Effects of Visual and Proprioceptive Information in Visuo-Motor Calibration During a Closed-Loop Physical Reach Task in Immersive Virtual Environments
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Effects of Visual and Proprioceptive Information in Visuo-Motor Calibration During a Closed-Loop Physical Reach Task in Immersive Virtual Environments Elham Ebrahimi∗, Bliss Altenhoffy, Leah Hartmany, J. Adam Jones∗, Sabarish V. Babu∗, Christopher C. Paganoy, Timothy A. Davis ∗ Abstract ception of depth in virtual reality, but only some of these factors have been well studied. There are still many that need further in- Research in visuo-motor coupling has shown that the matching of vestigation. Perception and neurology literature suggest that ac- visual and proprioceptive information is important for calibrating curate depth perception is a fundamental process that is necessary movement. Many state-of-the art virtual reality (VR) systems, com- for higher level perceptual and cognitive spatial processing, such monly known as immersive virtual environments (IVE), are created as shape, speed, and size perception [Landy et al. 1995]. In spite for training users in tasks that require accurate manual dexterity. of substantial efforts to create virtual environments that carefully Unfortunately, these systems can suffer from technical limitations replicate real world situations, many studies still demonstrate that that may force de-coupling of visual and proprioceptive informa- depth perception in VR is distorted [Witmer and Sadowski 1998; tion due to interference, latency, and tracking error. We present Messing and Durgin 2005; Richardson and Waller 2005; Willemsen an empirical evaluation of how visually distorted movements af- et al. 2009]. These kinds of distortions become problematic, espe- fects users’ reach to near field targets using a closed-loop physical cially when VR is used to train skills that are aimed to transfer to reach task in an IVE. We specifically examined the recalibration of the real world. Examples of such applications include surgical sim- movements when the visually reached distance is scaled differently ulation to improve operating room performance [Seymour 2008] than the physically reached distance. Subjects were randomly as- or robot teleoperation using head mounted displays (HMD) [Hine signed to one of three visual feedback conditions during which they et al. 1994]. reached to target while holding a tracked stylus: i) Condition 1 (- 20% gain condition) in which the visual stylus appeared at 80% of Many of these applications require users to perform manual, dex- the distance of the physical stylus, ii) Condition 2 (0% or no gain terous activities that require visual feedback. However, feedback condition) in which the visual stylus was co-located with the phys- indicative of the users’ actions in virtual reality may consist of miss- ical stylus, and iii) Condition 3 (+20% gain condition) in which the ing or maligned information in different visuo-motor sensory chan- visual stylus appeared at 120% of the distance of the physical sty- nels [Casper and Murphy 2003]. The human visual system has lus. In all conditions, there is evidence of visuo-motor calibration evolved to accommodate sensory information from many different in that users’ accuracy in physically reaching to the target locations inputs [Milner et al. 2006]. This often happens in a closed-loop improved over trials. During closed-loop physical reach responses, manner allowing feedback from multiple sensory inputs to influ- participants generally tended to physically reach farther in condi- ence physical action. In other words, visual and proprioceptive sen- tion 1 and closer in condition 3 to the perceived location of the sory channels are highly tied together and constantly calibrate and targets, as compared to condition 2 in which participants’ physical recalibrate based on new information from the real world [Bing- reach was more accurate to the perceived location of the target. ham and Pagano 1998]. In many current VR simulations, the visual and proprioceptive in- CR Categories: I.3.7 [Computer Graphics]: Three-Dimensional formation provided to users is distorted and dissimilar when com- Graphics and Realism—Virtual reality; I.4.7 [Image Processing pared to real world experiences. The dissonance between visual and Computer Vision]: Scene Analysis—Depth cues; H.5.1 [In- and proprioceptive feedback may occur due to simulation artifacts formation Interfaces and Presentation]: Multimedia Information such as latency, tracker drift, or registration errors. We know that in Systems—Artificial, augmented, and virtual realities; H.1.2 [Infor- the real world visuo-motor calibration rapidly alters one’s actions mation Systems]: User/Machine Systems—Human factors to accommodate new circumstances [Rieser et al. 1995]. However, it is not well understood to what extent users are able to recalibrate Keywords: Depth perception, visuo-motor re-calibration, virtual their actions when given dissonant visual and proprioceptive infor- reality, immersive virtual environments mation in IVEs while performing manual, dexterous visuo-motor tasks. Therefore, we investigated the effects of conflicting visual 1 Introduction and proprioceptive information on near field distance judgments during closed-loop physical reaching tasks in an immersive virtual reality simulation. Depth perception is one of the key factors that affects how users perform dexterous manual activities in virtual reality, such as ma- nipulation and selection. There are many factors related to the per- 2 Related Work ∗ School of Computing, Clemson University e-mail: ee- Previous research in medium field distances (space beyond users’ [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], ta- y arm reach to a distance of about 30 m) has shown that users [email protected], Department of Psychology, Clemson University, greatly underestimate distances in VR [Richardson and Waller [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] 2005; Thompson et al. 2004]. Willemsen et al. [2009] showed that the mechanical properties of an HMD, such as weight and field Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or of view (FOV), can potentially contribute to distance underestima- classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed tion as measured using blind walking (but not using timed imag- for commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the ined walking). However, Grechkin et al. [2010] pointed out that first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be mechanical properties of the HMD cannot be the only reason for honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers, or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. the distance underestimation in VE. Grechkin et al. [2010] com- Request permissions from [email protected]. pared real world (RW) viewing, both with and without an HMD, SAP 2014, August 08 – 09, 2014, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Copyright © ACM 978-1-4503-3009-1/14/08 $15.00 103 to four VR presentations; i) virtual world in HMD, ii) augmented timation increased with distance in both the IVE and the RW. In reality (AR) in HMD, iii) virtual world in large screen immersive another study, Singh et al. [2010] compared closed-loop and open- display (LSID) and iv) photorealistic virtual world in LSID. They loop near-field distance estimation in AR. Their results indicated also found that underestimation occurred in all VE conditions, al- that open-loop blind reaching was significantly underestimated as though the magnitude of the errors varied substantially. In another compared to closed-loop matching task. study, Witmer and Kline [1998] demonstrated that users underes- timated distances in both the real world and a VE with underesti- Despite the importance of near field distance estimation, there are mation in VE being more pronounced. They also pointed out that very few studies in this area in VR. Rolland et al. [1995], showed traversing distances in virtual environment (VE) reduced the overall overestimation in near field distance judgments in AR using a underestimation. forced-choice task. Taken together, these studies have shown that near field AR and VR introduce substantial distortions in distance Some studies have investigated the differences between verbal and judgments as compared to the real world [Singh et al. 2010; Al- action responses. These have found that verbal judgments were tenhoff et al. 2012; Napieralski et al. 2011]. more variable, less accurate, and subject to systematic distortions As discussed in the previous paragraphs, the effect of closed-loop that were not evident in action responses [Pagano and Isenhower interactions with an environment, in terms of distance estimation, 2008; Pagano and Bingham 1998]. It has been suggested that ver- is well known in the medium field for both VR and RW. In these bal reports and action responses may involve two distinct percep- cases, distance judgments significantly improves after users inter- tual processes [Napieralski et al. 2011; Pagano et al. 2001; Foley act with the environment [Richardson and Waller 2005; Altenhoff et al. 1977]. For instance, Pagano and Isenhower [2008] com- et al. 2012; Kelly et al. 2014]. As previously discussed, there is very pared verbal report and reaching responses for egocentric distance little work comparing open and closed-loop distance judgments in judgments. They characterized the verbal reports to be more in- either AR or VR environments. Also, the impact of visual and pro- dicative