Vehanoi: Performance Differences in Virtual Versus Real Environments
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
From:MAICS-2000 Proceedings. Copyright © 2000, AAAI (www.aaai.org). All rights reserved. VEHanoi: Performance differences in Virtual vs Real Environments Tyler Waite School of Library and Information Science Indiana University ABSTRACT off the side of a virtual cliff withoutthe fear This research used a real and a virtual Tower of death. The finality of actions, whichonce of Hanoi puzzle to examine performance performed can never be undone, does not differences betweenvirtual and real apply in this world of light and illusion. environments. The puzzle was solved twice in the real environmentand twice in the Commentingon the differences between the virtual environmentby each of the typical computerscreen interface and the participants. A one-way ANOVAwas experience of a VE, Johnson (1994) states performedfor each of the four trials to "Virtual reality gives the user an comparethe performance difference environmentto work in, rather than a screen between the two environments. to look at." Researchers in chemistry Comparisons were made on number of (Burdea, Richard & Coiffet 1996), movesto solve the puzzle, time to movean meteorology, astronomy, network object, and wand selection method. The administration (Crnz-Neira et al 1993, see analysis showeda significant difference in also Larijani 1994), and air traffic control favor of real world performanceof the task (Heim, 1993), not to mention psychology with respect to time to movean object. The (Cruz-Neiraet al 1993), just to namea few, paper concludes with a report on participant have all been exploiting the potential commentsand an exploration of the possible application of virtual reality technologyto sources of this difference. develop new and exciting environments to workin. Keywords CAVE,virtual environment, Tower of The fact that VEsare creatable provides Hanoi, spatial cognition scientists with a powerful newtool with which to explore humanbehavior and INTRODUCTION cognition. With VE’s the cognitive scientist Quotingthe wordsof researcher J. Findlay, can develop a variety of highly controlled speaking about virtual environmentsin scenarios that can be called up in an general, "These environments may provide instance. The researcher can quickly switch the necessarytools to assist researchers in the participant in or out of different test disclosing the mysteries of human scenarios with a few key-strokes. The perception." (Stanney 1998). Virtual whole environment can be altered or only environments (VE) present the researcher one characteristic of one specific object with a three dimensionalworld that is programmableand under their control. VE technology encompasses a variety of Within this computerized world, a person equipment. There are head mounted can free their mindof concern about displays, monocular displays, augmented incurring serious phYSicalpain as a reality displays, haptic (tactile) interfaces, consequenceof their actions. They can step desktop 3D worlds, and CAVE Robotic ,and Simulated Agents 13 environments to name a few. This study CAVEenvironment also permits the user to used a CAVEenvironment. The CAVEat view their ownbody, and the bodies of other Indiana University is comprisedof four whoare in the environment with them projection surfaces; three 8 foot by 8 foot (Leigh, 1996), while they are immersed screens, and the floor (see fig. 1). The three the virtual world, which maylessens wall screens use rear projection, while the feelings of claustrophobia or feelings of floor image is produced from an overhead disembodiment. mirror projecting the imageon the floor. The screens are arranged in front of and to either side of the person inside the CAVE. The stereoscopic images of the CAVEare produced using shutter glasses which blend the imageson the projection surfaces into a virtual world whose contents when approachedappears to exist not on the screens but in the open space between the projection surfaces. The glasses also have a head-tracking device connected to them so that the proper perspective and environment view can be presented Figure 1: Drawing of CAVEfrom http://www.cica.indiana.edu/ For this experimentthe participants interacted with the environmentusing a Whydevelop a Virtual Tower of Hanoi? CAVEwand. The wand is roughly the size Accordingto Fillbrant (1987)"In the of a typical television remotecontrol. The psychology of thinking, the Towerof Hanoi base of the wandis cylindrical to permit is one of the most extensively studied easy grasping and holding. The top of the problems. Nevertheless the central question wandhas three buttons and a mini joystick of what and howparticipants learn during for movingaround in the virtual their solving efforts muststill be considered