Comparing user experiences in 2D and 3D videoconferencing

User experiences in 2D and 3D videoconferencing are evaluated and compared. An experimental system is designed that uses video direct-feed in 2D or 3D, providing nearly life-sized across-the-table videoconferencing to two participants without compression or transmission artifacts. 3D is achieved via polarization, selected because of its high resolution and high potential for eye contact. User experience is evaluated via a subjective test with two interactive tasks. The experiment is completed by three groups, who interact in 3D, in 2D (without polarizing glasses), and in 2D while wearing glasses, serving as a control for the use of glasses. Users of the system in 3D reported an increased ability to perceive depth, but otherwise reported similar user experiences to 2D users relating to quality of interaction. Wearing 3D glasses did not adversely impact user experience.

[1]  Wijnand A. IJsselsteijn,et al.  Human sensitivity to eye contact in 2D and 3D videoconferencing , 2010, 2010 Second International Workshop on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX).

[2]  Frank M. Ciaramello,et al.  A Computational Intelligibility Model for Assessment and Compression of American Sign Language Video , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing.

[3]  Péter Tamás Kovács,et al.  Real-time 3D light field transmission , 2010, Photonics Europe.

[4]  Jorg Hauber.  Evaluating Advanced Video-Conferencing Interfaces for Remote Teamwork , 2008 .

[5]  Steve Whittaker,et al.  Conversations Over Video Conferences: An Evaluation of the Spoken Aspects of Video-Mediated Communication , 1993, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[6]  H. Hecht,et al.  Are you looking at me? Measuring the cone of gaze. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[7]  C. Molina,et al.  A 3D Videoconferencing System with 2D Backwards Compatibility , 2007, 2007 3DTV Conference.

[8]  Milton Chen,et al.  Leveraging the asymmetric sensitivity of eye contact for videoconference , 2002, CHI.

[9]  Peter Eisert,et al.  3DPresence -A System Concept for Multi-User and Multi-Party Immersive 3D Videoconferencing , 2008 .

[10]  Carol Daunt,et al.  The nature of interaction in educational videoconferencing , 1999 .

[11]  Henry Fuchs,et al.  Encumbrance-free telepresence system with real-time 3D capture and display using commodity depth cameras , 2011, 2011 10th IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality.

[12]  Philip J. Corriveau,et al.  Psychovisual aspects of viewing stereoscopic video sequences , 1998, Electronic Imaging.

[13]  Wojciech Matusik,et al.  3D TV: a scalable system for real-time acquisition, transmission, and autostereoscopic display of dynamic scenes , 2004, ACM Trans. Graph..

[14]  Wojciech Matusik,et al.  3D TV: a scalable system for real-time acquisition, transmission, and autostereoscopic display of dynamic scenes , 2004, ACM Trans. Graph..

[15]  Andrew Jones,et al.  Achieving eye contact in a one-to-many 3D video teleconferencing system , 2009, ACM Trans. Graph..