视频透视头戴式显示器的视觉感知和用户满意度:混合方法评估

Jessica de Souza, Robert Tartz
{"title":"视频透视头戴式显示器的视觉感知和用户满意度:混合方法评估","authors":"Jessica de Souza, Robert Tartz","doi":"10.3389/frvir.2024.1368721","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Our study addresses the challenges limiting the adoption of Extended Reality (XR) Head-Mounted Displays (HMDs), mainly focusing on device quality and cybersickness. We aim to investigate the impact of hardware and software on user experience and task performance while wearing Video See-Through (VST) HMDs. We employ a novel methodology designed to bridge the gaps identified in previous research.This study uses a convergent mixed-methods approach, combining qualitative and quantitative data in a within-subjects evaluation involving 20 participants. This comprehensive evaluation examines visual perception, visual quality, and user experience through a range of tasks. Usability, comfort, and cybersickness are assessed, with insights derived from both user performance metrics and subjective measures collected through in-depth interviews and comments. The study includes three distinct HMDs—two prototypes (PD1 and PD2) and one commercial device (CD1)—to provide a broad analysis of the technology.Our findings reveal that while participants were generally satisfied with VST mode, their preferences varied across devices. CD1 was preferred for its realistic color representation and superior reading task performance due to its high-resolution display and camera. However, visual disturbances and temporal issues differed across devices, with CD1 exhibiting fewer artifacts when stationary but showing more disturbances when participants were moving. Participants found PD1 and PD2 more comfortable for extended use and fewer cybersickness symptoms, but they highlighted color and display resolution issues. These variations underscore the importance of considering both qualitative and quantitative measures in HMD evaluations.This mixed-methods evaluation emphasizes the limitations of relying solely on visual perception performance measures for VST HMDs. By integrating both quantitative and qualitative insights, we offer a more detailed evaluation framework to identify design flaws and user experience issues that quantitative metrics alone might miss. This methodology contributes to the field by illustrating how a mixed-methods approach provides a broader perspective on XR technology, guiding future improvements and enhancing VST adoption in future applications.","PeriodicalId":502489,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Virtual Reality","volume":" 1268","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Visual perception and user satisfaction in video see-through head-mounted displays: a mixed-methods evaluation\",\"authors\":\"Jessica de Souza, Robert Tartz\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/frvir.2024.1368721\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Our study addresses the challenges limiting the adoption of Extended Reality (XR) Head-Mounted Displays (HMDs), mainly focusing on device quality and cybersickness. We aim to investigate the impact of hardware and software on user experience and task performance while wearing Video See-Through (VST) HMDs. We employ a novel methodology designed to bridge the gaps identified in previous research.This study uses a convergent mixed-methods approach, combining qualitative and quantitative data in a within-subjects evaluation involving 20 participants. This comprehensive evaluation examines visual perception, visual quality, and user experience through a range of tasks. Usability, comfort, and cybersickness are assessed, with insights derived from both user performance metrics and subjective measures collected through in-depth interviews and comments. The study includes three distinct HMDs—two prototypes (PD1 and PD2) and one commercial device (CD1)—to provide a broad analysis of the technology.Our findings reveal that while participants were generally satisfied with VST mode, their preferences varied across devices. CD1 was preferred for its realistic color representation and superior reading task performance due to its high-resolution display and camera. However, visual disturbances and temporal issues differed across devices, with CD1 exhibiting fewer artifacts when stationary but showing more disturbances when participants were moving. Participants found PD1 and PD2 more comfortable for extended use and fewer cybersickness symptoms, but they highlighted color and display resolution issues. These variations underscore the importance of considering both qualitative and quantitative measures in HMD evaluations.This mixed-methods evaluation emphasizes the limitations of relying solely on visual perception performance measures for VST HMDs. By integrating both quantitative and qualitative insights, we offer a more detailed evaluation framework to identify design flaws and user experience issues that quantitative metrics alone might miss. This methodology contributes to the field by illustrating how a mixed-methods approach provides a broader perspective on XR technology, guiding future improvements and enhancing VST adoption in future applications.