skip to main content
10.1145/3607822.3614520acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessuiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

How Observers Perceive Teleport Visualizations in Virtual Environments

Published:13 October 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

Multi-user VR applications have great potential to foster remote collaboration and improve or replace classical training and education. An important aspect of such applications is how participants move through the virtual environments. One of the most popular VR locomotion methods is the standard teleportation metaphor, as it is quick, easy to use and implement, and safe regarding cybersickness. However, it can be confusing to the other, observing, participants in a multi-user session and, therefore, reduce their presence. The reason for this is the discontinuity of the process, and, therefore, the lack of motion cues. As of yet, the question of how this teleport metaphor could be suitably visualized for observers has not received very much attention. Therefore, we implemented several continuous and discontinuous 3D visualizations for the teleport metaphor and conducted a user study for evaluation. Specifically, we investigated them regarding confusion, spatial awareness, and spatial and social presence. Regarding presence, we did find significant advantages for one of the visualizations. Moreover, some visualizations significantly reduced confusion. Furthermore, multiple continuous visualizations ranked significantly higher regarding spatial awareness than the discontinuous ones. This finding is also backed up by the users’ tracking data we collected during the experiments. Lastly, the classic teleport metaphor was perceived as less clear and rather unpopular compared with our visualizations.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

TeleportVisualizations.mp4

Appendix with additional data and plots and supplementary video showing all of the teleport visualizations.

