Advertisement

Evaluating the Influence of Multimodal Feedback on Egocentric Selection Metaphors in Virtual Environments

  • Lode Vanacken
  • Chris Raymaekers
  • Karin Coninx
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4129)

Abstract

Whether a user interface is intuitive depends amongst others on (multimodal) feedback. The addition of multimodal feedback can certainly improve interaction in Virtual Environments as it increases the bandwidth to the user. One of the most common tasks in Virtual Environments is object selection. This paper elaborates on the enhancement of some existing approaches with multimodal feedback. The proposed techniques have been evaluated through a user experiment and the results show that the addition of multimodal feedback is preferred by the user and depending on the selection metaphor, it can also speed up the interaction.

Keywords

Virtual Environment Force Feedback Haptic Feedback Viscous Drag Virtual Hand 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Steed, A., Parker, C.: 3d selection strategies for head tracked and non-head tracked operation of spatially immersive displays. In: 8th International Immersive Projection Technology Workshop, Ames, Iowa, USA (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    De Boeck, J., De Weyer, T., Raymaekers, C., Coninx, K.: Using the non-dominant hand for selection in 3D. In: Proceedings of the first IEEE Symposium on 3D User Interfaces 2006, Alexandria, Virginia, US (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Manek, D.: Effects of visual displays on 3D interaction in virtual environments. Master’s thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pouprey, I., Weghorst, S., Billunghurst, M., Ichikawa, T.: Egocentric object manipulation in virtual environments; empirical evalutaion of interaction techniques. Computer Graphics Forum 17, 30–41 (1998)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Grossman, T., Balakrishnan, R.: The bubble cursor: enhancing target acquisition by dynamic resizing of the cursor’s activation area. In: CHI 2005: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, pp. 281–290. ACM Press, New York (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Poupyrev, I., Billinghurst, M., Weghorst, S., Ichikawa, T.: The go-go interaction technique: non-linear mapping for direct manipulation in vr. In: Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST) 1996, Seattle, Washington, USA (1996)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Forsberg, A., Herndon, K., Zeleznik, R.: Aperture based selection for immersive virtual environment. In: Proceedings of UIST 1996, pp. 95–96 (1996)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Akamatsu, M., MacKenzie, I.S., Hasbrouc, T.: A comparison of tactile, auditory, and visual feedback in a pointing task using a mouse-type device. Ergonomics 38, 816–827 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cockburn, A., Brewster, S.: Multimodal feedback for the acquisition of small targets. Ergonomics 48, 1129–1150 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zhai, S., Buxton, W., Milgram, P.: The silk cursor: investigating. In: CHI 1994: Conference companion on Human factors in computing systems, pp. 459–464. ACM Press, New York (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Oakley, I., McGee, M.R., Brewster, S., Gray, P.: Putting the feel in look and feel. In: Proceedings of CHI 2000, The Hague, NL, pp. 415–422 (2000)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hwang, F., Langdon, P., Keates, S., Clarkson, J.: The effect of multiple haptic distractors on the performance of motion-impaired users. In: Proceedings of Eurohaptics 2003, Dublin, IE, pp. 14–25 (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wall, S., Paynter, K., Shillito, M., Wright, M., Scali, S.: The effect of haptic feedback and stereo graphics in a 3D target acquisition task. In: Proceedings of Eurohaptics 2002, Edinburgh, UK (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Magnusson, C., Rassmus-Gröhn, K.: Audio haptic tools for navigation in non visual environments. In: ENACTIVE 2005, the 2nd International Conference on Enactive Interfaces (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Keuning, H.: Augmented force feedback to facilitate target acquisition in Human-Computer Interaction. PhD thesis, Technical University of Eindhoven, Eindhoven, The Netherlands (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    McGuffin, M., Balakrishnan, R.: Acquisition of expanding targets. In: Proceedings of ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI) 2002, pp. 57–64. ACM Press, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Oakley, I., Brewster, S., Gray, P.: Solving multi-target haptic problems in menu interaction. In: Extended Abstracts of ACM CHI 2001, Seattle, WA, USA, pp. 357–358 (2001)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Worden, A., Walker, N., Bharat, K., Hudson, S.: Making computers easier for older adults to use: Area cursors and sticky icons. In: Proceedings of CHI 1997: ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computer Systems, Atlanta, Georgia, USA (1997)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lode Vanacken
    • 1
  • Chris Raymaekers
    • 1
  • Karin Coninx
    • 1
  1. 1.Expertise Centre for Digital Media (EDM), and transnationale Universiteit LimburgHasselt UniversityDiepenbeekBelgium

Personalised recommendations