Effects of Display Type on Performance in Virtual Environments.

Abstract : This research was conducted as part of a program to determine interface requirements for enabling dismounted soldiers to train in Virtual Environments (VEs). We compared different VE display devices in terms of their effects on task performance, skill acquisition, and side effects. Forty-eight college students completed a series of visual and psychomotor tasks, a subset of the Virtual Environment Performance Assessment Battery (VEPAB), using either a Head-mounted Display (HMD), a head-tracked boom-mounted display, or a standard computer monitor. Performance on vision tasks was sensitive to differences in display devices and to individual differences. Visual acuity scores were ordered according to estimates of the resolution of the displays, but were worse than what would he predicted from the resolution estimates. In comparison to real-world performance, distance and height estimation in the VEs varied greatly across participants, especially with the HMD. Motor tasks had high reliability, demonstrated small but significant practice effects, and were correlated with participants' use of computers and video games. Unexpectedly, even the standard monitor group showed a significant increase in simulator sickness scores. The VEPAB tasks should prove useful in the future when design tradeoffs must be made in the process of developing training system prototypes.

[1]  Warren Robinett,et al.  A Computational Model for the Stereoscopic Optics of a Head-Mounted Display , 1991, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[2]  E. A. Alluisi,et al.  The Development of Technology for Collective Training: SIMNET, a Case History , 1991 .

[3]  M. J. Norušis,et al.  SPSS 6.1 Guide to Data Analysis , 1997 .

[4]  James P. Bliss,et al.  A research testbed for virtual environment training applications , 1993, Proceedings of IEEE Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium.

[5]  Paul F Gorman.  SuperTroop via I-Port: Distributed Simulation Technology for Combat Development and Training Development , 1990 .

[6]  James P. Bliss,et al.  The Virtual Environment Performance Assessment Battery (VEPAB):Development and Evaluation1 , 1994, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[7]  David Zeltzer,et al.  Three Dimensional Visual Display Systems for Virtual Environments , 1992, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[8]  Kenneth R. Boff,et al.  Engineering data compendium : human perception and performance , 1988 .

[9]  John H. Bailey,et al.  Side Effects and Aftereffects of Immersion in Virtual Environments , 1994 .

[10]  Michael J. Singer,et al.  Task Performance in Virtual Environments: Stereoscopic Versus Monoscopic Displays and Head-Coupling. , 1995 .

[11]  G. Murch.  Visual and auditory perception , 1972 .

[12]  Pieter Padmos,et al.  Quality Criteria for Simulator Images: A Literature Review , 1992 .

[13]  Norman E. Lane,et al.  Profile Analysis of Simulator Sickness Symptoms: Application to Virtual Environment Systems , 1992, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[14]  Robert H. Wright,et al.  Virtual Reality Psychophysics: Forward and Lateral Distance, Height, and Speed Perceptions with a Wide-Angle Helmet Display. , 1995 .

[15]  William H. Levison,et al.  Use of Virtual Environment Training Technology for Individual Combat Simulation , 1993 .

[16]  James P. Bliss,et al.  Distance Estimation in Virtual Environments , 1995 .

[17]  Ken Pimentel,et al.  Virtual reality - through the new looking glass , 1993 .

[18]  Bob G. Witmer,et al.  Measuring Presence in Virtual Environments , 1994 .