1. 1 MCW & FPB 10/28/02 Wildcatting — VE Effectiveness Fred Brooks Mary Whitton University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill www.cs.unc.edu/~brooks Fred Brooks Mary Whitton University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill www.cs.unc.edu/~brooks

2. 2 MCW & FPB 10/28/02 The Scientific Questions Can we make effective virtual environments?Can we make effective virtual environments? If so, so what? Can we interact with computers better thus than with desktop graphics?If so, so what? Can we interact with computers better thus than with desktop graphics? How can we measure effectiveness?How can we measure effectiveness? Can we make effective virtual environments?Can we make effective virtual environments? If so, so what? Can we interact with computers better thus than with desktop graphics?If so, so what? Can we interact with computers better thus than with desktop graphics? How can we measure effectiveness?How can we measure effectiveness?

3. 3 MCW & FPB 10/28/02 EVE Team, Spring 2002 Fred BrooksFred Brooks Mary WhittonMary Whitton Sharif RazzaqueSharif Razzaque Ben LokBen Lok (Mike Meehan–2001)(Mike Meehan–2001) Fred BrooksFred Brooks Mary WhittonMary Whitton Sharif RazzaqueSharif Razzaque Ben LokBen Lok (Mike Meehan–2001)(Mike Meehan–2001) Angus Antley Greg Coombe Mark Harris Jason Jerald Samir Naik Thorsten Scheuerman Paul Zimmons Collaborators: Mark Hollins, UNC Psychology Mel Slater, Anthony Steed, Univ. College London Mel Slater, Anthony Steed, Univ. College London Roger Hubbold, Univ. Manchester Roger Hubbold, Univ. Manchester

4. 4 MCW & FPB 10/28/02 People: Our Crucial Product 1997 Mark Miné1997 Mark Miné 1998 David Luebke1998 David Luebke 1999 Rui Bastos1999 Rui Bastos 2000 Kevin Arthur2000 Kevin Arthur 2001 Brent Insko2001 Brent Insko 2001 Mike Meehan2001 Mike Meehan 2002 Ben Lok2002 Ben Lok 1997 Mark Miné1997 Mark Miné 1998 David Luebke1998 David Luebke 1999 Rui Bastos1999 Rui Bastos 2000 Kevin Arthur2000 Kevin Arthur 2001 Brent Insko2001 Brent Insko 2001 Mike Meehan2001 Mike Meehan 2002 Ben Lok2002 Ben Lok

5. 5 MCW & FPB 10/28/02 Measuring Effectiveness Physiological measures of effectiveness Physiological measures of effectiveness Took the easiest possible case Took the easiest possible case Enables a program of research Enables a program of research Physiological measures of effectiveness Physiological measures of effectiveness Took the easiest possible case Took the easiest possible case Enables a program of research Enables a program of research

6. 6 MCW & FPB 10/28/02 Physiological Measures: Stress Reaction

7. 7 MCW & FPB 10/28/02 What Makes the Illusion Work? UNC User Studies so far:UNC User Studies so far: – Field of view on search and maze task performance: 176°>112°>48° – Method of travel on presence: walking>flying – Physiological measures of presence – Frame rate on presence: 30>20>15~>10 fps – Passive haptics on presence, training: > – Dynamic real objects on performance, presence – Imperceptible redirection on walking direction – Latency on presence: 50 ms > 90 ms ! UNC User Studies so far:UNC User Studies so far: – Field of view on search and maze task performance: 176°>112°>48° – Method of travel on presence: walking>flying – Physiological measures of presence – Frame rate on presence: 30>20>15~>10 fps – Passive haptics on presence, training: > – Dynamic real objects on performance, presence – Imperceptible redirection on walking direction – Latency on presence: 50 ms > 90 ms !

8. 8 MCW & FPB 10/28/02 Dynamic Real Objects in VEs Insert the models into the VE Insert the models into the VE Make them interact properly Make them interact properly Using cameras, build visual hull 3D models of real objects Using cameras, build visual hull 3D models of real objects

9. 9 MCW & FPB 10/28/02 User Feels the Real, Sees the Virtual

10. 10 MCW & FPB 10/28/02 NASA User Trial

11. 11 MCW & FPB 10/28/02 Redirected Walking Blue: perceived path perceived pathRed: actual path actual path

12. 12 MCW & FPB 10/28/02 SIGGRAPH ‘02 Latency Study Demonstrated system to 192 peopleDemonstrated system to 192 people Full pit demo with physiological sensingFull pit demo with physiological sensing End-to-end latencies of 50 and 90 msEnd-to-end latencies of 50 and 90 ms Same frame rates for both, >60 fps.Same frame rates for both, >60 fps. Usable data from ~66 subjectsUsable data from ~66 subjects 50 ms sig. More “present” than 90 ms, after correction for nausea. Surprise!50 ms sig. More “present” than 90 ms, after correction for nausea. Surprise! Demonstrated system to 192 peopleDemonstrated system to 192 people Full pit demo with physiological sensingFull pit demo with physiological sensing End-to-end latencies of 50 and 90 msEnd-to-end latencies of 50 and 90 ms Same frame rates for both, >60 fps.Same frame rates for both, >60 fps. Usable data from ~66 subjectsUsable data from ~66 subjects 50 ms sig. More “present” than 90 ms, after correction for nausea. Surprise!50 ms sig. More “present” than 90 ms, after correction for nausea. Surprise!

13. 13 MCW & FPB 10/28/02 Many Thanks for Funding National Institutes of HealthNational Institutes of Health –National Center for Research Resources –National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Office of Naval Research VIRTE ProjectOffice of Naval Research VIRTE Project National Institutes of HealthNational Institutes of Health –National Center for Research Resources –National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Office of Naval Research VIRTE ProjectOffice of Naval Research VIRTE Project