Evaluating VR Driving Simulation from a Player Experience Perspective
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Evaluating VR Driving Simulation from a Player Experience Perspective Marcel Walch Philipp Hock Abstract Ulm University Ulm University The majority of HCI research in the field of automotive in- 89081 Ulm, Germany 89081 Ulm, Germany terfaces and driver-vehicle interaction is conducted utiliz- [email protected] [email protected] ing driving simulators. High-fidelity simulators are expen- sive; in consequence, many researchers use consumer Julian Frommel David Dobbelstein gaming hardware and flat screens as an alternative. In re- Ulm University Ulm University 89081 Ulm, Germany 89081 Ulm, Germany cent years VR devices have become affordable and are [email protected] [email protected] applied already in some driving studies. It has not been shown whether driving simulations can use VR to increase Katja Rogers Michael Weber immersion in low-cost setups. We conducted a pilot study Ulm University Ulm University with 20 participants using a racing game as simulation 89081 Ulm, Germany 89081 Ulm, Germany software. The results of this pilot study indicate that using [email protected] [email protected] a VR headset can potentially dissociate participants to a higher degree from the real world compared to the use of Felix Schüssel flat screens. However, participants felt a higher discomfort Ulm University using the VR HMD. Despite expectations, today’s VR tech- 89081 Ulm, Germany [email protected] nology does not appear to be a generally better choice than flat screens for driving simulator studies. Author Keywords Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or Driving simulation; virtual reality; HMD; player experience; classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation simulator sickness; immersion. on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author. Copyright is held by the owner/author(s). ACM Classification Keywords CHI’17 Extended Abstracts, May 06-11, 2017, Denver, CO, USA H.5.2 [Information interfaces and presentation (e.g., HCI)]: ACM 978-1-4503-4656-6/17/05. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3027063.3053202 User Interfaces: Evaluation/methodology Introduction to the young age of well-realised VR, a literature search Vehicles and in particular their features like driving modes, yielded no direct comparisons of VR and real-world driving, driver assistance systems and user interfaces are evolving nor of VR and low-cost driving simulators. continuously [23]. In consequence, a lot of user studies are conducted to evaluate new concepts (e.g. [5, 10, 16, 22, In consequence, we investigated whether the use of VR 24]). As a tradeoff, many studies are executed in driving headsets is beneficial regarding simulator sickness and dis- simulators, since studies in real cars are often problematic comfort compared to a flat screen driving simulator setup. due to approvals for road traffic, liability issues, high costs Moreover, we measured presence and immersion as a fac- for test sites or the danger that is posed by early prototypes tor for realism as well as emotion and motivation as mea- to participants or other road users. These issues gain extra sures for the participants’ state. Current low-fidelity VR weight in the domain of highly automated driving. simulations are very specialized custom builds, thus we decided to use a racing game as simulation software that High-fidelity driving simulators, for instance equipped with supports both modes. real car mockups on hexapods, are intended to create a realistic testing environment, however these simulators are Experiment expensive. In consequence, a lot of research is conducted A within-subject study with 20 participants was conducted in low-fidelity driving simulators that use gaming hardware in a low-fidelity driving simulator setup to investigate the and flat screens or projections in front of the driver. effect of a VR and a non-VR display condition on the sub- jective experiences of the participants. Research has shown that the choice of game interface can affect enjoyment, motivation, and even in-game personal- Apparatus ity [1]. Another study showed that the control device in a The study was conducted in a driving simulator that was racing game (i.e. Xbox 360 controller vs. U-shaped speed equipped with a RaceRoom game seat and a Fanatec wheel vs. wireless racing wheel) affected game involve- steering wheel and pedals. The simulation was displayed ment [12]. This and other studies indicate that interface either on three 40 inches screens or via an HTC Vive as naturalness leads to more perceived realism, and together shown in Figure1. The racing game Project Cars [21] was may predict spatial presence and enjoyment [13, 19]. Con- used for the