Users’ Perceptions Using Low-End and High-End Mobile-Rendered HMDs: A Comparative Study
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Background
2.1. Mobile-Rendered Head-Mounted Displays
2.2. Previous Works with Mobile-Rendered HMDs
3. App Development
4. Study
4.1. Measurements
- The Lang 1 Stereotest (Q1): The Lang 1 Stereotest has three objects. We followed the protocol suggested by Brown et al. [15]. A participant passed the test when he/she had 3/3 positive responses, 3/3 partial positive responses, or 2/3 positive and/or partial positive responses where the negative response was at the 550″ level. A participant failed the test when he/she had 3/3 negative responses and 2/3 negative responses where the single positive or partial positive response was at the 1200″ level. This test was applied to confirm that the participants had stereopsis.
- Users’ perceptions about Samsung Gear VR (the Q2 questionnaire): This questionnaire was filled out by the user after using Samsung Gear VR. It consists of 26 questions, in which the user had to evaluate each one on a Likert scale ranging from 1 “Totally disagree” to 7 “Totally agree”. The last two questions (OF#2 and #OF3) had different types of answers but they also used a 7 point Likert scale. The possible answers for question OF#2 ranged from 1 “Very poor” to 7 “Very good”. The possible answers for question OF#3 ranged from 1 “Much worse” to 7“Much better” (see Table 2).
- Users’ perceptions about Google Cardboard (the Q3 questionnaire): The user filled out this questionnaire after using Google Cardboard. It contained the same questions as the previous questionnaire (Q2). Q3 had the same rating scale (see Table 2).
- MR HMD comparison (the Q4 questionnaire): Q4 was the last questionnaire to be filled out by the user regardless of the order of testing the devices. The user indicated with which device he/she had the best 3D experience, i.e., which one was more comfortable, which one he/she liked the most, which one he/she would like to buy and some other free questions (see Table 3).
- Control Factors (CF): degree of control, immediacy of control, anticipation of events, mode of control, physical environment modifiability.
- Sensory Factors (SF): sensory modality, environmental richness, degree of movement perception, active search.
- Distraction Factors (DF): selective attention, interface awareness.
- Realism Factors (RF): scene realism, information consistent with the objective world, meaningfulness of experience.
- Ergonomic Factors (EF): device comfort, effort, etc.
- Other Factors (OF): score of the 3D experience, involvement during the experience, 3D experience comparison.
4.2. Procedure
- Group A: the participants used Samsung Gear VR first and afterwards they used Google Cardboard.
- Group B: the participants used Google Cardboard first and afterwards they used Samsung Gear VR.
- The Lang 1 Stereotest was applied to determine if the participants had stereopsis (Q1).
- The participants tested the app using one MR HMD (Samsung Gear VR or Google Cardboard). Then, they filled out the User’s Perceptions Questionnaire.
- Group A filled out the Q2 questionnaire (Samsung Gear VR).
- Group B filled out the Q3 questionnaire (Google Cardboard).
- Afterwards, they used the other MR HMD that they had not used in step 2.
- Group A filled out the Q3 questionnaire (Google Cardboard).
- Group B filled out the Q2 questionnaire (Samsung Gear VR).
- Finally, they filled out the Q4 questionnaire.
5. Results
5.1. Users’ Perceptions Outcomes (Q2 and Q3)
- Control Factor Outcomes (CF): All of the questions (CF#1 to CF#7) have a median between 6 (Moderately agree) and 7 (Strongly agree) for both MR HMDs.
- Realism Factor Outcomes (RF): All of the questions (RF#1 to RF#11) have a median between 6 (Moderately agree) and 7 (Strongly agree) for both MR HMDs.
- Distraction Factor Outcomes (DF): The mean of question DF#1 using Samsung Gear VR is 7 (Strongly agree) and 6 using Google Cardboard (Moderately agree).
- Ergonomic Factor Outcomes (EF): All of the questions (EF#1 to EF#4) have a median of 6 (Moderately agree) for both MR HMDs.
- Other Factor Outcomes (OF): All of the questions (OF#1 to OF#3) have a median between 6 (Moderately agree) and 7 (Strongly agree) for both MR HMDs.
- EF#1 (W = 509, Z = 3.594, p = 0.001 **, r = 0.402), EF#2 (W = 523, Z = 4.502, p = 0.001 **, r = 0.503) and EF#3 (W = 220, Z = 3.108, p = 0.002 **, r = 0.347), all of them in favour of the Samsung Gear.
- RF#7 (W = 74.5, Z = 2.008, p = 0.036 **, r = 0.225) in favour of the Samsung Gear.
5.1.1. Between-Subject Analysis
5.1.2. Within-Subject Analysis
5.2. Preferences about the MR HMD (Q4)
6. Discussion
7. Conclusions
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Bowman, D.; Kruijff, E.; Laviola, J.; Poupyrev, I. User Interfaces: Theory and Practice; Addison-Wesley: Boston, MA, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Usoh, M.; Slater, M. An exploration of immersive virtual environments. Endevour 1995, 19, 34–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boos, K.; Chu, D.; Cuervo, E. FLASHBACK: Immersive Virtual Reality on Mobile Devices via Rendering Memoization. GetMobile 2016, 20, 23–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Markets and Markets Report. Augmented Reality Software Market—Global Forecast to 2022. 2007. Available online: http://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/4228225/augmented-reality-software-market-software#pos-0 (accessed on 9 October 2017).