\",\"PeriodicalId\":502489,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in Virtual Reality\",\"volume\":\" 1268\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in Virtual Reality\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2024.1368721\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Virtual Reality","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2024.1368721","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们的研究探讨了限制扩展现实(XR)头戴式显示器(HMD)应用的挑战,主要集中在设备质量和晕机问题上。我们旨在研究佩戴视频透视 (VST) 头戴式显示器时,硬件和软件对用户体验和任务表现的影响。我们采用了一种新颖的方法,旨在弥补以往研究中发现的不足。本研究采用了一种融合的混合方法,将定性和定量数据结合在一起,对 20 名参与者进行了主体内评估。这项综合评估通过一系列任务来检查视觉感知、视觉质量和用户体验。通过深入访谈和评论收集的用户性能指标和主观指标,对可用性、舒适度和晕机感进行了评估。研究包括三种不同的 HMD--两种原型(PD1 和 PD2)和一种商用设备(CD1)--以提供对该技术的广泛分析。我们的研究结果表明,虽然参与者对 VST 模式普遍感到满意,但他们对不同设备的偏好各不相同。CD1 因其逼真的色彩表现以及高分辨率显示屏和摄像头带来的出色阅读任务表现而受到青睐。然而,不同设备的视觉干扰和时间问题也不尽相同,CD1 在静止时显示的伪影较少,但在参与者移动时显示的干扰较多。参与者认为 PD1 和 PD2 在长时间使用时更舒适,晕机症状更少,但他们强调了颜色和显示分辨率问题。这些差异强调了在 HMD 评估中同时考虑定性和定量测量的重要性。这项混合方法评估强调了 VST HMD 仅依赖视觉感知性能测量的局限性。通过综合定量和定性分析,我们提供了一个更详细的评估框架,以发现设计缺陷和用户体验问题,而这些问题仅靠定量指标可能会忽略。这种方法说明了混合方法如何为 XR 技术提供更广阔的视角,从而指导未来的改进工作并提高 VST 在未来应用中的采用率,从而为该领域做出贡献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Visual perception and user satisfaction in video see-through head-mounted displays: a mixed-methods evaluation
Our study addresses the challenges limiting the adoption of Extended Reality (XR) Head-Mounted Displays (HMDs), mainly focusing on device quality and cybersickness. We aim to investigate the impact of hardware and software on user experience and task performance while wearing Video See-Through (VST) HMDs. We employ a novel methodology designed to bridge the gaps identified in previous research.This study uses a convergent mixed-methods approach, combining qualitative and quantitative data in a within-subjects evaluation involving 20 participants. This comprehensive evaluation examines visual perception, visual quality, and user experience through a range of tasks. Usability, comfort, and cybersickness are assessed, with insights derived from both user performance metrics and subjective measures collected through in-depth interviews and comments. The study includes three distinct HMDs—two prototypes (PD1 and PD2) and one commercial device (CD1)—to provide a broad analysis of the technology.Our findings reveal that while participants were generally satisfied with VST mode, their preferences varied across devices. CD1 was preferred for its realistic color representation and superior reading task performance due to its high-resolution display and camera. However, visual disturbances and temporal issues differed across devices, with CD1 exhibiting fewer artifacts when stationary but showing more disturbances when participants were moving. Participants found PD1 and PD2 more comfortable for extended use and fewer cybersickness symptoms, but they highlighted color and display resolution issues. These variations underscore the importance of considering both qualitative and quantitative measures in HMD evaluations.This mixed-methods evaluation emphasizes the limitations of relying solely on visual perception performance measures for VST HMDs. By integrating both quantitative and qualitative insights, we offer a more detailed evaluation framework to identify design flaws and user experience issues that quantitative metrics alone might miss. This methodology contributes to the field by illustrating how a mixed-methods approach provides a broader perspective on XR technology, guiding future improvements and enhancing VST adoption in future applications.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Immersive insights: evaluating augmented reality interfaces for pedestrians in a CAVE-based experiment Object Motion Manipulation and time perception in virtual reality The museum of digital things: extended reality and museum practices Editorial: Mixed reality in palliative care Ethical approach to the use of immersive technologies. Advance about digitalisation of multilingual programs in the EHEA
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1