simulation. For both conditions, participants sidering VR as a mediator to driving simulations, it may thus had to drive the same 20.64 km on a winding highway with be able to provide an even more realistic and immersive ex- the same automatic transmission vehicle. The track was perience. Yet there are also indications that familiarity with fenced off so that no other vehicles were present. Partici- controller use can affect flow and enjoyment inversely [8]; pants were instructed to pass the track as fast as possible, thus the novel VR experience might also distract from the but also with as little damage to the vehicle as possible. experience. Comparisons of real-life vs. high-cost simu- lation environments have indicated that study participants In the VR condition, participants wore the HTC Vive with a may drive differently depending on perceived realism [15], field of view (FOV) of 110° and a resolution of 2160 x 1200 which may influence VR studies. However, perhaps due pixels. The participants had an in-cockpit perspective (see Figure2) including a virtual representation of their body. Figure 1: Experimental setup: Participants saw the game [21] Figure 2: In-cockpit perspective (VR condition) of the racing either on the flat screens in front of them (traffic scene and a game [21]: In contrast to the flat screen condition the headset speedometer) or via a VR HMD (see in-cockpit scene in Figure2). displayed the cockpit including a virtual body of the driver. In the flat screen condition, the participants sat in front previous experience with driving, driving simulations and of three flat screens with a combined resolution of 5760 VR, as well as baseline simulator sickness levels and affec- x 1080 pixels and a FOV of approximately 135° depend- tive state. The game seat was then adjusted to the size of ing on the size of the participants. Instead of an in-cockpit the participant, and the driving task and the controls were perspective, we displayed only the driving scene (see Fig- explained. Next, participants had to drive the same track ure1) since it is common in simulator studies due to the in each condition once (HMD or flat panels in counterbal- hardware steering wheel in front of the participants. As a anced order). After each condition, they had to fill in an- compromise we displayed a speedometer on the lower right other questionnaire to assess simulator sickness, affective edge of the central screen, because participants could see state, immersion, presence, and intrinsic motivation. The the speedometer in the instrument cluster in the VR con- session ended with a final questionnaire regarding prefer- dition as shown in Figure2. To keep participants focussed ence and a compensation of 5 Euros. A session lasted for on the driving task and foster the simulation character, no about 50 minutes. other visualizations typically found in racing games (sec- tion times, damage etc.) were displayed. Graphic settings Measures for both conditions were the same and geared to provide The participants’ simulator sickness was assessed with the maximum frame rates. simulator sickness questionnaire (SSQ) [7], while the affec- tive state was measured via the self-assessment manikin Procedure (SAM) [2]. The immersive experience questionnaire (IEQ) [6] Each session started with an introduction to the study, a was used to measure immersion, and the presence ques- consent form, and a questionnaire on demographics and tionnaire (PQ) [25] for presence; finally, the questionnaires 10.0 also included the intrinsic motivation inventory’s (IMI) [11] variate revealed that the baseline SSQ total score signifi- ● interest/enjoyment subscale. cantly influenced the SSQ total score , F (1; 16) = 7:885, 2 ● p = 0:017, partial η = 0:330. Although the VR setup did 7.5 ● Participants elicit higher SSQ scores (M = 29:09, SD = 27:65) com- ● We recruited 20 participants (5 female, 14 male, 1 not re- pared to the flat screen setup (M = 16:41, SD = 14:06), ● 5.0 ported) from the university population through mailing lists when controlling for the SSQ baseline score, the visualisa- and social networks. Two female participants had to be ex- tion method did not have an significant effect on the SSQ 2.5 cluded: one participant interrupted the experiment due to total score, F (1; 16) = 0:652, p > 0:05. General Discomfort General nausea after experiencing the first condition (flat screens) 0.0 and filling in the subsequent questionnaires, the other passed Participants were further asked Please rate your general Flat Screens VR HMD the whole session (VR ! flat screens), but the camera set- discomfort: On a scale of 0 – 10, 0 being how you felt com- tings in the flat screen condition were corrupted (bumper ing in, 10 is that you want to stop, where are you now? af- Figure 3: General Discomfort.