- Markets and Markets Report. Mobile Augmented Reality Market by Component, Application, Vertical and Geography—Global Forecast to 2022. 2016. Available online: http://www.marketsandmarkets.com/ (accessed on 10 January 2018).
- Kesselman, M. Current CITE-ings from the popular and trade computing literature: Google Cardboard—Virtual reality for everyone. Libr. Hi Tech. News 2016, 33, 15–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mosadeghi, S.; Reid, M.W.; Martinez, B.; Rosen, T.; Spiegel, B.M.R. Feasibility of an Immersive Virtual Reality Intervention for Hospitalized Patients: An Observational Cohort Study. JMIR Ment. Health 2016, 3, E28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tashjian, V.C.; Mosadeghi, S.; Howard, A.R.; Lopez, M.; Dupuy, T.; Reid, M.; Martinez, B.; Ahmed, S.; Dailey, F.; Robbins, K.; et al. Virtual Reality for Management of Pain in Hospitalized Patients: Results of a Controlled Trial. JMIR Ment. Health 2017, 4, E9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Steed, A.; Friston, S.; Murcia López, M.; Drummond, J.; Pan, Y.; Swapp, D. An ‘In the Wild’ Experiment on Presence and Embodiment Using Consumer Virtual Reality Equipment. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 2016, 22, 1406–1414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Buń, P.; Górski, F.; Wichniarek, R.; Kuczko, W.; Hamrol, A.; Zawadzki, P. Application of Professional and Low-cost Head Mounted Devices in Immersive Educational Application. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Virtual and Augmented Reality in Education, Monterrey, Mexico, 9–21 November 2015; pp. 173–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miller, J.; Baiotto, H.; MacAllister, A.; Hoover, M.; Evans, G.; Schlueter, J.; Kalivarapu, V.; Winer, E. Comparison of a Virtual Game-Day Experience on Varying. Electron. Imaging 2017, 30–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Debernardis, S.; Fiorentino, M.; Gattullo, M.; Monno, G.; Uva, A.E. Text Readability in Head-Worn Displays: Color and Style Optimization in Video versus Optical See-Through Devices. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 2014, 20, 125–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Juan, M.C.; Calatrava, J. An Augmented Reality System for the Treatment of Phobia to Small Animals Viewed Via an Optical See-Through HMD: Comparison With a Similar System Viewed via a Video See-Through HMD. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 2011, 27, 436–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perla, R.; Hebbalaguppe, R. Google Cardboard Dates Augmented Reality: Issues, Challenges and Future Opportunities. arXiv, 2017; arXiv:1706.03851. [Google Scholar]
- Brown, S.; Weih, L.; Mukesh, N.; McCarty, C.; Taylor, H. Assessment of adult stereopsis using the Lang 1 Stereotest: A pilot study. Binocul. Vis. Strabismus Q. 2001, 16, 91–98. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Bowman, D.; McMahan, R. Virtual Reality: How much immersion is enough? Computer 2007, 7, 36–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Regenbrecht, H.; Schubert, T. Measuring Presence in Augmented Reality Environments: Design and a First Test of a Questionnaire. In Proceedings of the Fifth Annual International Workshop Presence, Porto, Portugal, 9–11 October 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Witmer, B.; Singer, M. Measuring Presence in Virtual Environments: A Presence Questionnaire. Presence 1998, 7, 225–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arino, J.J.; Juan, M.C.; Gil-Gómez, J.A.; Mollá, R. A comparative study using an autostereoscopic display with augmented and virtual reality. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2014, 33, 646–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gombač, L.; Čopič Pucihar, K.; Kljun, M.; Coulton, P.; Grbac, J. 3D Virtual Tracing and Depth Perception Problem on Mobile AR. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ‘16), San Jose, CA, USA, 7–12 May 2016; pp. 1849–1856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jin, T.; He, S.; Liu, Y. Towards accurate GPU power modeling for smartphones. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Mobile Gaming, MobiGames@MobiSys, Florence, Italy, 19 May 2015; pp. 7–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, B.; Reeves, S.; Sherwood, S. Into the wild: Challenges and opportunities for field trial methods. In Proceedings of the Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction (SIGCHI) Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 7–12 May 2011; pp. 1657–1666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Google Cardboard V2 | Samsung Gear VR Innovation Edition (SM-R320) | |
---|---|---|
Field of view | 80° | 96° |
Pixel density | 10 | 12 |
Building material | cardboard | plastic |
Phone lock mechanism | Velcro | all-round clips |
Supported mobile devices | A wide variety (screens from 4.0″–6.0″) | Galaxy Note 4 For other models: Galaxy Note 5, S6, S6 Edge, S6 Edge+, S7, S7 Edge, Note 8, S8, S8+ |
Weight | 96 g | 379 g |
Wearing comfort | none | foam |
Control and sensors | button | volume key, touchpad, back key, focus adjustment wheel and proximity sensor |
Adjustment to the user’s head | No. The user’s own hands or an external head wand is required | Yes |
Id | Question | Q2 M ± IQ | Q3 M ± IQ | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CF#1 | The application responded appropriately to my actions. | 6 ± 2 | MA | 6 ± 1 | MA |
CF#2 | The handling of the application was natural. | 6 ± 2 | MA | 6 ± 2 | MA |
CF#3 | The handling of the application was simple and uncomplicated. | 7 ± 1 | SA | 6.5 ± 1 | MA |
CF#4 | I did not notice delays between my actions and the expected results. | 6 ± 3.25 | MA | 6 ± 1 | MA |
CF#5 | I quickly got used to the application. | 6 ± 1 | MA | 6 ± 1 | MA |
CF#6 | The application was easy to control. | 7 ± 1 | SA | 7 ± 1 | SA |
CF#7 | At the end of the experience, I felt like an expert in handling the application. | 6 ± 1 | MA | 6 ± 1 | MA |
DF#1 | The control mechanisms did not distract me. | 7 ± 1 | MA | 6 ± 1.25 | MA |
EF#1 | The use of the MR HMD was comfortable. | 6 ± 2 | MA | 5 ± 3 | MA |
EF#2 | At no time did I think that I was going to drop the MR HMD | 6.5 ± 1 | MA | 5 ± 3 | MA |
EF#3 | The use of the MR HMD did not require a great effort from my arms. | 7 ± 1 | MA | 6 ± 3 | MA |
EF#4 | I did not feel any discomfort (dizziness, etc.) during the experience. | 6 ± 2.25 | MA | 6 ± 2 | MA |
RF#1 | I had the impression of seeing a dish with food. | 6 ± 1 | MA | 7 ± 1 | MA |
RF#2 | I had the impression that the feeds were real. It seemed to me that the food on the dish could be real food. | 6 ± 2 | MA | 6 ± 1.25 | MA |
RF#3 | The food looks as real as the dish. | 6 ± 2 | MA | 6 ± 1 | MA |
RF#4 | I had the impression that the food was part of the real scene. | 6 ± 1.25 | MA | 6 ± 1.25 | MA |
RF#5 | I had the impression that I could touch and grab the food. | 6 ± 2 | MA | 6 ± 2 | MA |
RF#6 | I had the impression of seeing the foods as objects in 3D. | 6 ± 1 | MA | 6 ± 1 | MA |
RF#7 | I could examine the food closely. | 7 ± 1 | SA | 7 ± 1 | SA |
RF#8 | I could examine the food from different points of view. | 7 ± 1 | SA | 7 ± 1 | SA |
RF#9 | I did not pay attention to differences between the food and the dish. | 6 ± 2 | MA | 5 ± 2 | MA |
RF#10 | I did not have to make an effort to recognize the foods as 3D objects. | 7 ± 1 | SA | 7 ± 1 | SA |
RF#11 | I liked what the food looked like. | 7 ± 1 | SA | 6 ± 1 | MA |
OF#1 | I was involved during the experience. | 6 ± 1 | MA | 6.5 ± 1 | MA |
OF#2 | Score the 3D. | 6 ± 1 | MA | 6 ± 1.25 | MA |
OF#3 | This experience compared to other previous 3D experiences is... | 5 ± 2 | MB | 5 ± 2 | MB |
Id | Question | M ± IQ | Answer |
---|---|---|---|
Q#1 | Which device has a better 3D experience? | 1 ± 1 | SG |
Q#2 | Which device did you find most comfortable? | 1 ± 0 | SG |
Q#3 | Which device did you like the most? | 1 ± 1 | SG |
Q#4 | If you had to buy one of them, which would you buy? (The price of the Samsung Gear viewer is €100 + the Samsung mobile. The price of the Google Cardboard viewer is less than €20 + any mobile up to 6 inches) | 2 ± 1 | GC |
Id | Question |
---|---|
F#1 | Why? (About Q#4) |
F#2 | What do you think about Samsung Gear VR? |
F#3 | What do you think about Google Cardboard? |
F#4 | What did you like most about the experience? |
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Juan, M.-C.; García-García, I.; Mollá, R.; López, R. Users’ Perceptions Using Low-End and High-End Mobile-Rendered HMDs: A Comparative Study. Computers 2018, 7, 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/computers7010015
Juan M-C, García-García I, Mollá R, López R. Users’ Perceptions Using Low-End and High-End Mobile-Rendered HMDs: A Comparative Study. Computers. 2018; 7(1):15. https://doi.org/10.3390/computers7010015
Chicago/Turabian StyleJuan, M.-Carmen, Inmaculada García-García, Ramón Mollá, and Richard López. 2018. "Users’ Perceptions Using Low-End and High-End Mobile-Rendered HMDs: A Comparative Study" Computers 7, no. 1: 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/computers7010015
APA StyleJuan, M. -C., García-García, I., Mollá, R., & López, R. (2018). Users’ Perceptions Using Low-End and High-End Mobile-Rendered HMDs: A Comparative Study. Computers, 7(1), 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/computers7010015