skip to main content
10.1145/3588432.3591527acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessiggraphConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

DARAM: Dynamic Avatar-Human Motion Remapping Technique for Realistic Virtual Stair Ascending Motions

Published:23 July 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

This paper introduces DARAM, a dynamic avatar-human motion remapping technique that enables VR users to ascend virtual stairs. The primary design goal is to provide a realistic sensation of virtual stair walking while accounting for discrepancies between the user’s real body motion and the avatar’s motion, arising due to the virtual stairs present only in the virtual environment. Another design goal is to make DARAM applicable to dynamic multi-user environments. To this end, DARAM is designed to achieve motion remapping dynamically without requiring prior information about virtual stairs or environments, simplifying implementation in diverse VR applications. Furthermore, DARAM aims to synthesize avatar motion that delivers not only a realistic first-person experience but also a believable third-person experience for surrounding observers, making it applicable to multi-user VR applications. Two user studies demonstrate that the proposed technique successfully serves our design goals.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

Daram_Final_Video.mp4

mp4

96.1 MB

papers_541_VOD.mp4

mp4

149.5 MB

References

  1. Adrián Borrego, Jorge Latorre, Roberto Llorens, Mariano Alcañiz, and Enrique Noé. 2016. Feasibility of a walking virtual reality system for rehabilitation: objective and subjective parameters. Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation 13, 1 (2016), 1–10.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Evren Bozgeyikli, Andrew Raij, Srinivas Katkoori, and Rajiv Dubey. 2016. Point & teleport locomotion technique for virtual reality. In Proceedings of the 2016 annual symposium on computer-human interaction in play. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 205–216.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Evren Bozgeyikli, Andrew Raij, Srinivas Katkoori, and Rajiv Dubey. 2019. Locomotion in virtual reality for room scale tracked areas. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 122 (2019), 38–49.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Gerd Bruder and Frank Steinicke. 2014. Threefolded motion perception during immersive walkthroughs. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM symposium on virtual reality software and technology. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 177–185.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Jorge CS Cardoso. 2016. Comparison of gesture, gamepad, and gaze-based locomotion for VR worlds. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM conference on virtual reality software and technology. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 319–320.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Polona Caserman, Augusto Garcia-Agundez, Robert Konrad, Stefan Göbel, and Ralf Steinmetz. 2019. Real-time body tracking in virtual reality using a Vive tracker. Virtual Reality 23, 2 (2019), 155–168.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Polona Caserman, Shule Liu, and Stefan Göbel. 2021. Full-Body Motion Recognition in Immersive-Virtual-Reality-Based Exergame. IEEE Transactions on Games 14, 2 (2021), 243–252.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Ajoy S Fernandes and Steven K Feiner. 2016. Combating VR sickness through subtle dynamic field-of-view modification. In 2016 IEEE symposium on 3D user interfaces (3DUI). IEEE, 201–210.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Jann Philipp Freiwald, Susanne Schmidt, Bernhard E Riecke, and Frank Steinicke. 2022. The Continuity of Locomotion: Rethinking Conventions for Locomotion and its Visualization in Shared Virtual Reality Spaces. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 41, 6 (2022), 1–14.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Markus Funk, Florian Müller, Marco Fendrich, Megan Shene, Moritz Kolvenbach, Niclas Dobbertin, Sebastian Günther, and Max Mühlhäuser. 2019. Assessing the accuracy of point & teleport locomotion with orientation indication for virtual reality using curved trajectories. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–12.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Guilherme Gonçalves, Miguel Melo, Luís Barbosa, José Vasconcelos-Raposo, and Maximino Bessa. 2022. Evaluation of the impact of different levels of self-representation and body tracking on the sense of presence and embodiment in immersive VR. Virtual Reality 26, 1 (2022), 1–14.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. MP Jacob Habgood, David Wilson, David Moore, and Sergio Alapont. 2017. HCI lessons from PlayStation VR. In Extended abstracts publication of the annual symposium on computer-human interaction in play. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 125–135.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Alyssa Harris, Kevin Nguyen, Preston Tunnell Wilson, Matthew Jackoski, and Betsy Williams. 2014. Human joystick: Wii-leaning to translate in large virtual environments. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM SIGGRAPH International Conference on Virtual-Reality Continuum and its Applications in Industry. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 231–234.