Ah, this is an interesting survey on Virtual Reality (VR) interactions.
-
By remapping spacetime or changing users’ body representation, we can create VR interactions that are not possible in the real world. For example, stretching the user’s virtual arm to manipulate distant objects or enlarging the user’s avatar for faster movement.
-
Maybe this is in line with the research by ritar.
-
It seems like the SHAPE lab, which published this paper, is heavily involved in such research.
-
- I’m curious about the aspect of time.
- 204 is related to Spacetime: Enabling Fluid Individual and Collaborative Editing in Virtual Reality
- 148 is about Active guideline: spatiotemporal history as a motion technique and navigation aid for virtual environments
- 74 is linked to Mediated-Timescale Learning: Manipulating Timescales in Virtual Reality to Improve Real-World Tennis Forehand Volley
- Seems similar to “Playing Kendama in VR” or related to the calendar research.
- 126 is about The matrix has you: realizing slow motion in full-body virtual reality
- I’m curious about the aspect of time.
-
I want to revisit this in the context of recent research by CGUI Lab Research (FMRG)
- I want to delve into previous studies on spatial asymmetry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbchXAwJ2lM
-
That’s right, it’s similar to the concept of Computer-mediated reality.
-
Describing specific parameters and signifiers is beneficial.
-
This allows for claims like “Based on this framework, you can identify these gaps in previous research.”
-
It’s important to read thoroughly.
- Intro
-
The idea of utilizing VR beyond replicating reality dates back to the early days of this technology. In a 1965 paper titled “The Ultimate Display,” Ivan Sutherland argued that there was no reason for objects displayed by computers to adhere to the normal rules of physical reality, suggesting that such a display could literally become a wonderland akin to Alice’s adventures [171].
-
In “Beyond being there” (1992), Hollan and Stornetta engaged in a similar discussion regarding research and development of collaborative work supported by telecommunication and computers. When comparing remote communication to face-to-face communication, they asserted that “imitation can never match the real thing.” By demanding one medium to imitate the other, the strengths of the old medium and the weaknesses of the new medium inevitably clash [69]. They presented a framework revolving around needs, media, and mechanisms, questioning what is problematic in (physically close) reality and exploring new mechanisms to leverage the strengths of new media to meet our needs.
-
Therefore, we propose describing VR interactions through the lens of sensorimotor systems applied as transformations for tracking and sensing inputs from the real world. We believe that such a perspective highlights insights into behavior and perception, key to understanding the possibilities and challenges of interactions beyond reality.
-
We present a framework based on sensorimotor control for classifying virtual reality interactions as reality-based, illusion-based, or beyond reality, aiming to categorize them based on sensory-motor control.
-
- Intro
-
In reality-based interactions, conversions create a 1:1 mapping in VR rendering. In illusion interactions, subtle remapping unnoticed by users is created. In interactions beyond reality, new remapping is established.
- It is discussed that human input-output systems also adapt to beyond-real environments.
-
- Interaction tasks: selection, manipulation, locomotion
- Remapping parameters: space, body, time
- Mapping types: direct, fixed remapping, dynamic remapping
- This is incredibly valuable (blu3mo)
-
Interesting findings
- We found that out of 97 beyond-real papers, 23 discuss the effects of sensory conflicts (24%). Typically, discussions on sensory-motor loops revolve around simulator sickness evaluated through the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ).
- We discovered limited consideration of causal factors to support a more empirical approach. By analyzing deeper models enabled by control theory, researchers could potentially design interaction technologies that do not induce simulator sickness from the outset and efficiently iterate upon recognizing factors causing sensory mismatches.
- There must be better validation methods.
-
Open questions
- Adaptation methods
- Initially, beyond-real remapping lacks familiarity due to the absence of corresponding elements in our physical reality, and forward models cannot predict the outcomes of motor actions.
- However, the best methods to support these adaptations are unknown.
- Familiarizing through analogies from existing experiences
- To address this unfamiliarity, designers have leveraged users’ previous experiences by using themes from SF literature, or more broadly, books, movies, and other narratives [109]. Another approach is designing interactions that indirectly utilize skills cultivated by users in the real world. For example, the mechanism of selecting distant objects through gaze leverages skills developed through making eye contact during conversations.
- Time investment
- Repetitive interactions are necessary to learn new control policies over time.
- Exploring and learning
- Various strategies to encourage exploration have been proposed in previous studies. For instance, providing low-quality visual feedback increases uncertainty, promotes exploratory risk-taking, and under new dynamics, may lead to a more precise internal model.
- Familiarizing through analogies from existing experiences
- Issues arising from long-term use
- Many research questions remain unanswered in the context of long-term use of interactions beyond realistic interactions. Can users be trained to perform effectively under new remapping through extended practice? How do interaction dynamics change after the novelty of beyond-real experiences fades? When returning to virtual experiences, can users maintain performance under similar remapping?
- Individual differences
- Individual differences play a significant role in how users perceive and act in virtual environments. These differences impact sensory integration and the threshold at which users notice new remapping. As a result, categorizing interactions as illusions or reality depends on the user.
- Presence- Presence, or the illusion of being in a particular place, is defined as a psychological experience of being there. Designers often seek presence, guided by implicit or explicit theories, expecting to enhance attributes of virtual experiences such as learning and task performance. However, researchers have found inconsistent results when studying the correlation between presence and such attributes.
- [Accessibility]
- Can people with disabilities use it?
- Ethical implications
- Adaptation methods
-
Limitation
- Physicality
- Previous studies have focused on the sense of physicality defined by three elements: sense of self-location, sense of agency, and sense of body ownership. Our research has not covered how this extensive body of research or interactions beyond reality may affect users’ sense of body in VR.
- It might be interesting to focus on action as an application.
- Social interaction
- Others
- Physicality
-
Bailenson and others discuss transformative technologies in collaborative virtual environments that alter the nature of social interactions, including self-expression, sensory abilities, and manipulation of temporal/spatial contexts. They argue that in VR, unlike face-to-face interaction, users’ rendered actions may deviate from actual behavior.
- Hmm, interesting (blu3mo)
- [Computer Mediated Communication] context
- [Transformed social interaction: Decoupling representation from behavior and form in collaborative virtual environments]
