Advertisement

Ecological Validity of Virtual Reality: Three Use Cases

  • Alexis PaljicEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10590)

Abstract

This paper is a discussion on the question of ecological validity of virtual reality in the light of three studies that we have done in previous works. These works are chosen as a basis for the discussion because they are all designed to assess validity using one method: the comparison of user perception and behavior between real and virtual environments. The first study explores visual perception of complex materials, the second studies the role of visual feedback on user gestures and object manipulation, the third is a study of virtual reality as a tool for assessing the acceptability of human robot collaboration in a car factory. We discuss our methodology, the limits of validity of VR in our three use cases and suggest future developments in VR to provide design tools for more valid VR environments.

Keywords

Virtual reality Ecological valididy Comparative approach Real vs. Virtual comparison Perception of complex materials Manipulation gestures Human Robot cooperation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

A part of this work (material perception) was funded by French National Research Agency project funded LIMA (Light Interaction Matter Aspect, 2012–2016) under grant number ANR2011RMNP01401. The work on Human Robot cooperation was funded by PSA Group through a research Chair (Chaire Robotique et Realite Virtuelle).

References

  1. 1.
    Arnold, P., Farrell, M.J., Pettifer, S., West, A.J.: Performance of a skilled motor task in virtual and real environments. Ergonomics 45(5), 348–361 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Axelsson, A.S., Abelin, A., Heldal, I., Schroeder, R., Wideström, J.: Cubes in the cube: a comparison of a puzzle-solving task in a virtual and a real environment. Cyberpsychol. Behav. 4(2), 279–286 (2001). The Impact of the Internet, Multimedia and Virtual Reality on Behavior and SocietyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baradaran, H., Stuerzlinger, W.: A comparison of real and virtual 3D construction tools with novice users. In: CGVR, vol. 6, pp. 10–15 (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cooper, R.A., Spaeth, D.M., Jones, D.K., Boninger, M.L., Fitzgerald, S.G., Guo, S.: Comparison of virtual and real electric powered wheelchair driving using a position sensing joystick and an isometric joystick. Med. Eng. Phys. 24(10), 703–708 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Couka, E., Willot, F., Jeulin, D.: A mixed Boolean and deposit model for the modeling of metal pigments in paint layers. Image Anal. Stereology 34(2), 125–134 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Da Graça, F.E., Paljic, A., Diaz, E.: Evaluating stereoscopic visualization for predictive rendering. In: 23rd WSCG International Conference in Central Europe on Computer Graphics, Visualization and Computer Vision, Plzen, Czech Republic, June 2015Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Da Graça, F.E., Paljic, A., Lafon-Pham, D., Callet, P.: Stereoscopy for visual simulation of materials of complex appearance. In: Stereoscopic Displays and Applications XXV, San Francisco, United States, pp. 9011–9030, February 2014Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jégo, J.-F., Paljic, A., Fuchs, P.: User-defined gestural interaction: a study on gesture memorization. In: IEEE 3D User Interfaces, 3DUI 2013, Orlando, FL, United States, 8 p., March 2013Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Liu, L., van Liere, R., Nieuwenhuizen, C., Martens, J.-B.: Comparing aimed movements in the real world and in virtual reality. In: IEEE Virtual Reality Conference, VR 2009, pp. 219–222. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mania, K., Troscianko, T., Hawkes, R., Chalmers, A.: Fidelity metrics for virtual environment simulations based on spatial memory awareness states. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 12(3), 296–310 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Milleville-Pennel, I., Charron, C.: Driving for real or on a fixed-base simulator: is it so different? An explorative study. Presence 24(1), 74–91 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Renner, R.S., Velichkovsky, B.M., Helmert, J.R.: The perception of egocentric distances in virtual environments - a review. ACM Comput. Surv. 46(2), 23:1–23:40 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Simeonov, P.I., Hsiao, H., Dotson, B.W., Ammons, D.E.: Height effects in real and virtual environments. Hum. Factors 47(2), 430–438 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Slater, M.: A note on presence terminology. Presence Connect 3(3), 1–5 (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Slater, M., Sadagic, A., Usoh, M., Schroeder, R.: Small-group behavior in a virtual and real environment: a comparative study. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 9(1), 37–51 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Varela, F., Thompson, E., Rosch, E., et al.: L’Inscription corporelle del l’esprit, Paris, Seuil (1993)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Viau, A., Feldman, A.G., McFadyen, B.J., Levin, M.F.: Reaching in reality and virtual reality: a comparison of movement kinematics in healthy subjects and in adults with hemiparesis. J. NeuroEng. Rehabil. 1(1), 11 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Victor, M., Paljic, A., Lafon-Pham, D.: A study of image exposure for the stereoscopic visualization of sparkling materials. In: IS&T/STIE Electronic Imaging 2015. International Society for Optics and Photonics, San Francisco, February 2015Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Victor, M., Lafon-Pham, D., Paljic, A., Diaz, E.: Physically based image synthesis of materials: a methodology towards the visual comparison of physical vs. virtual samples. In: Colour and Visual Computing Symposium, Gjovik, Norway, August 2015Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Weistroffer, V., Paljic, A., Fuchs, P., Hugues, O., Chodacki, J.-P., Ligot, P., Morais, A.: Assessing the acceptability of human-robot co-presence on assembly lines: a comparison between actual situations and their virtual reality counterparts. In: 2014 RO-MAN: The 23rd IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, Edinburgh, United Kingdom, pp. 377–384. IEEE, August 2014Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yoshikawa, T., Kawai, M., Yoshimoto, K.: Toward observation of human assembly skill using virtual task space. In: Siciliano, B., Dario, P. (eds.) Experimental Robotics VIII. STAR, vol. 5, pp. 540–549. Springer, Heidelberg (2003).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-36268-1_49 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.MINES ParisTech, PSL-Research University, Centre for RoboticsParisFrance

Personalised recommendations