Superiority of a Handheld Perspective-Coupled Display in Isomorphic Docking Performances

Six degrees of freedom docking is one of the most fundamental tasks when interacting with 3D virtual worlds. We investigated docking performances with isomorphic interactions that directly relate the 6-dof pose of the input device to that of the object controlled. In particular, we studied a Handheld Perspective-Coupled Display (HPCD); which is a novel form of interactive system where the display itself is handheld and used as the input device. It was compared to an opaque HMD and to a standard indirect flat display used with either a sphere or an articulated arm as the input device. A novel computation of an Index of Difficulty was introduced to measure the efficiency of each interaction. We observed superior performances with the HPCD compared with the other interactions by a large margin (17% better than the closest interaction).

[1]  Amélie Rochet-Capellan,et al.  The Transfer of Learning as HCI Similarity: Towards an Objective Assessment of the Sensory-Motor Basis of Naturalness , 2015, CHI.

[2]  Jeremy R. Cooperstock,et al.  Evaluation of Docking Task Performance Using Mid-air Interaction Techniques , 2015, SUI.

[3]  Tobias Isenberg,et al.  Usability Comparison of Mouse, Touch and Tangible Inputs for 3D Data Manipulation , 2016, ArXiv.

[4]  Michael J. McGuffin,et al.  Pop-up depth views for improving 3D target acquisition , 2011, Graphics Interface.

[5]  Jeremy R. Cooperstock,et al.  Did "Minority Report" Get It Wrong? Superiority of the Mouse over 3D Input Devices in a 3D Placement Task , 2009, INTERACT.

[6]  Hongbo Fu,et al.  Two‐Finger Gestures for 6DOF Manipulation of 3D Objects , 2012, Comput. Graph. Forum.

[7]  François Bérard,et al.  The Object Inside: Assessing 3D Examination with a Spherical Handheld Perspective-Corrected Display , 2017, CHI.

[8]  Jeff Rose,et al.  Rotating virtual objects with real handles , 1999, TCHI.

[9]  Raimund Dachselt,et al.  Use your head: tangible windows for 3D information spaces in a tabletop environment , 2012, ITS.

[10]  Shumin Zhai,et al.  Quantifying coordination in multiple DOF movement and its application to evaluating 6 DOF input devices , 1998, CHI.

[11]  Colin Ware.  Using hand position for virtual object placement , 2005, The Visual Computer.

[12]  I. Scott MacKenzie,et al.  Towards a standard for pointing device evaluation, perspectives on 27 years of Fitts' law research in HCI , 2004, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[13]  Sidney S. Fels,et al.  pCubee: a perspective-corrected handheld cubic display , 2010, CHI.

[14]  Ivan Poupyrev,et al.  3D User Interfaces: Theory and Practice , 2004 .

[15]  Tobias Isenberg,et al.  Mouse, Tactile, and Tangible Input for 3D Manipulation , 2016, CHI.

[16]  Shumin Zhai,et al.  The influence of muscle groups on performance of multiple degree-of-freedom input , 1996, CHI.

[17]  Tony DeRose,et al.  Eden: a professional multitouch tool for constructing virtual organic environments , 2011, CHI.

[18]  Hirokazu Kato,et al.  Augmented Reality versus Virtual Reality for 3D Object Manipulation , 2018, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[19]  Bernd Fröhlich,et al.  The GlobeFish and the GlobeMouse: two new six degree of freedom input devices for graphics applications , 2006, CHI.

[20]  Frederick P. Brooks,et al.  Moving objects in space: exploiting proprioception in virtual-environment interaction , 1997, SIGGRAPH.

[21]  Ivan Poupyrev,et al.  Non-isomorphic 3D rotational techniques , 2000, CHI.

[22]  David L. Akin,et al.  Assessment of Fitts’ Law for Quantifying Combined Rotational and Translational Movements , 2010, Hum. Factors.

[23]  Paul Milgram,et al.  Measuring the allocation of control in a 6 degree-of-freedom docking experiment , 2000, CHI.

[24]  M. Sheelagh T. Carpendale,et al.  Shallow-depth 3d interaction: design and evaluation of one-, two- and three-touch techniques , 2007, CHI.