User Experience of Panoramic Video in CAVE-like and Head Mounted Display Viewing Conditions

Philpot, Adam; Glancy, Maxine; Passmore, Peter J.; Wood, Andrew; Fields, Bob

doi:10.1145/3077548.3077550

Cited by 19 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They also believed that the forward direction would provide most of the important information. The guided attention from the xed chair was also suggested by the interviews in a previous study in which the participants mentioned that the non-swivel seat encouraged them to look to the front [22].…”

Section: Interviewsmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…Therefore, the HMD viewers' fear of missing out was reduced. In a study by Philpot et al that compared dierent displays, the HMD users sat on a swivel chair, while in the CAVE condition a xed seat was used [22]. Participants in the CAVE-like display mentioned in the interview that the xed chair encouraged them to look towards the front and discouraged them from turning and exploring.…”

Section: Previous Work 21 Panoramic Videosmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This may lead to participants' fear of missing out, especially when narrative understanding is involved [17]. It has been found that HMD users reported greater concern about whether they were looking in the right direction and whether they missed something, compared with CAVE users [22]. In this study, various types of videos were selected, including those with the characters mainly in the front and those with several characters scattered around, those with narrative elements and those without.…”

Section: Concern About Missing Somethingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The effect of chair type on users' viewing experience for 360-degree video

Hong

MacQuarrie

Steed

2018

Proceedings of the 24th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The consumption of 360-degree videos with head-mounted displays (HMDs) is increasing rapidly. A large number of HMD users watch 360-degree videos at home, often on non-swivel seats; however videos are frequently designed to require the user to turn around. This work explores how the dierence in users' chair type might inuence their viewing experience. A between-subject experiment was conducted with 41 participants. Three chair conditions were used:xed, half-swivel and full-swivel. A variety of measures were explored using eye-tracking, questionnaires, tasks and semistructured interviews. Results suggest that thexed and half-swivel chairs discouraged exploration for certain videos compared with the full-swivel chair. Additionally, participants in thexed chair had worse spatial awareness and greater concern about missing something for certain video than those in the full-swivel chair. No signicant dierences were found in terms of incidental memory, general engagement and simulator sickness among the three chair conditions. Furthermore, thematic analysis of post-experiment interviews revealed four themes regarding the restrictive chairs: physical discomfort, diculty following moving objects, reduced orientation and guided attention. Based on thendings, practical implications, limitations and future work are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Interviewsmentioning

confidence: 88%

Section: Previous Work 21 Panoramic Videosmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Concern About Missing Somethingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The effect of chair type on users' viewing experience for 360-degree video

Hong

MacQuarrie

Steed

2018

Proceedings of the 24th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In other words, users wearing HMDs are typically alone in the virtual world, although the use of avatars with gestures and facial expressions in VR settings can begin to establish social presence for remotely connected participants (Bente et al 2008;Nguyen and Duval 2014). Others note that HMD environments can also affect the a sense of presence or task performance due to a typically disembodied experience, or lack of one's own body representation (Pan and Hamilton 2018;Philpot et al 2017;Sanchez-Vives and Slater 2005), as well as increase a sense of discomfort of a tethered experience, including the motion sickness.…”

Section: Collaborative Vrmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Dunston et al 2011;Liu 2017;Whyte and Nikolić 2018). Potential reasons for their lower uptake include the relatively high costs of these systems (Philpot et al 2017), their spatial requirements and relative immobility, and their general perception as difficult to use (Zaker and Coloma 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Becoming familiar: how infrastructure engineers begin to use collaborative virtual reality in their interdisciplinary practice

Nikolic¹,

Maftei²,

Whyte³

2019

ITcon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The design community has recently shown increased interest in using virtual reality (VR) in project review contexts. While single-user headsets currently attract most VR-related attention, room-like immersive VR environments can help facilitate design team engagement and shared exploration of projects. However, to date relatively little research concerns how large-scale VR environments are used in and adapted for professional practice. To address this gap, we set up a bespoke portable VR display system called 3D-MOVE in a major UK construction office to investigate how project team members used and evaluated collaborative VR processes. Over a three-month period, we conducted ten video-recorded VR sessions to observe how engineering professionals familiarize themselves with VR in order to help inform its deployment in practice. The study results show that emergent discussions about design models and questioning of design-related assumptions dominated all observed sessions, even though they were staged as technology demonstrations; which supports the social aspects of large-scale collaborative VR processes. However, before participants could focus on design review, they had to familiarize themselves with the VR technology and time required to do so varied depending on the complexity of the VR configuration. As the participants engaged with the VR environment, they reflected on their processes, requirements and expectations and provided feedback for improving the VR experience. Articulating this familiarization with collaborative VR can inform its deployment with respect to minimizing the learning curve and any distractions or discomfort associated with its use while maximizing the aspects of value-added collaborative engagement. Additional considerations concerning content, interactivity and logistics emerged as necessary to address before VR technologies can become standard practice.

show abstract

Enhancing Audience Engagement Through Immersive 360-Degree Videos: An Experimental Study

Suh

Wang

et al. 2018

Augmented Cognition: Intelligent Technologies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

User Experience of Panoramic Video in CAVE-like and Head Mounted Display Viewing Conditions

Abstract: User experience of panoramic video in CAVE-like and head mounted display viewing conditions.

Cited by 19 publications

References 20 publications

The effect of chair type on users' viewing experience for 360-degree video

The effect of chair type on users' viewing experience for 360-degree video

Becoming familiar: how infrastructure engineers begin to use collaborative virtual reality in their interdisciplinary practice

Enhancing Audience Engagement Through Immersive 360-Degree Videos: An Experimental Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About