skip to main content
10.1145/3604479.3604505acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessiggraphConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Mixed Reality Laptops: A Protocol to Evaluate Enhanced Viewing Experiences on Consumer Laptops Using Parallax Engine

Authors Info & Claims
Published:08 April 2024Publication History

ABSTRACT

Research into Fish Tank Virtual Reality (FTVR) techniques commonly uses specific wearable sensors such as infrared cameras, glasses, or helmets to estimate the position of the user’s eyes. However, using only existing RGB cameras on laptops is more affordable for users as they are already widely available on devices. In this work, we continue and increase previous results using face feature detection software to implement the FTVR technique in 3D applications using standard laptops without needing extra devices. The main contribution is to enhanced the Parallax Engine solution to: 1)This work also defines and tests a protocol to evaluate the user experience and the sense of the presence of the Parallax Engine; 2) adding a new dimension in parallax mode (Parallax3DoF), with freedom of horizontal, vertical and depth movement with cameras in 3D scenes; 3) we eliminate the need for Python servers and the intermediation of network communication between Unity and these servers; and 4) improve integration, performance, and user experience of monoscopic FTVR mode (FishTank), with the virtual camera locked in the 3D environment of laptop screens. Parallax Engine uses Google Media Pipe for face mesh detection via an open-source implementation called the Media Pipe Plugin, available for Unity. We evaluated the proposed solution and almost doubled the FPS of the tool. In addition, we did not find fatigue problems, the interface was considered very good on the SUS scale, and the immersion was considered acceptable. We also compared the immersion and user experience of the FishTank and Parallax3DoF visualization modes, and the users evaluated better the Parallax3DoF in both. We aim in future work to explore this technique further and test it with more users.

