skip to main content
10.1145/3505270.3558348acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pageschi-playConference Proceedingsconference-collections
extended-abstract

Googly Eyes: Displaying User's Eyes on a Head-Mounted Display for Improved Nonverbal Communication

Published:07 November 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

Virtual reality (VR) has been becoming increasingly prevalent in daily lives of humans in various settings. One of the concerns for this technology in becoming mainstream is the isolation caused by today's occlusive headsets. An aspect of isolation is related to restricted nonverbal communication between headset-wearing and outside users. To address this gap, we developed “Googly Eyes”, a system that acts for the outside users as a window into the eyes of the headset-wearing user. On a smartphone display that was attached to a FOVE head-mounted display (HMD), user's eye movements were visualized in real time using eye-tracking data. Our main goal is to increase social communication between HMD and non-HMD users, hence increase social presence; and increase enjoyment through improved communication. This paper includes the motivation, design rationale, and implementation details of the Googly Eyes along with preliminary results from a pilot study session and preliminary user studies with a small cohort.

References

  1. Joschka Mütterlein and Thomas Hess. 2017. Immersion, Presence, Interactivity: Towards a Joint Understanding of Factors Influencing Virtual Reality Acceptance and Use. In Proceedings of Twenty-third Americas Conference on Information Systems, Boston.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Thomas Hobbs. 2017. Google admits VR is still far too much of an ‘isolating’ experience. Marketing Week. Retrieved January 3, 2019 from https://www.marketingweek.com/2017/11/07/google-admits-vr-still-far-much-isolating-experience/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Albert Mehrabian. 2017. Nonverbal communication. Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Mark L Knapp, Judith A Hall, and Terrence G Horgan. 2013. Nonverbal communication in human interaction. Cengage Learning.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. A. Kendon. 1967. Some functions of gaze direction in social interaction. Acta Psychophysica, 26, 22-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(67)90005-4Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Chris L. Kleinke. 1986. Gaze and eye contact: a research review. Psychological bulletin, 100, 1, 78. http://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0033-2909.100.1.78Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Charles E Kimble and Donald A Olszewski. 1980. Gaze and emotional expression: The effects of message positivity-negativity and emotional intensity. Journal of Research in Personality 14, 1, 60-69.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Robert Kleck. 1968. Physical stigma and nonverbal cues emitted in face-to-face interaction. Human Relations 21, 1 (1968), 19-28.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Monica Kim. The Good and the Bad of Escaping to Virtual Reality. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/02/the-good-and-the-bad-of-escaping-to-virtual-reality/385134/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Fiona J Mcevoy. 10 ethical concerns that will shape the VR industry. Venture Beat. Retrieved January 3, 2019 from https://venturebeat.com/2018/01/04/10-ethical-concerns-that-will-shape-the-vr-industry/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Rachel Metz. 2017. Virtual Reality's Missing Element: Other People. MIT Technology Review. Retrieved July 22, 2022 from https://www.technologyreview.com/s/607956/virtual-realitys-missing-element-other-people/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Ramona Pringle. 2017. Virtual reality is still too isolating to be 'the next big thing' in tech. CBC News. Retrieved July 22, 2022 from https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/vr-isolation-1.3980539Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Against Gravity. 2016. Rec Room. Retrieved July 22, 2022 from https://recroom.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Oculus. 2017. Facebook Spaces Beta. Retrieved July 22, 2022 from https://www.oculus.com/experiences/rift/1036793313023466/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Common Sense Media. 2018. Parents’ Views on VR for Kids. Retrieved July 22, 2022 from https://www.commonsensemedia.org/sites/default/files/research/report/csm_vr101_infographic_vertical.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Rebecca Hills-Duty. 2018. Young People Still See VR As Socially Isolating. VR Focus. Retrieved January 3, 2019 from https://www.vrfocus.com/2018/08/young-people-still-see-vr-as-socially-isolating/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Jan Gugenheimer, Evgeny Stemasov, Julian Frommel, and Enrico Rukzio. 2017. ShareVR: Enabling Co-Located Experiences for Virtual Reality between HMD and Non-HMD Users. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 4021-4033. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025683Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Saniye Tugba Bulu. 2012. Place presence, social presence, co-presence, and satisfaction in virtual worlds. Computers & Education 58, no. 1: 154-161.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Oliver Otto and David Roberts. 2003. Importance of communication influences on a highly collaborative task. In Proceedings of Seventh IEEE International Symposium on Distributed Simulation and Real-Time Applications. IEEE. 195-201.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Elizabeth F Churchill and Dave Snowdon. 1998. Collaborative virtual environments: an introductory review of issues and systems. Virtual Reality 3, 1, 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01409793Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Oliver Otto, Dave Roberts, and Robin Wolff. 2006. A review on effective closely-coupled collaboration using immersive CVE's. In Proceedings of the 2006 ACM international conference on Virtual reality continuum and its applications (VRCIA '06). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 145-154. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1128923.1128947Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Jauvane C. Oliveira, Xiaojun Shen, and Nicolas D. Georganas. 2000. Collaborative virtual environment for industrial training and e-commerce. IEEE VRTS, 288.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Thierry Duval and Cédric Fleury. 2009. An asymmetric 2d pointer/3d ray for 3d interaction within collaborative virtual environments. In Proceedings of the 14th international Conference on 3DWeb Technology. ACM, 33-41. https://doi.org/10.1145/1559764.1559769Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Hikaru Ibayashi, Yuta Sugiura, Daisuke Sakamoto, Natsuki Miyata, Mitsunori Tada, Takashi Okuma, Takeshi Kurata, Masaaki Mochimaru, and Takeo Igarashi. 