy simulation training: a randomized, controlled trial. European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, 277(5):1335-1341 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-020-05858-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson JJ (2014) The ecological approach to visual perception, classic. Psychology Press

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Grajewski D, Górski F, Zawadzki P, Hamrol A (2013) Application of virtual reality techniques in design of ergonomic manufacturing workplaces. Procedia Comput Sci 25:289–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant P, Lee PTS (2007) Motion-visual phase-error detection in a flight simulator. J Aircr 44(3):927–935

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grimshaw M (ed) (2014) The Oxford handbook of virtuality. Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris DJ, Bird JM, Smart AP, Wilson MR, Vine SJ (2020) A framework for the testing and validation of simulated environments in experimentation and training. Front Psychol 11:605

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison NR, Wuerger SM, Meyer GF (2010) Reaction time facilitation for horizontally moving auditory–visual stimuli. J Vis 10(14):16–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoedt S, Claeys A, Van Landeghem H, Cottyn J (2017) The evaluation of an elementary virtual training system for manual assembly. Int J Prod Res 55(24):7496–7508

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hontvedt M, Øvergård KI (2020) Simulations at work—a framework for configuring simulation fidelity with training objectives. Comput Support Coop Work (CSCW) 29(1):85–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jang W, Shin J, Kim M, Kim K (2016) Human field of regard, field of view, and attention bias. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 135:115–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpb.2016.07.026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jennett C, Cox AL, Cairns P, Dhoparee S, Epps A, Tijs T, Walton A (2008) Measuring and defining the experience of immersion in games. Int J Hum Comput Stud 66(9):641–661

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerruish E (2019) Arranging sensations: smell and taste in augmented and virtual reality. Senses Soc 14(1):31–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim YM, Rhiu I, Yun MH (2020) A systematic review of a virtual reality system from the perspective of user experience. Int J Hum Comput Interact 36(10):893–910

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knecht M, Traxler C, Mattausch O, Wimmer M (2012) Reciprocal shading for mixed reality. Comput Graph 36(7):846–856

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kyriakou M, Pan X, Chrysanthou Y (2017) Interaction with virtual crowd in Immersive and semi-Immersive Virtual Reality systems. Computer Animation and Virtual Worlds 28(5):e1729. https://doi.org/10.1002/cav.1729

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu H, Zhang Z, Xie X, Zhu Y, Liu Y, Wang Y, Zhu SC (2019a) High-fidelity grasping in virtual reality using a glove-based system. In: 2019 international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA). IEEE, pp 5180–5186

  • Liu KY, Volonte M, Hsu YC, Babu SV, Wong SK (2019b) Interaction with proactive and reactive agents in box manipulation tasks in virtual environments. Comput Anim Virtual Worlds 30(3–4):e1881

    Google Scholar 

  • Maran NJ, Glavin RJ (2003) Low-to high-fidelity simulation–a continuum of medical education? Med Educ 37:22–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMahan RP, Herrera NS (2016) AFFECT: altered-fidelity framework for enhancing cognition and training. Front ICT 3:29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menzies RJ, Rogers SJ, Phillips AM, Chiarovano E, De Waele C, Verstraten FA, MacDougall H (2016) An objective measure for the visual fidelity of virtual reality and the risks of falls in a virtual environment. Virtual Real 20(3):173–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer GF, Wong LT, Timson E, Perfect P, White MD (2012) Objective fidelity evaluation in multisensory virtual environments: auditory cue fidelity in flight simulation. PloS one 7(9):e44381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer GF, Wuerger SM, Röhrbein F, Zetzsche C (2005). Low-level integration of auditory and visual motion signals requires spatial co-localisation. Experimental Brain Research. 166(3-4):538-547. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-005-2394-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nabiyouni M, Saktheeswaran A, Bowman DA, Karanth A (2015) Comparing the performance of natural, semi-natural, and non-natural locomotion techniques in virtual reality. In: 2015 IEEE symposium on 3D user interfaces (3DUI). IEEE, pp 3–10

  • Ni T, Bowman DA, Chen J (2006) Increased display size and resolution improve task performance in information-rich virtual environments. In: Proceedings of graphics interface 2006, pp 139–146

  • Norman DA (2010) Natural user interfaces are not natural. Interactions 17(3):6–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oviatt S, Coulston R, Lunsford R (2004) When do we interact multimodally? Cognitive load and multimodal communication patterns. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on multimodal interfaces, pp 129–136

  • Pala P, Cavallo V, Dang NT, Granié MA, Schneider S, Maruhn P, Bengler K (2021) Analysis of street-crossing behavior: comparing a CAVE simulator and a head-mounted display among younger and older adults. Accid Anal Prev 152:106004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pan Y, Steed A (2019) How foot tracking matters: The impact of an animated self-avatar on interaction, embodiment and presence in shared virtual environments. Front Robot AI 6:104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pan Z, Cheok AD, Yang H, Zhu J, Shi J (2006) Virtual reality and mixed reality for virtual learning environments. Comput Graph 30(1):20–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pastel S, Chen CH, Martin L, Naujoks M, Petri K, Witte K (2021) Comparison of gaze accuracy and precision in real-world and virtual reality. Virtual Reality 25:175–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-020-00449-3

  • Ragan ED, Bowman DA, Kopper R, Stinson C, Scerbo S, McMahan RP (2015) Effects of field of view and visual complexity on virtual reality training effectiveness for a visual scanning task. IEEE Trans Visual Comput Graph 21(7):794–807. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2015.2403312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rey B, Alcañiz M, Tembl J, Parkhutik V (2010) Brain activity and presence: a preliminary study in different immersive conditions using transcranial Doppler monitoring. Virtual Real 14(1):55–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rheingold H (1991) Virtual reality. Summit Books, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson D (2017) International encyclopedia of geography, 15 volume set: people, the earth, environment and technology, vol 1. Wiley

