User-centered virtual environment design for virtual rehabilitation

BackgroundAs physical and cognitive rehabilitation protocols utilizing virtual environments transition from single applications to comprehensive rehabilitation programs there is a need for a new design cycle methodology. Current human-computer interaction designs focus on usability without benchmarking technology within a user-in-the-loop design cycle. The field of virtual rehabilitation is unique in that determining the efficacy of this genre of computer-aided therapies requires prior knowledge of technology issues that may confound patient outcome measures. Benchmarking the technology (e.g., displays or data gloves) using healthy controls may provide a means of characterizing the "normal" performance range of the virtual rehabilitation system. This standard not only allows therapists to select appropriate technology for use with their patient populations, it also allows them to account for technology limitations when assessing treatment efficacy.MethodsAn overview of the proposed user-centered design cycle is given. Comparisons of two optical see-through head-worn displays provide an example of benchmarking techniques. Benchmarks were obtained using a novel vision test capable of measuring a user's stereoacuity while wearing different types of head-worn displays. Results from healthy participants who performed both virtual and real-world versions of the stereoacuity test are discussed with respect to virtual rehabilitation design.ResultsThe user-centered design cycle argues for benchmarking to precede virtual environment construction, especially for therapeutic applications. Results from real-world testing illustrate the general limitations in stereoacuity attained when viewing content using a head-worn display. Further, the stereoacuity vision benchmark test highlights differences in user performance when utilizing a similar style of head-worn display. These results support the need for including benchmarks as a means of better understanding user outcomes, especially for patient populations.ConclusionsThe stereoacuity testing confirms that without benchmarking in the design cycle poor user performance could be misconstrued as resulting from the participant's injury state. Thus, a user-centered design cycle that includes benchmarking for the different sensory modalities is recommended for accurate interpretation of the efficacy of the virtual environment based rehabilitation programs.

[1]  Todd Bowerly,et al.  A Virtual Reality Scenario for All Seasons: The Virtual Classroom , 2009, CNS Spectrums.

[2]  A. Rizzo,et al.  The application of virtual reality technology in rehabilitation. , 2001 .

[3]  Mark Mon-Williams,et al.  What does virtual reality NEED?: human factors issues in the design of three-dimensional computer environments , 1996, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[4]  Eli Peli,et al.  Stereoacuity at Distance and Near , 2002, Optometry and Vision Science.

[5]  Henry Fuchs,et al.  Optical Versus Video See-Through Head-Mounted Displays in Medical Visualization , 2000, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[6]  Ronald R. Mourant,et al.  Human Factors Issues in Virtual Environments: A Review of the Literature , 1998, Presence.

[7]  Albert A. Rizzo,et al.  Virtual Reality in Brain Damage Rehabilitation: Review , 2005, Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw..

[8]  B. Rothbaum,et al.  The Use of Virtual Reality Exposure in the Treatment of Anxiety Disorders , 1999, Behavior modification.

[9]  Neil A. M. Maiden,et al.  Interacting with virtual environments: an evaluation of a model of interaction , 1999, Interact. Comput..

[10]  Roy Kalawsky,et al.  The science of virtual reality and virtual environments - a technical, scientific and engineering reference on virtual environments , 1993 .

[11]  B. Harrison Las Vegas, Nevada , 2002 .

[12]  E. N. Corlett,et al.  Evaluation of human work : a practical ergonomics methodology , 1991 .

[13]  Doug A. Bowman,et al.  A Survey of Usability Evaluation in Virtual Environments: Classification and Comparison of Methods , 2002, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[14]  Jannick P. Rolland,et al.  Methodology for the Iterative Evaluation of Prototype Head-Mounted Displays in Virtual Environments: Visual Acuity Metrics , 2005, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[15]  R. Reading Binocular vision : foundations and applications , 1983 .

[16]  Ronald G. Driggers,et al.  Encyclopedia of optical engineering , 2003 .

[17]  Cali Fidopiastis,et al.  User-centered virtual environment assessment and design for cognitive rehabilitation applications , 2006 .

[18]  S. Ellis Pictorial communication in virtual and real environments , 1991 .

[19]  Mark Mon-Williams,et al.  Natural problems for stereoscopic depth perception in virtual environments , 1995, Vision Research.

[20]  Alexei A. Goon,et al.  Multifocal planes head-mounted displays. , 2000, Applied optics.