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Daigo Hayashi, Kazuyuki Fujita, Kazuki Takashima, Robert W Lindeman, and Yoshifumi Kitamura. 2019. Redirected jumping: Imperceptibly manipulating jump motions in virtual reality. In 2019 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR). IEEE, 386–394.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Matthias Hoppe, Andrea Baumann, Patrick Chofor Tamunjoh, Tonja-Katrin Machulla, Paweł W Woźniak, Albrecht Schmidt, and Robin Welsch. 2022. There Is No First-or Third-Person View in Virtual Reality: Understanding the Perspective Continuum. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–13.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Hiroo Iwata, Hiroaki Yano, and Fumitaka Nakaizumi. 2001. Gait master: A versatile locomotion interface for uneven virtual terrain. In Proceedings IEEE Virtual Reality 2001. IEEE, 131–137.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Fan Jiang, Xubo Yang, and Lele Feng. 2016. Real-time full-body motion reconstruction and recognition for off-the-shelf VR devices. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM SIGGRAPH Conference on Virtual-Reality Continuum and Its Applications in Industry-Volume 1. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 309–318.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Hyeong Yeop Kang, Geonsun Lee, Dae Seok Kang, Ohung Kwon, Jun Yeup Cho, Ho-Jung Choi, and Jung Hyun Han. 2019. Jumping further: Forward jumps in a gravity-reduced immersive virtual environment. In 2019 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR). IEEE, 699–707.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Julian Keil, Dennis Edler, Denise O’Meara, Annika Korte, and Frank Dickmann. 2021. Effects of virtual reality locomotion techniques on distance estimations. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information 10, 3 (2021), 150.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Robert S Kennedy, Norman E Lane, Kevin S Berbaum, and Michael G Lilienthal. 1993. Simulator sickness questionnaire: An enhanced method for quantifying simulator sickness. The international journal of aviation psychology 3, 3 (1993), 203–220.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Ben JA Kröse and Bela Julesz. 1989. The control and speed of shifts of attention. Vision research 29, 11 (1989), 1607–1619.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Ernst Kruijff, Bernhard Riecke, Christina Trekowski, and Alexandra Kitson. 2015. Upper body leaning can affect forward self-motion perception in virtual environments. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Symposium on Spatial User Interaction. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 103–112.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Jesse Lohman and Luca Turchet. 2022. Evaluating Cybersickness of Walking on an Omnidirectional Treadmill in Virtual Reality. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems 52, 4 (2022), 613–623.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Anna Lisa Martin-Niedecken, Elena Márquez Segura, Katja Rogers, Stephan Niedecken, and Laia Turmo Vidal. 2019. Towards socially immersive fitness games: An exploratory evaluation through embodied sketching. In Extended Abstracts of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play Companion Extended Abstracts. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 525–534.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Jesus Mayor, Laura Raya, and Alberto Sanchez. 2019. A Comparative Study of Virtual Reality Methods of Interaction and Locomotion Based on Presence, Cybersickness, and Usability. IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computing 9, 3 (2019), 1542–1553.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Morgan McCullough, Hong Xu, Joel Michelson, Matthew Jackoski, Wyatt Pease, William Cobb, William Kalescky, Joshua Ladd, and Betsy Williams. 2015. Myo arm: swinging to explore a VE. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium on Applied Perception. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 107–113.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Ryohei Nagao, Keigo Matsumoto, Takuji Narumi, Tomohiro Tanikawa, and Michitaka Hirose. 2017. Infinite Stairs: Simulating Stairs in Virtual Reality Based on Visuo-Haptic Interaction. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2017 Emerging Technologies (Los Angeles, California) (SIGGRAPH ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 14, 2 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3084822.3084838Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Ryohei Nagao, Keigo Matsumoto, Takuji Narumi, Tomohiro Tanikawa, and Michitaka Hirose. 2018. Ascending and descending in virtual reality: Simple and safe system using passive haptics. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 24, 4 (2018), 1584–1593.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Niels Christian Nilsson, Tabitha Peck, Gerd Bruder, Eri Hodgson, Stefania Serafin, Mary Whitton, Frank Steinicke, and Evan Suma Rosenberg. 2018. 15 years of research on redirected walking in immersive virtual environments. IEEE computer graphics and applications 38, 2 (2018), 44–56.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Stefan Pastel, Chien-Hsi Chen, Katharina Petri, and Kerstin Witte. 2020. Effects of body visualization on performance in head-mounted display virtual reality. Plos one 15, 9 (2020), e0239226.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Sharif Razzaque. 2005. Redirected walking. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Daniel Roth and Marc Erich Latoschik. 2019. Construction of a validated virtual embodiment questionnaire. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.10176 26, 12 (2019), 3546–3556.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Roy A Ruddle and Simon Lessels. 2009. The benefits of using a walking interface to navigate virtual environments. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 16, 1 (2009), 1–18.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Roy A Ruddle, Ekaterina Volkova, and Heinrich H Bülthoff. 2011. Walking improves your cognitive map in environments that are large-scale and large in extent. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 18, 2 (2011), 1–20.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Patrick Salamin, Daniel Thalmann, and Frédéric Vexo. 2006. The benefits of third-person perspective in virtual and augmented reality?. In Proceedings of the ACM symposium on Virtual reality software and technology. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 27–30.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Dominik Schmidt, Rob Kovacs, Vikram Mehta, Udayan Umapathi, Sven Köhler, Lung-Pan Cheng, and Patrick Baudisch. 2015. Level-ups: Motorized stilts that simulate stair steps in virtual reality. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2157–2160.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. MinYeong Seo and HyeongYeop Kang. 2021. Toward virtual stair walking. The Visual Computer 37, 9 (2021), 2783–2795.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Sarah Sharples, Sue Cobb, Amanda Moody, and John R Wilson. 2008. Virtual reality induced symptoms and effects (VRISE): Comparison of head mounted display (HMD), desktop and projection display systems. Displays 29, 2 (2008), 58–69.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Nancy A Skopp, Derek J Smolenski, Melinda J Metzger-Abamukong, Albert A Rizzo, and Greg M Reger. 2014. A pilot study of the virtusphere as a virtual reality enhancement. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 30, 1 (2014), 24–31.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Jan L Souman, P Robuffo Giordano, Martin Schwaiger, Ilja Frissen, Thomas Thümmel, Heinz Ulbrich, A De Luca, Heinrich H Bülthoff, and Marc O Ernst. 2011. CyberWalk: Enabling unconstrained omnidirectional walking through virtual environments. ACM Transactions on Applied Perception (TAP) 8, 4 (2011), 1–22.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Misha Sra and Chris Schmandt. 2015. Metaspace: Full-body tracking for immersive multiperson virtual reality. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 28th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software & Technology. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 47–48.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Kay M Stanney and Phillip Hash. 1998. Locus of user-initiated control in virtual environments: Influences on cybersickness. Presence 7, 5 (1998), 447–459.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Evan Suma, Samantha Finkelstein, Myra Reid, Sabarish Babu, Amy Ulinski, and Larry F Hodges. 2009. Evaluation of the cognitive effects of travel technique in complex real and virtual environments. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 16, 4 (2009), 690–702.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Evan A Suma, Seth Clark, David Krum, Samantha Finkelstein, Mark Bolas, and Zachary Warte. 2011. Leveraging change blindness for redirection in virtual environments. In 2011 IEEE Virtual Reality Conference. IEEE, 159–166.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. Martin Usoh, Kevin Arthur, Mary C Whitton, Rui Bastos, Anthony Steed, Mel Slater, and Frederick P Brooks Jr. 1999. Walking> walking-in-place> flying, in virtual environments. In Proceedings of the 26th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques. 359–364.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Rufin Vogels and Guy A Orban. 1985. The effect of practice on the oblique effect in line orientation judgments. Vision research 25, 11 (1985), 1679–1687.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Liming Wang, Xianwei Chen, Tianyang Dong, and Jing Fan. 2021. Virtual climbing: An immersive upslope walking system using passive haptics. Virtual Reality & Intelligent Hardware 3, 6 (2021), 435–450.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. Yuanjie Wu, Yu Wang, Sungchul Jung, Simon Hoermann, and Robert W Lindeman. 2019. Towards an articulated avatar in VR: improving body and hand tracking using only depth cameras. Entertainment Computing 31 (2019), 100303.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. DARAM: Dynamic Avatar-Human Motion Remapping Technique for Realistic Virtual Stair Ascending Motions

    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
      SIGGRAPH '23: ACM SIGGRAPH 2023 Conference Proceedings
      July 2023
      911 pages
      ISBN:9798400701597
      DOI:10.1145/3588432

      Copyright © 2023 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part 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 components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 23 July 2023

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate1,822of8,601submissions,21%

      Upcoming Conference

      SIGGRAPH '24
    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)312
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)31

      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