environments. as not being answeredsufficiently." The Tower of Hanoi (TOH)paradigm and it’s What advantages does a CAVEenvironment isomorphs have found significant offer over the more common,and often performance differences between: right cheaper, head mountedvirtual environment brain vs left brain cognitive styles (HMVE)?One of the problems of HMVEs (Albaile,1996), medicated vs unmedicated is they have been reported to induce motion ADHDchildren (Aman 1998), normal sickness. In the CAVEenvironment, while heating vs hearing impaired young adults motionsickness is still possible, these (Luckner 1992), normal vs obsessive effects are reportedly extremely low (Cruz- compulsiveindividuals (Matraix-Coles et al Neira, Sanden, and DeFanti 1993). This is (1999). It has also been used to study the due in part to the fact that CAVEimages do effects of Parkinson’s disease (Saint-Cyr not need to be updated for every turn of the 1988). Fromthis sampleof research it is head or movementof the users body. It can clear that the TOHpuzzle is a very useful remainstatic until the user activates an tool in evaluating a widevariety of topics. object or indicates that a changeof Thus the flexibility of a virtual TOHmight perspective or location is desired. The prove itself a useful tool for cognitive 14 MAICS-2000 research, transfer of training issues. Howmight TOHbe related to usability and Zhang & Norman (1994) using a TOH user evaluation tests? Stanney (1998) isomorphsof coffee cups filled with coffee commentingon a review of HCI studies instead of rings were able to eliminate states that "The HCIstudies indicated that stacking errors since participants in the individuals whoscore low on spatial experimentsinstinctively knewnot to place memorytests generally have longer mean the smaller coffee cup on top of a larger execution times and morefirst-try-errors." coffee cup. In VEsthe external Since TOHcan be viewed as a measure of representations and the inherent properties spatial reasoningability (Albaile, 1996), of objects can vary significantly fromtheir comparinga users performanceto a baseline real world models. Since the objects are not measure of TOHperformance, might be a solid they can easily pass through other useful addition to a user assessmentbattery objects and the user unless this quality is of tests similar to the Virtual Environment programmedinto the object. Since there is Performance Assessment Battery no gravity objects will not drop to the (VEPAB)(Lampton,1994). groundunless there is a subroutine built into the code that performs this action. Theywill TOHhas been defined as a transformational not make a sound unless this is programmed problem. A transformational problem, is into their routine, and the soundthat is described by Greeno(1978) as, requiring assigned to them is not boundby any natural "an initial state and goal state, and constraints such as their inherent material permissible operators to transform the initial composition. And if VE objects were state into the goal state." Fromthis programmedto act as if there was some definition it wouldseem that researching gravitational force it could be of an infinite howpeople solve transformational problems degree of strength and could comefrom a such as the TOHmight provide insights into variety of directions. VEobjects also cannot howpeople movefrom an initial state to a be felt with out proper equipmentand goal state whennavigating and manipulating programs. Howmight these factors impact modemgraphical user interfaces, and virtual performance on the task? environments. Fromthis introduction it is clear that the Sweller (1983) discovered that participants potential questions that could be explored whohad been trained to solve the 5-ring with VE’s are many. This initial study was TOHproblem ran into difficulty when asked designed specifically to evaluate whether to then solve a 4-ring TOHpuzzle. At first there are significant performancedifferences this result seemsstrange since the 4-ring between the VEand the real world on the solution is simpler in that it requires of TOHtask. The dependant variables that lower minimumnumber of moves to reach were examinedin the study are, numberof the solution. However,if participants try to movesto solve the puzzle, and time to move apply the steps of the solution to the 5-disk a ring. While no significant performance TOHpuzzle to the 4-ring TOHpuzzle they differences are expected, VEperformance end up placing the 4-ring stack on the maybe slower due to the unfamiliar setting middle peg instead of on the goal peg where and interface. The behavioral differences it needs to be. Thus TOHcan be employed outlined in the previous paragraph mayalso to evaluate both negative and positive be a source of performancedifference. Robotic and Simulated Agents 15 Since objects can be selected with