[21]  P. Romano,et al.  Stereoacuity degradation by experimental and real monocular and binocular amblyopia. , 1985, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[22]  R.M.E. Moreira da Costa,et al.  Virtual reality in cognitive retraining , 2000 .

[23]  Charles E. Hughes,et al.  Human Experience Modeler: Context-Driven Cognitive Retraining to Facilitate Transfer of Learning , 2006, Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw..

[24]  Yvonne Rogers,et al.  Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction , 2002 .

[25]  Gerard Jounghyun Kim,et al.  A SWOT Analysis of the Field of Virtual Reality Rehabilitation and Therapy , 2005, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[26]  J. Rolland,et al.  Head-worn displays: a review , 2006, Journal of Display Technology.

[27]  G Riva,et al.  Applications of Virtual Environments in Medicine , 2003, Methods of Information in Medicine.

[28]  Albert A. Rizzo,et al.  Virtual environment applications in clinical neuropsychology , 2000, Proceedings IEEE Virtual Reality 2000 (Cat. No.00CB37048).

[29]  Shih-Ching Yeh,et al.  Development of a Benchmarking Scenario for Testing 3D User Interface Devices and Interaction Methods , 2005 .

[30]  Alex W. Stedmon,et al.  Re-viewing reality: human factors of synthetic training environments , 2001, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[31]  Albert Rizzo,et al.  A SWOT Analysis of the Field of Virtual Rehabilitation and Therapy. , 2005 .

[32]  Albert A. Rizzo,et al.  Virtual reality and cognitive assessment and rehabilitation: the state of the art. , 1997, Studies in health technology and informatics.

[33]  E. A. Attree,et al.  Training in virtual environments: transfer to real world tasks and equivalence to real task training , 2000, Ergonomics.

[34]  Austin Henderson,et al.  Interaction design: beyond human-computer interaction , 2002, UBIQ.

[35]  Hong Hua,et al.  Head-Mounted Display Systems , 2005 .

[36]  R M Burde,et al.  Effect of binocular variations of Snellen's visual acuity on Titmus stereoacuity. , 1983, Archives of ophthalmology.

[37]  Christine L. Lisetti,et al.  Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction , 2009 .

[38]  F. Tokunaga,et al.  In the eye , 1998 .

[39]  P. Prakash,et al.  Randot stereoacuity at various binocular combinations of Snellen acuity. , 1997, Indian journal of ophthalmology.

[40]  Kay M. Stanney,et al.  Realizing the full potential of virtual reality: human factors issues that could stand in the way , 1995, Proceedings Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium '95.

[41]  Donald O. Mutti Introduction to the Optics of the Eye , 2003 .

[42]  Noomi Katz,et al.  Video capture virtual reality as a flexible and effective rehabilitation tool , 2004, Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation.

[43]  Sri Hastuti Kurniawan,et al.  Review of Interaction design , 2003 .

[44]  Jannick P. Rolland,et al.  Method of Adjustments versus Method of Constant Stimuli in the Quantification of Accuracy and Precision of Rendered Depth in Head-Mounted Displays , 2002, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[45]  Marc M. Sebrechts,et al.  HANDBOOK OF VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENTS , 2014 .

[46]  James E. Cutting,et al.  Chapter 3 – Perceiving Layout and Knowing Distances: The Integration, Relative Potency, and Contextual Use of Different Information about Depth* , 1995 .

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

[48]  J. E. Galletly,et al.  Helmet‐Mounted Displays and Sights , 2000 .

[49]  Hugh Davson,et al.  Visual optics and the optical space sense , 1962 .

[50]  Jannick P. Rolland,et al.  Towards Quantifying Depth and Size Perception in Virtual Environments , 1993, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[51]  Terri Gullickson Evaluation of Human Work: A Practical Ergonomics Methodology. , 1996 .

[52]  Clive Fencott,et al.  Towards a Design Methodology for Virtual Environments , 1999 .

[53]  W. Epstein,et al.  Perception of space and motion , 1995 .

[54]  Mansooreh Mollaghasemi,et al.  Usability engineering of virtual environments (VEs): identifying multiple criteria that drive effective VE system design , 2003, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[55]  H. Hoffman,et al.  Effectiveness of Virtual Reality–Based Pain Control With Multiple Treatments , 2001, The Clinical journal of pain.

[56]  Larry S. Davis,et al.  Enabling a Continuum of Virtual Environment Experiences , 2003, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications.