Augmented Reality versus Virtual Reality for 3D Object Manipulation

Abstract

Virtual Reality (VR) Head-Mounted Displays (HMDs) are on the verge of becoming commodity hardware available to the average user and feasible to use as a tool for 3D work. Some HMDs include front-facing cameras, enabling Augmented Reality (AR) functionality. Apart from avoiding collisions with the environment, interaction with virtual objects may also be affected by seeing the real environment. However, whether these effects are positive or negative has not yet been studied extensively. For most tasks it is unknown whether AR has any advantage over VR. In this work we present the results of a user study in which we compared user performance measured in task completion time on a 9 degrees of freedom object selection and transformation task performed either in AR or VR, both with a 3D input device and a mouse. Our results show faster task completion time in AR over VR. When using a 3D input device, a purely VR environment increased task completion time by 22.5 percent on average compared to AR ( ). Surprisingly, a similar effect occurred when using a mouse: users were about 17.3 percent slower in VR than in AR ( ). Mouse and 3D input device produced similar task completion times in each condition (AR or VR) respectively. We further found no differences in reported comfort.

Novel supports to the assessment of cognitive functions through the combined use of technologies and subjective and objective measurements

“…The results are partially in opposite with previous works that have compared VR and AR and could depend on the task to perform and on display fidelity, the accuracy and complexity of the technological systems (Arino et al, 2014;Botden et al, 2007;Boud et al, 1999;Cidota et al, 2016;Jones et al, 2008;Juan & Pérez, 2010;Khademi et al, 2013;Krichenbauer et al, 2017;Irawati et al, 2008;Lee et al, 2013;Möller et al, 2014). Indeed, the main previous comparison studies implemented non-complex tasks in which one task was proposed at a time, such as object manipulation, and our study included activity of daily life characterized by a succession of actions and/or two tasks at a time in a rich similar real environment.…”

“…Regarding the main aim, the results showed that the total times and the level times are lower in VR than AR. These results are partially on opposite with previous research and could depend on the differences in system used and the interaction tools, as well as on the complexity of the task (Arino et al, 2014;Botden et al, 2007;Boud et al, 1999;Cidota et al, 2016;Jones et al, 2008;Juan & Pérez, 2010;Khademi et al, 2013;Krichenbauer et al, 2017;Irawati et al, 2008;Lee et al, 2013;Möller et al, 2014). Indeed, previous studied have compared the two systems using a simple task, such as object manipulation or a pick and place task (Khademi et al, 2013), while our task based on a dailylife activity, characterized by a succession of actions and with more than one action at the same time.…”

Augmented Reality Technology Using Microsoft HoloLens in Anatomic Pathology

“…For instance, it was reported that users were able to complete tasks related to 3D object manipulation up to 22.5% faster in an AR environment than with VR. 19 The Microsoft HoloLens is a novel AR tool with potential for clinical and educational applications in health care. Medical education is transforming by using safer simulation technologies.…”

Lower body control of a semi-autonomous avatar in Virtual Reality: Balance and Locomotion of a 3D Bipedal Model

“…We force upper-body movements to match those measured on the user. The reason for this is that many VR application can be realized with only Headset and Hands tracking [18,24], which is known to cause nausea sensation if the tracked positions are of low accuracy, low frame rate or latency [28]. Lower-body motions of the avatar are reconstructed in accordance with the upper body.…”