CAVE and fishtank virtual-reality displays: a qualitative and quantitative comparison

We present the results from a qualitative and quantitative user study comparing fishtank virtual-reality (VR) and CAVE displays. The results of the qualitative study show that users preferred the fishtank VR display to the CAVE system for our scientific visualization application because of perceived higher resolution, brightness and crispness of imagery, and comfort of use. The results of the quantitative study show that users performed an abstract visual search task significantly more quickly and more accurately on the fishtank VR display system than in the CAVE. The same study also showed that visual context had no significant effect on task performance for either of the platforms. We suggest that fishtank VR displays are more effective than CAVEs for applications in which the task occurs outside the user's reference frame, the user views and manipulates the virtual world from the outside in, and the size of the virtual object that the user interacts with is smaller than the user's body and fits into the fishtank VR display. The results of both studies support this proposition

[1]  A. Oliva,et al.  Segmentation of objects from backgrounds in visual search tasks , 2002, Vision Research.

[2]  Benjamin D. Greenberg,et al.  An immersive virtual environment for DT-MRI volume visualization applications: a case study , 2001, Proceedings Visualization, 2001. VIS '01..

[3]  M. Chun,et al.  Contextual cueing of visual attention , 2022 .

[4]  David J. Kasik,et al.  Evaluating Graphic Displays for Complex 3D Models , 2002, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications.

[5]  Umer Farooq,et al.  Empirical Comparison of Human Behavior and Performance with Different Display Devices for Virtual Environments , 2002 .

[6]  W. Tryon.  Evaluating statistical difference, equivalence, and indeterminacy using inferential confidence intervals: an integrated alternative method of conducting null hypothesis statistical tests. , 2001, Psychological methods.

[7]  Carolina Cruz-Neira,et al.  Surround-Screen Projection-Based Virtual Reality: The Design and Implementation of the CAVE , 2023 .

[8]  Kellogg S. Booth,et al.  Fish tank virtual reality , 1993, INTERCHI.

[9]  J. Wolfe,et al.  What Can 1 Million Trials Tell Us About Visual Search? , 1998 .

[10]  Robert Michael Kirby,et al.  Comparing 2D vector field visualization methods: a user study , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[11]  Colin Ware,et al.  Evaluating stereo and motion cues for visualizing information nets in three dimensions , 1996, TOGS.

[12]  Kellogg S. Booth,et al.  Evaluating 3D task performance for fish tank virtual worlds , 1993, TOIS.

[13]  I. Biederman,et al.  Searching for objects in real-world scences. , 1973, Journal of experimental psychology.

[14]  Dennis Proffitt,et al.  Quantifying immersion in virtual reality , 1997, SIGGRAPH.

[15]  Doug A. Bowman,et al.  Empirical Comparisons of Virtual Environment Displays , 2001 .

[16]  Mary Czerwinski,et al.  Immersion in desktop virtual reality , 1997, UIST '97.

[17]  D. MUMFORDt,et al.  Discriminating figure from ground : The role of edge detection and region growing , 2022 .