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers K, Funke J, Frommel J, Stamm S, Weber M (2019) Exploring interaction fidelity in virtual reality: object manipulation and whole-body movements. In: Proceedings of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pp 1–14

  • Rouby C, Schaal B, Dubois D, Gervais R, Holley A (eds) (2002) Olfaction, taste, and cognition. Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Sargunam SP, Moghadam KR, Suhail M, Ragan ED (2017) Guided head rotation and amplified head rotation: evaluating semi-natural travel and viewing techniques in virtual reality. In: 2017 IEEE virtual reality (VR). IEEE, pp 19–28

  • Schubert T, Friedmann F, Regenbrecht H (2001) The experience of presence: factor analytic insights. Presence Teleoper Virtual Environ 10(3):266–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seibert J, Shafer DM (2018) Control mapping in virtual reality: effects on spatial presence and controller naturalness. Virtual Real 22(1):79–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheridan TB (1992) Musings on telepresence and virtual presence. Presence Teleoper Virtual Environ 1(1):120–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shi Y, Ruiz N, Taib R, Choi E, Chen F (2007). Galvanic skin response (GSR) as an index of cognitive load. In CHI'07 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 2651-2656). https://doi.org/10.1145/1240866.1241057

  • Slater M (2009) Place illusion and plausibility can lead to realistic behaviour in immersive virtual environments. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 364(1535):3549–3557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slater M (2018) Immersion and the illusion of presence in virtual reality. British Journal of Psychology. 109(3):431-433. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slater M, Sanchez-Vives MV (2016) Enhancing our lives with immersive virtual reality. Front. Robot. AI 3, 74 (2016). https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2016.00074

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slater M, Wilbur S (1997) A framework for immersive virtual environments (FIVE): speculations on the role of presence in virtual environments. Presence Teleoper Virtual Environ 6(6):603–616

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slater M, Spanlang B, Corominas D (2010) Simulating virtual environments within virtual environments as the basis for a psychophysics of presence. ACM Trans Graph (TOG) 29(4):1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slater M, Usoh M, Steed A (1994) Depth of Presence in Virtual Environments. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments. 3:130-144. https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.1994.3.2.130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spanlang B, Normand JM, Borland D, Kilteni K, Giannopoulos E, Pomés A, González-Franco M, Perez-Marcos D, Arroyo-Palacios J, Muncunill XN, Slater M (2014) How to build an embodiment lab: achieving body representation illusions in virtual reality. Front Robot AI 1:9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srivastava P, Rimzhim A, Vijay P, Singh S, Chandra S (2019) Desktop VR is better than non-ambulatory HMD VR for spatial learning. Front Robot AI 6:50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trepkowski C, Eibich D, Maiero J, Marquardt A, Kruijff E, Feiner S (2019) The effect of narrow field of view and information density on visual search performance in augmented reality. In: 2019 IEEE conference on virtual reality and 3D user interfaces (VR). IEEE, pp 575–584

  • van der Kruk E, Reijne MM (2018) Accuracy of human motion capture systems for sport applications; state-of-the-art review. Eur J Sport Sci 18(6):806–819

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Volonte M, Duchowski AT, Babu SV (2019) Effects of a virtual human appearance fidelity continuum on visual attention in virtual reality. In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM international conference on intelligent virtual agents, pp 141–147

  • Witmer BG, Jerome CJ, Singer MJ (2005) The factor structure of the presence questionnaire. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments. 14(3):298-312. https://doi.org/10.1162/105474605323384654

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witmer BG, Singer MJ (1998) Measuring presence in virtual environments: a presence questionnaire. Presence 7(3):225–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfartsberger J (2019) Analyzing the potential of virtual reality for engineering design review. Autom Constr 104:27–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Won AS, Bailey J, Bailenson J, Tataru C, Yoon IA, Golianu B (2017) Immersive virtual reality for pediatric pain. Children (Basel) 4(7):52. https://doi.org/10.3390/children4070052

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yim MYC, Chu SC, Sauer PL (2017) Is augmented reality technology an effective tool for e-commerce? An interactivity and vividness perspective. J Interact Mark 39:89–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Youngblut C (2003) Experience of presence in virtual environments. Institute for Defense Analyses, Alexandria

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zizza C, Starr A, Hudson D, Nuguri SS, Calyam P, He Z (2018) Towards a social virtual reality learning environment in high fidelity. In: 2018 15th IEEE annual consumer communications & networking conference (CCNC). IEEE, pp 1–4

Download references

Acknowledgements

We declare that the work described in this paper has not been published before and it is not under consideration for publication anywhere else. Also, the work in this publication has been approved by all co-authors and the responsible authorities at Eastern Michigan University.

Funding

This work was funded by Eastern Michigan University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. GameAbove College of Engineering and Technology, Eastern Michigan University (EMU), Ypsilanti, USA

    Hamza A. Al-Jundi & Emad Y. Tanbour

Authors
  1. Hamza A. Al-Jundi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Emad Y. Tanbour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emad Y. Tanbour.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

There are no conflict of interests that exist in this work.

Ethical approval

We further confirm that any aspect of the work covered in this manuscript doesn’t involve any human subject. Intellectual Property: We confirm that we have given due consideration to the protection of intellectual property associated with this work and that there are no impediments to publication, including the timing of publication, with respect to intellectual property. In so doing, we confirm that we have followed the regulations of our institutions concerning intellectual property.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Al-Jundi, H.A., Tanbour, E.Y. A framework for fidelity evaluation of immersive virtual reality systems. Virtual Reality 26, 1103–1122 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-021-00618-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-021-00618-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation