Objective: This study examined the concept of dynamic viewpoint tethering for enhancing performance in 3-D avatar control tasks. Background: Dynamic viewpoint tethering refers to a viewpoint animation technique that couples a display viewpoint to a controlled avatar through a virtual tether. A dynamic tether, modeled as a mass spring damper system, can potentially generate desirable viewpoint behavior because of its ability to produce frequency-separated viewpoint responses. This study investigated the impact of a tether’s rigidity and damping properties on users’ navigational performance. Methods: Twelve participants took part in a simulated 3-D aerial navigational task. Performance was evaluated with respect to local guidance and global awareness. Results: Root mean square error scores revealed a decrease in local guidance performance when (a) the tether was either severely underdamped or overdamped and (b) the tether’s rigidity approached either zero or infinity. In addition, (c) global performance was better for higher-frequency forcing functions. Conclusion: Critical damping and medium rigidity can be optimized during design for enhancing users’ navigational efficiency. Application: Guidelines generated from this study support future viewpoint design in interactive virtual reality applications.
Beringer, D.B., Williges, R.C., & Roscoe, S.N. ( 1975). The transition of experienced pilots to a frequency-separated aircraft attitude display. Human Factors, 17, 401-414.
2.
Colquhoun, H.W., Jr., & Milgram, P. ( 2000). Dynamic tethering for enhanced remote control and navigation . In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 44th Annual Meeting (pp. 146-149). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
3.
Darken, R.P., Allard, T., & Achille, L.B. ( 1999). Spatial orientation and wayfinding in large-scale virtual spaces II: Guest editors’ introduction to the special issue. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 8(6), iii-vi.
4.
Dimarogonas, A. (1996). Vibration for engineers (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
5.
Etienne, A.S., Maurer, R., & Seguinot, V. ( 1996). Path integration in mammals and its interaction with visual landmarks. Journal of Experimental Biology, 199, 201-209.
6.
Fogel, L.J. ( 1959). A new concept: The kinalog display. Human Factors, 1, 3-37.
7.
Haskell, I.D., & Wickens, C.D. ( 1993). Two- and three-dimensional displays for aviation: A theoretical and empirical comparison. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 3, 87-109.
8.
Hollands, J.G., Pavlovic, N.J., Enomoto, Y., & Jiang, H. ( 2008). Smooth rotation of 2-D and 3-D representations of terrain: An investigation into the utility of visual momentum. Human Factors, 50, 62-76.
9.
Hughes, S., & Lewis, M. ( 2005). Attentive navigation for viewpoint control in virtual environments. Human Factors, 47, 630-643.
10.
Jagacinski, R.J., & Flach, J.M. ( 2003). Control theory for humans: Quantitative approaches to modeling performance. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11.
Johnson, S.L., & Roscoe, S.N. ( 1972). What moves, the airplane or the world? Human Factors, 14, 107-129.
12.
Loomis, J.M., Klatzky, R.L., Golledge, R.G., & Philbeck, J.W. (1999). Human navigation by path integration. In R. G. Golledge (Ed.), Wayfinding: Cognitive mapping and other spatial processes (pp. 125-151). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins.
13.
McCormick, E., Wickens, C.D., Banks, R., & Yeh, M. ( 1998). Frame of reference effects on scientific visualization subtasks. Human Factors, 40, 443-451.
14.
Milgram, P., & Colquhoun, H.W. , Jr. (1999). A taxonomy of real and virtual world display integration. In Y. Ohta & H. Tamura (Eds.), Mixed reality: Merging real and virtual worlds (pp. 1-26). Tokyo : Ohmasha.
15.
Poulton, E.C. ( 1974). Tracking skill and manual control. New York: Academic Press.
16.
Roscoe, S.N. ( 1968). Airborne displays for flight and navigation. Human Factors, 10, 321-332.
17.
Rouse, R. ( 1999). What’s your perspective? Computer Graphics, 33(3), 9-12.
18.
Thomas, L.C., Wickens, C.D., & Merlo, J. ( 1999). Immersion and battlefield visualization: Frame of reference effects on navigation tasks and cognitive tunneling (Tech. Report ARL-99-3/FEDLAB-99-2) . Savoy: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Aviation Research Laboratory, Institute of Aviation.
19.
Tolman, E.C. ( 1948). Cognitive maps in rats and men. Psychological Review, 55, 189-208.
20.
Wang, W. ( 2004). Human navigation performance using 6 degree of freedom dynamic viewpoint tethering in virtual environments. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
21.
Wang, W., & Milgram, P. ( 2003). Effects of viewpoint displacement on navigational performance in virtual environments. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 47th Annual Meeting (pp. 139-143). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society .
22.
Wickens, C.D. ( 1998). Frame of reference for navigation. In D. Gopher & A. Koriat (Ed.), Attention and performance (pp. 113-144). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
23.
Wickens, C.D., Liang, C., Prevett, T., & Olmos, O. ( 1996). Electronic maps for terminal area navigation: Effects of frame of reference and dimensionality. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 6(3), 241-271.
24.
Wickens, C.D., & Prevett, T.T. ( 1995). Exploring the dimensions of egocentricity in aircraft navigation displays. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied , 1, 110-135.
