Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Verification of perception difference between actual space and VR space in car design

International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing (IJIDeM) Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Cite this article

Abstract

To evaluate a car’s design before its introduction to the market, automobile companies traditionally conduct customer surveys using clay models or real products. Recently, however, virtual reality (VR) has attracted significant attention as an efficient alternative to this costly and time-consuming practice. However, from the viewpoint of a customer’s intention to purchase, based on the design of the car, the differences between evaluations made using VR and by viewing an actual vehicle need to be clarified. In this study, the perception difference between actual space, VR space, and paper was verified with a randomized controlled trial involving four groups: (1) an actual car group, (2) a photographed VR group, (3) a computer-generated VR (CG VR) group, and (4) a paper group. By preparing the least expensive (paper) group, the usefulness of VR could be further clarified. The results showed that, whereas there is no perception difference for purchase intention and style attributes, there is a perception difference in terms of the factors underlying the purchase intention. The best way to convey the comfort of the interior space was CG VR, given that the size can be defined by data. Therefore, this was slightly advantageous over photograph-based VR, for which the interior size could not be defined. In addition, it became clear that it was very difficult to convey the amount of interior space using the paper-based method. These findings can help overcome the constraints of current design surveys and contribute to customer-oriented manufacturing.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Christensen, C.M., Cook, S.: Marketing malpractice: the cause and the cure. Harv. Bus. Rev. 83(12), 74–83 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Kotler, P., Alexander Rath, G.: Design: a powerful but neglected strategic tool. J. Bus. Strat. 5(2), 16–21 (1984)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Noble, C.H., Kumar, M.: Exploring the appeal of product design: a grounded, value-based model of key design elements and relationships. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 27(5), 640–657 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Mozota, B.B.: Structuring strategy design management-Michael Porter’s value chain. Des. Manage. J. 9(2), 26–31 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Homburg, C., Schwemmle, M., Kuehnl, C.: New product design: concept, measurement, and consequences. J. Mark. 79(3), 41–56 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hertenstein, J.H., Platt, M.B., Veryzer, R.W.: The impact of industrial design effectiveness on corporate financial performance. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 22(1), 3–21 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hightower, J.D., Smith, D.C., Wiker, S.F.: Development of remote presence technology for teleoperator systems. In: 14th Meeting of the United States-Japan Natural Resources Committee (1986)

  8. Burdea, G.: The synergy between virtual reality and robotics. IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 15(3), 400–410 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Alaraj, A., Luciano, C.J., Bailey, D.P., Elsenousi, A., Roitberg, B.Z., Bernardo, A., Banerjee, P.P., Charbel, F.T.: Virtual reality cerebral aneurysm clipping simulation with real-time haptic feedback. Oper. Neurosurg. 11(1), 52–58 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Seymour, N.E., Gallagher, A.G., Roman, S.A., O’Brien, M.K., Bansal, V.K., Andersen, D.K., Satava, R.M.: Virtual reality training improves operating room performance: results of a randomized, double-blinded study. Ann. Surg. 236(4), 458–464 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Grantcharov, T.P., Kristiansen, V.B., Bendix, J., Bardram, L., Rosenberg, J., Funch-Jensen, P.: Randomized clinical trial of virtual reality simulation for laparoscopic skills training. Br. J. Surg. 91(2), 146–150 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Gavish, N., Gutiérrez, T., Webel, S., Rodríguez, J., Peveri, M., Bockholt, U., Tecchia, F.: Evaluating virtual reality and augmented reality training for industrial maintenance and assembly tasks. Interact. Learn. Environ. 23(6), 778–798 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Mujber, T.S., Szecsi, T., Hashmi, M.S.: Virtual reality applications in manufacturing process simulation. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 155, 1834–1838 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lawson, G., Salanitri, D., Waterfield, B.: Future directions for the development of virtual reality within an automotive manufacturer. Appl. Ergon. 53, 323–330 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Nowak, A., Flotyński, J.: A virtual car showroom. In: Proceedings of the 23rd International ACM Conference on 3D Web Technology, p. 23 (2018)

