A comparative study of four input devices for desktop virtual walkthroughs

This paper presents the results of an experiment measuring the effect of four different input devices on overall task performance for desktop virtual walkthroughs. The input devices tested are: a keyboard, a mouse, a joystick and a gamepad. The results indicate that the participants completed the tasks in significantly less time and distance travelled with the mouse than with the three other input devices. The use of the mouse also significantly reduced the number of collisions, while the use of the gamepad resulted in significantly more collisions.

[1]  Angelia Sebok,et al.  Navigation in desktop virtual environments: an evaluation and recommendations for supporting usability , 2004, Virtual Reality.

[2]  Shumin Zhai,et al.  User performance in relation to 3D input device design , 1998, COMG.

[3]  Jacob Cohen.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 1969, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[4]  Samuel S. Silva,et al.  Head-mounted display versus desktop for 3D navigation in virtual reality: a user study , 2008, Multimedia Tools and Applications.

[5]  Shumin Zhai,et al.  In Search of the 'Magic Carpet': Design and Experimentation of a Bimanual 3D Navigation Interface , 1999, J. Vis. Lang. Comput..

[6]  Shumin Zhai,et al.  Investigation of Feel for 6DOF Inputs: Isometric and Elastic Rate Control for Manipulation in 3D Environments , 1993 .

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

[8]  J.-F. Lapointe,et al.  A comparative study of three bimanual travel techniques for desktop virtual walkthroughs , 2009, 2009 IEEE International Workshop on Haptic Audio visual Environments and Games.

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

[10]  Jean-François Lapointe.  Effects of joystick mapping and field-of-view on human performance in virtual walkthroughs , 2002, Proceedings. First International Symposium on 3D Data Processing Visualization and Transmission.

[11]  D. B. Duncan.  MULTIPLE RANGE AND MULTIPLE F TESTS , 1955 .

[12]  Frederick P. Brooks,et al.  Walkthrough—a dynamic graphics system for simulating virtual buildings , 1987, I3D '86.

[13]  Shumin Zhai.  Investigation of Feel for 6DOF Inputs: Isometric and Elastic Rate Control for Manipulation in 3D Environments , 1993 .

[14]  Bernd Fröhlich,et al.  On 3D input devices , 2006, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications.

[15]  Dylan M. Jones,et al.  Navigating Buildings in "Desk-Top" Virtual Environments: Experimental Investigations Using Extended Navigational Experience , 1997 .

[16]  W Lindeman Robert.  Making VR More Usable : The State of Effectiveness in Virtual Reality , 2006 .

[17]  Allen Newell,et al.  The Prospects for Psychological Science in Human-Computer Interaction , 1985, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[18]  Mary C. Whitton,et al.  Walking > walking-in-place > flying, in virtual environments , 1999, SIGGRAPH.

[19]  Roy A. Ruddle,et al.  Navigating Large-Scale Desk-Top Virtual Buildings: Effects of Orientation Aids and Familiarity , 1998, Presence.

[20]  Roy A. Ruddle,et al.  Navigating Large-Scale Virtual Environments: What Differences Occur Between Helmet-Mounted and Desk-Top Displays? , 1999, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[21]  Robert J. K. Jacob,et al.  Integrality and separability of input devices , 1994, TCHI.

[22]  J.-F. Lapointe,et al.  Comparison of Viewpoint Orientation Techniques for Desktop Virtual Walkthroughs , 2007, 2007 IEEE International Workshop on Haptic, Audio and Visual Environments and Games.

[23]  P. Lachenbruch.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.) , 1989 .