2015. Dollhouse VR: a multi-view, multi-user collaborative design workspace with VR technology. In SIGGRAPH Asia 2015 Emerging Technologies. ACM, 8. https://doi.org/10.1145/2820926.2820948Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Roland Holm, Erwin Stauder, Roland Wagner, Markus Priglinger, and Jens Volkert. 2002. A Combined Immersive and Desktop Authoring Tool for Virtual Environments. In Proceedings of the IEEE Virtual Reality Conference (VR). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, 93-100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/VR.2002.996511Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Kevin Fan, Liwei Chan, Daiya Kato, Kouta Minamizawa, and Masahiko Inami. 2016. VR planet: interface for meta-view and feet interaction of VR contents. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2016 VR Village (SIGGRAPH '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 24, 2 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/2929490.2931001Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Jan Gugenheimer, Evgeny Stemasov, Harpreet Sareen, and Enrico Rukzio. 2018. FaceDisplay: Towards Asymmetric Multi-User Interaction for Nomadic Virtual Reality. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Paper 54, 13 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173628Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Liwei Chan and Kouta Minamizawa. 2017. FrontFace: facilitating communication between HMD users and outsiders using front-facing-screen HMDs. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services, pp. 1-5.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Christian Mai, Lukas Rambold, and Mohamed Khamis. 2017. TransparentHMD: revealing the HMD user's face to bystanders. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia, pp. 515-520.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Nathan Matsuda, Brian Wheelwright, Joel Hegland, and Douglas Lanman. 2021. Reverse pass-through vr. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2021 Emerging Technologies (pp. 1-4).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Christian Frueh, Avneesh Sud, and Vivek Kwatra. 2017. Headset removal for virtual and mixed reality. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2017 Talks, pp. 1-2.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Cliff Fitzgerald. 2013. Developing baxter. In Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Technologies for Practical Robot Applications (TePRA), 1-6.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. John Bohannon. 2014. Meet your new co-worker. Science, 346, 6206, 180-181. https://doi.org 10.1126/science.346.6206.18Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Yuichiro Yoshikawa, Kazuhiko Shinozawa, Hiroshi Ishiguro, Norihiro Hagita, and Takanori Miyamoto. 2006. The effects of responsive eye movement and blinking behavior in a communication robot. In Proceedings of IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 4564-4569. https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2006.282160Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Xomomi Onuki, Takafumi Ishinoda, Yoshinori Kobayashi, and Yoshinori Kuno. 2013. Design of robot eyes suitable for gaze communication. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction, 203-204.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Giorgio Cannata and Enrico Grosso. 1999. On perceptual advantages of active robot vision. Journal of Robotic Systems, 16, 3, 163-183. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4563(199903)16:3%3C163::AID-ROB3%3E3.0.CO;2-YGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Jean-David Boucher, Ugo Pattacini, Amelie Lelong, Gerard Bailly, Frederic Elisei, Sascha Fagel, Peter F. Dominey, and Jocelyne Ventre-Dominey. 2012. I reach faster when I see you look: gaze effects in human–human and human–robot face-to-face cooperation. Frontiers in neurorobotics, 6, 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbot.2012.00003Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Cynthia Breazeal, Cory D. Kidd, Andrea Lockerd Thomaz, Guy Hoffman, and Matt Berlin. 2005. Effects of nonverbal communication on efficiency and robustness in human-robot teamwork. In Proceedings of IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 708-713. https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2005.1545011Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. FOVE. Eye Tracking Virtual Reality Headset. Retrieved July 22, 2022 from https://fove-inc.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Masahiro Mori. 1970. The uncanny valley: the original essay by Masahiro Mori. IEEE Spectrum. https://doi.org/10.1109/MRA.2012.2192811Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Nokia Smartphones. Retrieved July 22, 2022 from https://www.nokia.com/phones/en_us/smartphonesGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Android. Retrieved July 22, 2022 from https://www.android.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Unity Real-Time Development Platform. Retrieved July 22, 2022 from https://unity.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Inkscape: Draw Freely. Retrieved July 22, 2022 from https://inkscape.org/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Xbox Official Site. Retrieved July 22, 2022 from https://www.xbox.com/en-USGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Chad Harms and Frank Biocca. 2004. Internal consistency and reliability of the networked minds measure of social presence. In Seventh annual international workshop: Presence, vol. 2004. Universidad Politecnica de Valencia Valencia, Spain.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Cagatay Basdogan, Chih-Hao Ho, Mandayam A. Srinivasan, and Mel Slater. 2000. An experimental study on the role of touch in shared virtual environments. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 7, no. 4: 443-460.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. K. Poels, Y.A.W. de Kort, and W.A. IJsselsteijn. 2013. The Game Experience Questionnaire: Development of a self-report measure to assess the psychological impact of digital games. Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Conferences
    CHI PLAY '22: Extended Abstracts of the 2022 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play
    November 2022
    419 pages
    ISBN:9781450392112
    DOI:10.1145/3505270

    Copyright © 2022 Owner/Author

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or 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 on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 7 November 2022

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • extended-abstract
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate421of1,386submissions,30%
  • Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)67
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)9

    Other Metrics

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format .

View HTML Format