mp4

70.1 MB

References

  1. Ashu Adhikari, Daniel Zielasko, Ivan Aguilar, Alexander Bretin, Ernst Kruijff, Markus von der Heyde, and Bernhard E. Riecke. 2022. Integrating Continuous and Teleporting VR Locomotion Into a Seamless ‘HyperJump’ Paradigm. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (2022), 1–17.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Majed Al Zayer, Paul MacNeilage, and Eelke Folmer. 2020. Virtual Locomotion: A Survey. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 26, 6 (2020), 2315–2334.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Jiwan Bhandari, Paul MacNeilage, and Eelke Folmer. 2018. Teleportation without Spatial Disorientation Using Optical Flow Cues. In Proceedings of the 44th Graphics Interface Conference(GI ’18). Canadian Human-Computer Communications Society, 162–167.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Costas Boletsis. 2017. The New Era of Virtual Reality Locomotion: A Systematic Literature Review of Techniques and a Proposed Typology. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction 1, 4 (2017), 24.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Fabio Buttussi and Luca Chittaro. 2019. Locomotion in Place in Virtual Reality: A Comparative Evaluation of Joystick, Teleport, and Leaning. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics PP (07 2019), 1–1.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Kapil Chalil Madathil and Joel S. Greenstein. 2017. An investigation of the efficacy of collaborative virtual reality systems for moderated remote usability testing. Applied Ergonomics 65 (2017), 501–514.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Vuthea Chheang, Florian Heinrich, Fabian Joeres, Patrick Saalfeld, Bernhard Preim, and Christian Hansen. 2022. Group WiM: A Group Navigation Technique for Collaborative Virtual Reality Environments. In 2022 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces Abstracts and Workshops (VRW). IEEE Computer Society, 556–557.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Vuthea Chheang, Patrick Saalfeld, Fabian Joeres, Christian Boedecker, Tobias Huber, Florentine Huettl, Hauke Lang, Bernhard Preim, and Christian Hansen. 2021. A collaborative virtual reality environment for liver surgery planning. Computers & Graphics 99 (2021), 234–246.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Jeremy Clifton and Stephen Palmisano. 2020. Effects of Steering Locomotion and Teleporting on Cybersickness and Presence in HMD-Based Virtual Reality. Virtual Real. 24, 3 (sep 2020), 453–468.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Collins Dictionary. 2023. Definifion of confusing. https://www.collinsdictionary.com/de/worterbuch/englisch/confusing. Accessed: 2023-03-29.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Cambridge Dictionary. 2023. Definifion of confusing. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/de/worterbuch/englisch/confusing. Accessed: 2023-03-29.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Jann Philipp Freiwald, Julius Schenke, Nale Lehmann-Willenbrock, and Frank Steinicke. 2021. Effects of Avatar Appearance and Locomotion on Co-Presence in Virtual Reality Collaborations. In Proceedings of Mensch Und Computer 2021(MuC ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, 393–401.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. 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 Trans. Graph. 41, 6, Article 211 (nov 2022), 14 pages.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Nathan Navarro Griffin and Eelke Folmer. 2019. Out-of-Body Locomotion: Vectionless Navigation with a Continuous Avatar Representation. In 25th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology(VRST ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, Article 1, 8 pages.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Joseph J. LaViola. 2000. A Discussion of Cybersickness in Virtual Environments. SIGCHI Bull. 32, 1 (jan 2000), 47–56.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Guido Makransky, Lau Lilleholt, and Anders Aaby. 2017. Development and validation of the Multimodal Presence Scale for virtual reality environments: A confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory approach. Computers in Human Behavior 72 (2017), 276–285.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Ye Pan and Anthony Steed. 2017. The impact of self-avatars on trust and collaboration in shared virtual environments. PLOS ONE 12 (12 2017), e0189078.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Aniruddha Prithul, Isayas Adhanom, and eelke folmer. 2021. Teleportation in Virtual Reality; A Mini-Review. Frontiers in Virtual Reality 2 (10 2021).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Jussi Rantala, Jari Kangas, Olli Koskinen, Tomi Nukarinen, and Roope Raisamo. 2021. Comparison of Controller-Based Locomotion Techniques for Visual Observation in Virtual Reality. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction 5, 7 (2021), 31. https://www.mdpi.com/2414-4088/5/7/31Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Simon Riches, Soha Elghany, Philippa A. Garety, Mar Rus-Calafell, and Lucia R. Valmaggia. 2019. Factors Affecting Sense of Presence in a Virtual Reality Social Environment: A Qualitative Study. Cyberpsychology, behavior and social networking 22 4 (2019), 288–292.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Valentin Schwind, Pascal Knierim, Nico Haas, and Niels Henze. 2019. Using Presence Questionnaires in Virtual Reality. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, 1–12.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Anthony Steed, Sebastian Friston, Maria Murcia, Jason Drummond, Ye Pan, and David Swapp. 2016. An ‘In the Wild’ Experiment on Presence and Embodiment using Consumer Virtual Reality Equipment. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 22 (01 2016), 1–1.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Santawat Thanyadit, Parinya Punpongsanon, Thammathip Piumsomboon, and Ting-Chuen Pong. 2020. Substituting Teleportation Visualization for Collaborative Virtual Environments. In Symposium on Spatial User Interaction(SUI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, Article 31, 2 pages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Dimitrios Ververidis, Spiros Nikolopoulos, and Ioannis Kompatsiaris. 2022. A Review of Collaborative Virtual Reality Systems for the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction Industry. Architecture 2, 3 (2022), 476–496.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Cheng Yao Wang, Mose Sakashita, Upol Ehsan, Jingjin Li, and Andrea Stevenson Won. 2020. Again, Together: Socially Reliving Virtual Reality Experiences When Separated. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, 1–12.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Tim Weissker, Pauline Bimberg, Ankith Kodanda, and Bernd Froehlich. 2022. Holding Hands for Short-Term Group Navigation in Social Virtual Reality. In 2022 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces Abstracts and Workshops (VRW). 728–729. https://doi.org/10.1109/VRW55335.2022.00215Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Tim Weissker and Bernd Froehlich. 2021. Group Navigation for Guided Tours in Distributed Virtual Environments. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 27, 5 (2021), 2524–2534.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Tim Weissker, Alexander Kulik, and Bernd Froehlich. 2019. Multi-Ray Jumping: Comprehensible Group Navigation for Collocated Users in Immersive Virtual Reality. In 2019 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR). 136–144. https://doi.org/10.1109/VR.2019.8797807Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Isabell Wohlgenannt, Alexander Simons, and Stefan Stieglitz. 2020. Virtual reality. Business & Information Systems Engineering 62, 5 (2020), 455–461.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. How Observers Perceive Teleport Visualizations in Virtual Environments

    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
      SUI '23: Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Symposium on Spatial User Interaction
      October 2023
      505 pages
      ISBN:9798400702815
      DOI:10.1145/3607822

      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: 13 October 2023

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate86of279submissions,31%

      Upcoming Conference

      SUI '24
      ACM Symposium on Spatial User Interaction
      October 7 - 8, 2024
      Trier , Germany
    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)100
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)11

      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