References

  1. Ritu Agarwal and Elena Karahanna. 2000. Time flies when you’re having fun: Cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS quarterly (2000), 665–694.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Thomas Alsop. 2022. Global notebook personal computer (PC) shipments from 2010 to 2026. https://www.statista.com/statistics/269048/worldwide-portable-pc-shipment-forecast/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Christof Baron. 2022. Price per unit in the computer hardware market in Europe from 2013 to 2026, by segment. https://www.statista.com/forecasts/1256765/prices-per-unit-computer-hardware-europe.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Patrick Bourdot, Martin Dromigny, and Laurent Arnal. 1999. Virtual navigation fully controlled by head tracking. In Proc. of International Scientific Workshop on Virtual Reality and Prototyping.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. John Brooke 1996. SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability evaluation in industry 189, 194 (1996), 4–7.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Emily Brown and Paul Cairns. 2004. A grounded investigation of game immersion. In CHI’04 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems. 1297–1300.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Weiya Chen, Anthony Plancoulaine, Nicolas Férey, Damien Touraine, Julien Nelson, and Patrick Bourdot. 2013. 6DoF Navigation in Virtual Worlds: Comparison of Joystick-Based and Head-Controlled Paradigms. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology (Singapore) (VRST ’13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 111–114. https://doi.org/10.1145/2503713.2503754Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. FMI. 2022. Head Mounted Display Market - About the Report. https://www.futuremarketinsights.com/reports/global-head-mounted-display-market#.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Juliano Franz, Anderson Maciel, and Luciana Nedel. 2013. Assessment of a User Centered Interface for Teleoperation and 3D Environments. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (Coimbra, Portugal) (SAC ’13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 953–960. https://doi.org/10.1145/2480362.2480546Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Teresa Hirzle, Jan Gugenheimer, Florian Geiselhart, Andreas Bulling, and Enrico Rukzio. 2019. A design space for gaze interaction on head-mounted displays. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–12.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Jarbas Jácome, Arlindo Gomes, Willams de Lima Costa, Lucas Silva Figueiredo, Jader Abreu, Luana Porciuncula, Pedro K Brant, Luis EM Alves, Walter FM Correia, Veronica Teichrieb, 2021. Parallax Engine: Head Controlled Motion Parallax Using Notebooks’ RGB Camera. In Symposium on Virtual and Augmented Reality. 137–146.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Charlene Jennett, Anna L Cox, Paul Cairns, Samira Dhoparee, Andrew Epps, Tim Tijs, and Alison Walton. 2008. Measuring and defining the experience of immersion in games. International journal of human-computer studies 66, 9 (2008), 641–661.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. 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
  14. Davis E King. 2009. Dlib-ml: A machine learning toolkit. The Journal of Machine Learning Research 10 (2009), 1755–1758.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Sirisilp Kongsilp and Matthew N. Dailey. 2017. Motion parallax from head movement enhances stereoscopic displays by improving presence and decreasing visual fatigue. Displays 49 (2017), 72–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.displa.2017.07.001Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Sirisilp Kongsilp and Matthew N. Dailey. 2018. User Behavior and the Importance of Stereo for Depth Perception in Fish Tank Virtual Reality. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 27, 2 (02 2018), 206–225. https://doi.org/10.1162/pres_a_00327Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Jason Lawrence, Dan B Goldman, Supreeth Achar, Gregory Major Blascovich, Joseph G. Desloge, Tommy Fortes, Eric M. Gomez, Sascha Häberling, Hugues Hoppe, Andy Huibers, Claude Knaus, Brian Kuschak, Ricardo Martin-Brualla, Harris Nover, Andrew Ian Russell, Steven M. Seitz, and Kevin Tong. 2021. Project Starline: A high-fidelity telepresence system. ACM Transactions on Graphics (Proc. SIGGRAPH Asia) 40(6) (2021).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Raphael Leroy. 2021. Immersion, Flow and Usability in Video Games. In Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Yokohama, Japan) (CHI EA ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 483, 7 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411763.3451514Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Edmund F. LoPresti, David M. Brienza, and Jennifer Angelo. 2002. Head-operated computer controls: effect of control method on performance for subjects with and without disability. Interacting with Computers 14, 4 (07 2002), 359–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0953-5438(01)00058-3Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Camillo Lugaresi, Jiuqiang Tang, Hadon Nash, Chris McClanahan, Esha Uboweja, Michael Hays, Fan Zhang, Chuo-Ling Chang, Ming Guang Yong, Juhyun Lee, Wan-Teh Chang, Wei Hua, Manfred Georg, and Matthias Grundmann. 2019. MediaPipe: A Framework for Building Perception Pipelines. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1906.08172Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Michael C Medlock, Dennis Wixon, Mick McGee, and Dan Welsh. 2005. The rapid iterative test and evaluation method: Better products in less time. In Cost-justifying usability. Elsevier, 489–517.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Dionysios Georgios Papadimitriou. 2019. User Experience in Virtual Reality, conducting an evaluation on multiple characteristics of a Virtual Reality Experience. Master’s thesis.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. George Papandreou, Tyler Zhu, Liang-Chieh Chen, Spyros Gidaris, Jonathan Tompson, and Kevin Murphy. 2018. PersonLab: Person Pose Estimation and Instance Segmentation with a Bottom-Up, Part-Based, Geometric Embedding Model. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1803.08225Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Eduardo Rodrigues, Lucas Silva Figueiredo, Lucas Maggi, Edvar Neto, Layon Tavares Bezerra, João Marcelo Teixeira, and Veronica Teichrieb. 2017. Mixed Reality TVs: Applying Motion Parallax for Enhanced Viewing and Control Experiences on Consumer TVs. In 2017 19th Symposium on Virtual and Augmented Reality (SVR). 319–330. https://doi.org/10.1109/SVR.2017.48Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Pejman Saeghe, Gavin Abercrombie, Bruce Weir, Sarah Clinch, Stephen Pettifer, and Robert Stevens. 2020. Augmented Reality and Television: Dimensions and Themes. In ACM International Conference on Interactive Media Experiences (Cornella, Barcelona, Spain) (IMX ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1145/3391614.3393649Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Bob G Witmer and Michael J Singer. 1998. Measuring presence in virtual environments: A presence questionnaire. Presence 7, 3 (1998), 225–240.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Mixed Reality Laptops: A Protocol to Evaluate Enhanced Viewing Experiences on Consumer Laptops Using Parallax Engine

        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 Other conferences
          SVR '22: Proceedings of the 24th Symposium on Virtual and Augmented Reality
          October 2022
          175 pages
          ISBN:9798400700026
          DOI:10.1145/3604479

          Copyright © 2022 ACM

          Publication rights licensed to ACM. ACM acknowledges that this contribution was authored or co-authored by an employee, contractor or affiliate of a national government. As such, the Government retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free right to publish or reproduce this article, or to allow others to do so, for Government purposes only.

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 8 April 2024

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article
          • Research
          • Refereed limited
        • Article Metrics

          • Downloads (Last 12 months)3
          • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)3

          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