VE Input Devices - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – VE Input Devices PowerPoint presentation | free to view - id: 1dfcb5-ZDc1Z



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

VE Input Devices

Description:

Doug Bowman (Modified by Sabarish V. Babu) Virginia Tech. Bowman, et al., Chapter 4 ... (C) 2005 Doug Bowman, Virginia Tech, Sabarish Babu, Univ. Iowa. 10 ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:32
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 37
Provided by: dougb82
Category:
Tags: devices | doug | input

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: VE Input Devices


1
VE Input Devices
  • Doug Bowman
  • (Modified by Sabarish V. Babu)
  • Virginia Tech
  • Bowman, et al., Chapter 4

2
Goals and Motivation
  • Provide practical introduction to the input
    devices used in VEs
  • Examine common and state of the art input devices
  • look for general trends
  • spark creativity
  • Advantages and disadvantages
  • Discuss how different input devices affect
    interface design

3
Input devices
  • Hardware that allows the user to communicate with
    the system
  • Input device vs. interaction technique
  • Single device can implement many ITs

4
Human-computer interface
User interface software
Input devices
System Software
Output devices
User
5
Human-VE interface
Env. model
Display(s)
Simulation loop -render -check for
events -respond to events -iterate
simulation -get new tracker data
Tracking system
Input device(s)
6
Input device characteristics
  • Degrees of Freedom (DOFs) DOF composition
    (integral vs. separable)
  • Range of reported values discrete/continuous/hybr
    id
  • User action required active/passive/hybrid
  • Intended use locator, valuator, choice, …
  • Frame of reference relative vs. absolute
  • Properties sensed position, motion, force, …

7
Practical classification system
  • Desktop devices
  • Tracking devices
  • 3D mice
  • Special-purpose devices
  • Direct human input

8
Desktop devices keyboards
  • Chord keyboards1
  • Arm-mounted keyboards2
  • Soft keyboards (logical devices)

9
Desktop devices 6-DOF devices
  • 6 DOFs without tracking
  • Often isometric
  • Exs SpaceBall, SpaceMouse, SpaceOrb

10
Tracking physical objects (props)
11
Tracking devices eye tracking
12
Tracking devices pinch gloves
  • Conductive cloth at fingertips
  • Any gesture of 2 to 10 fingers, plus combinations
    of gestures
  • gt 115,000 gestures

13
Pinch Gloves for menus
  • TULIP system14
  • ND hand selects menu, D hand selects item within
    menu
  • Limited to comfortable gestures
  • Visual feedback on virtual hands

14
3D mice
  • Ring Mouse
  • Fly Mouse
  • Wand
  • Cubic Mouse
  • Dragonfly
  • …

15
Special-purpose devices using conductive cloth
  • Virtual toolbelt
  • Used to select virtual tools
  • Good use of proprioceptive cues
  • Interaction slippers3
  • Step on displayed options
  • Click heels to go home

16
Special-purpose devices Painting Table4
17
Special-purpose devices ShapeTape11
18
Human input speech
  • Frees hands
  • Allows multimodal input
  • No special hardware
  • Specialized software
  • Issues recognition, ambient noise, training,
    false positives, …

19
Human input Bioelectric Control
20
Human input Body Sensing Devices
21
More human input
  • Breathing device - OSMOSE
  • Brain-body actuated control
  • muscle movements
  • thoughts!

22
Locomotion devices
  • Treadmills
  • Stationary cycles
  • VMC / magic carpet
  • Walking/flying simulations (use trackers)

23
UNIPORT
  • First Locomotion Device For U.S. Army (1994)
  • Proof-of-concept demonstration
  • Developed in six weeks
  • Difficult to change direction of travel
  • Small motions such as side-stepping are impossible

24
Treadport
  • Developed in 1995
  • Based on a standard treadmill with the user being
    monitored and constrained by mechanical
    attachment to the users waist
  • User actually walks or jogs instead of pedaling
  • Physical movement is constrained to one direction

25
Individual Soldier Mobility Simulator (Biport)
  • Most sophisticated locomotion device
  • Designed for the conduct of locomotion studies
  • Hydraulic-based locomotion driven w/ force
    sensors at the feet
  • Safeguards limited responsiveness
  • Too awkward to operate

26
Omni-Directional Treadmill15,16
  • Most recently developed locomotion device for
    U.S. Army
  • Revolutionary device that enables bipedal
    locomotion in any direction of travel
  • Consists of two perpendicular treadmills
  • Two fundamental types of movement
  • User initiated movement
  • System initiated movement

27
Torus treadmill
28
Virtual Motion Controller17
  • Weight sensors in platform sense users position
    over platform
  • Step in direction to move that direction
  • Step further to go faster

29
Walking in place18,19
  • Analyze tracker information from head, body, feet
  • Neural network (Slater)
  • GAITER project (Templeman)
  • Shown to be better than purely virtual movement,
    but worse than real walking20

30
Classification of locomotion devices/techniques
31
Input and output with a single device
  • Classic example - touch screen
  • LCD tablets or PDAs with pen-based input
  • Phantom haptic device
  • FEELEX haptic device21

32
PDA as ideal VE device?22
  • Offers both input and output
  • Has on-board memory
  • Wireless communication
  • Portable, light, robust
  • Allows text / number input
  • Can be tracked to allow spatial input

33
Conclusions
  • When choosing a device, consider
  • Cost
  • Generality
  • DOFs
  • Ergonomics / human factors
  • Typical scenarios of use
  • Output devices
  • Interaction techniques

34
Acknowledgments
  • Doug Bowman, Virginia Tech, Center for
    Human-Computer Interaction
  • Joe LaViola, Brown University, for slides and
    discussions
  • Ron Spencer, presentation on locomotion devices
    used by the Army