  16. Renner, R.S., Velichkovsky, B.M., Helmert, J.R.: The perception of egocentric distances in virtual environments-a review. ACM Comput. Surv. (CSUR) 46(2), 23 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Dozaki, S., Hirai, K., Horiuchi, T.: A study on color and brightness perception in virtual reality space. IEICE Tech. Rep. 117(266), 15–18 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Yoshizawa, N., Inamoto, J., Hirate, K., Oyama, Y., Ono, K.: A study on the reproduction of the actual space on the virtual simulation system for the residential environment. The evaluation on brightness, space and length perception and a sense of reality. J. Arch. Plan. Environ. Eng. 66(550), 87–93 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Perani, D., Fazio, F., Borghese, N.A., Tettamanti, M., Ferrari, S., Decety, J., Gilardi, M.C.: Different brain correlates for watching real and virtual hand actions. Neuroimage 14(3), 749–758 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Weidner, F., Hoesch, A., Poeschl, S., Broll, W.: Comparing VR and non-VR driving simulations: an experimental user study. In: IEEE Virtual Reality Conference, pp. 281–282 (2017)

  21. Suzuki, Y., Kobayashi, M.: Air jet driven force feedback in virtual reality. IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl. 25(1), 44–47 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kawamura, S., Ida, M., Wada, T., Wu, J.L.: Development of a virtual sports machine using a wire drive system-a trial of virtual tennis. IEEE/RSJ Trans. Intell. Robot Syst. 1, 111–116 (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Bonivento, C., Eusebi, A., Melchiorri, C., Montanari, M., Vassura, G.: WireMan: a portable wire manipulator for touch-rendering of bas-relief virtual surfaces. In: Proceedings ICAR ‘97, pp. 13–18 (1997)

  24. Gomez, D., Burdea, G., Langrana, N.: Integration of the Rutgers Master II in a virtual reality simulation. In: IEEE Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium, pp. 198–202 (1995)

  25. Furusho, J., Sakaguchi, M.: New actuators using ER fluid and their applications to force display devices in virtual reality and medical treatments. Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 13, 2151–2159 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Taylor, P.M., Hosseini-Sianaki, A., Varley, C.J.: An electrorheological fluid-based tactile array for virtual environments. IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 1, 18–23 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Inoue, S., Makino, Y., Shinoda, H.: Active touch perception produced by airborne ultrasonic haptic hologram. In: IEEE World Haptics Conference, pp. 362–367 (2015)

  28. Otaduy, M.A., Okamura, A., Subramanian, S.: Haptic technologies for direct touch in virtual reality. In: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer GRAPHics 2016 Courses, p. 13 (2016)

  29. Korres, G., Eid, M.: Haptogram: ultrasonic point-cloud tactile stimulation. IEEE Access 4, 7758–7769 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Subramanian, S., Carter, T.A., Long, B.J.O.: U.S. Patent No. 9,612,658. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (2017)

  31. McCaffrey, T., Pearson, J.: Find innovation where you least expect it. Harv. Bus. Rev. 93(12), 82–89 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Yoo, Y., Kim, K.: How Samsung became a design powerhouse. Harv. Bus. Rev. 93(9), 73–78 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Lau, H.Y.K., Mak, K.L., Lu, M.T.H.: A virtual design platform for interactive product design and visualization. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 139(1–3), 402–407 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Lanzotti, A., Carbone, F., Grazioso, S., Renno, F., Staiano, M.: A new interactive design approach for concept selection based on expert opinion. Int. J. Interact. Des. Manuf. 12(4), 1189–1199 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Honda Motor Co., Ltd., 8-1, Honcho, Wako-Shi, Saitama, 351-0114, Japan

    Takumi Kato

Authors
  1. Takumi Kato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Takumi Kato.

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

Kato, T. Verification of perception difference between actual space and VR space in car design. Int J Interact Des Manuf 13, 1233–1244 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-019-00568-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-019-00568-5

Keywords

search

Navigation