35
References
  • 1 Matias, E., MacKenzie, I., Buxton, W.
    (1993). Half-QWERTY A One-handed Keyboard
    Facilitating Skill Transfer from QWERTY.
    Proceedings of ACM INTERCHI, 88-94.
  • 2 Thomas, B., Tyerman, S., Grimmer, K.
    (1998). Evaluation of Text Input Mechanisms for
    Wearable Computers. Virtual Reality Research,
    Development, and Applications, 3, 187-199.
  • 3 LaViola, J., Acevedo, D., Keefe, D.,
    Zeleznik, R. (2001). Hands-Free Multi-Scale
    Navigation in Virtual Environments. Proceedings
    of ACM Symposium on Interactive 3D Graphics,
    Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 9-15.
  • 4 Keefe, D., Feliz, D., Moscovich, T., Laidlaw,
    D., LaViola, J. (2001). CavePainting A Fully
    Immersive 3D Artistic Medium and Interactive
    Experience. Proceedings of ACM Symposium on
    Interactive 3D Graphics, Research Triangle Park,
    North Carolina, 85-93.
  • 5 Bowman, D., Wineman, J., Hodges, L.,
    Allison, D. (1998). Designing Animal Habitats
    Within an Immersive VE. IEEE Computer Graphics
    Applications, 18(5), 9-13.
  • 6 Hinckley, K., Pausch, R., Goble, J.,
    Kassell, N. (1994). Passive Real-World Interface
    Props for Neurosurgical Visualization.
    Proceedings of CHI Human Factors in Computing
    Systems, 452-458.
  • 7 Kessler, G., Hodges, L., Walker, N. (1995).
    Evaluation of the CyberGlove(TM) as a Whole Hand
    Input Device. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human
    Interaction, 2(4), 263-283.
  • 8 LaViola, J., Zeleznik, R. (1999). Flex and
    Pinch A Case Study of Whole-Hand Input Design
    for Virtual Environment Interaction. Proceedings
    of the International Conference on Computer
    Graphics and Imaging, 221-225.
  • 9 Ware, C., Jessome, D. (1988). Using the
    Bat a Six-Dimensional Mouse for Object
    Placement. IEEE Computer Graphics and
    Applications, 8(6), 65-70.
  • 10 Zeleznik, R. C., Herndon, K. P., Robbins, D.
    C., Huang, N., Meyer, T., Parker, N., Hughes,
    J. F. (1993). An Interactive 3D Toolkit for
    Constructing 3D Widgets. Proceedings of ACM
    SIGGRAPH, Anaheim, CA, USA, 81-84.

36
References (2)
  • 11 Balakrishnan, R., Fitzmaurice, G.,
    Kurtenbach, G., Singh, K. (1999). Exploring
    Interactive Curve and Surface Manipulation Using
    a Bend and Twist Sensitive Input Strip.
    Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Interactive
    3D Graphics, 111-118.
  • 12 Froehlich, B., Plate, J. (2000). The Cubic
    Mouse A New Device for Three-Dimensional Input.
    Proceedings of ACM CHI.
  • 13 Mapes, D., Moshell, J. (1995). A
    Two-Handed Interface for Object Manipulation in
    Virtual Environments. Presence Teleoperators and
    Virtual Environments, 4(4), 403-416.
  • 14 Bowman, D., Wingrave, C., Campbell, J.,
    Ly, V. (2001). Using Pinch Gloves for both
    Natural and Abstract Interaction Techniques in
    Virtual Environments. Proceedings of HCI
    International, New Orleans, Louisiana.
  • 15 Darken, R., Cockayne, W., Carmein, D.
    (1997). The Omni-directional Treadmill A
    Locomotion Device for Virtual Worlds. Proceedings
    of ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and
    Technology, 213-221.
  • 16 Iwata, H. (1999). Walking About Virtual
    Environments on an Infinite Floor. Proceedings of
    IEEE Virtual Reality, Houston, Texas, 286-293.
  • 17 Wells, M., Peterson, B., Aten, J. (1996).
    The Virtual Motion Controller A
    Sufficient-Motion Walking Simulator. Proceedings
    of IEEE Virtual Reality Annual International
    Symposium, 1-8.
  • 18 Slater, M., Usoh, M., Steed, A. (1995).
    Taking Steps The Influence of a Walking
    Technique on Presence in Virtual Reality. ACM
    Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 2(3),
    201-219.
  • 19 Slater, M., Steed, A., Usoh, M. (1995).
    The Virtual Treadmill A Naturalistic Metaphor
    for Navigation in Immersive Virtual Environments,
    Virtual Environments '95 Selected Papers of the
    Eurographics Workshops (pp. 135-148). New York
    SpringerWien.
  • 20 Usoh, M., Arthur, K., Whitton, M., Bastos,
    R., Steed, A., Slater, M., Brooks, F. (1999).
    Walking gt Walking-in-Place gt Flying, in Virtual
    Environments. Proceedings of ACM SIGGRAPH,
    359-364.

37
References (3)
  • 21 Iwata, H., Yano, H., Nakaizumi, F.,
    Kawamura, R. (2001). Project FEELEX adding
    haptic surface to graphics. Proceedings of ACM
    SIGGRAPH, Los Angeles, 469-476.
  • 22 Watsen, K., Darken, R., Capps, M. (1999).
    A Handheld Computer as an Interaction Device to a
    Virtual Environment. Proceedings of the Third
    Immersive Projection Technology Workshop.
  • 23 Zhai, S. (1998). User Performance in
    Relation to 3D Input Device Design. Computer
    Graphics, 32(4), 50-54.
About PowerShow.com