A Simple Video-Based Technique for Measuring Latency in Virtual Reality or Teleoperation.

Designers of virtual reality (VR) systems are aware of the need to minimize delays between the user's tracked physical actions and the consequent displayed actions in the virtual environment. Such delays, also referred to as end-to-end latency, are known to degrade user performance and even cause simulator sickness. Though a wide variety of hardware and software design strategies have been used to reduce delays, techniques for measuring and minimizing latency continue to be needed since transmission and switching delays are likely to continue to introduce new sources of latency, especially in wireless mobile environments. This article describes a convenient low-cost technique for measuring end-to-end latencies using a human evaluator and an ordinary consumer camera (e.g., cell phone camera). Since the technique does not depend upon the use of specialized hardware and software, it differs from other methods in that it can easily be used to measure latencies of systems in the specific hardware and software configuration and the relevant performance environments. The achievable measurement accuracy was assessed in an experimental trial. Results indicate a measurement uncertainty below 10 ms. Some refinements to the technique are discussed, which may further reduce the measurement uncertainty to approximately 1 ms.

Egocentric Distance Perception: A Comparative Study Investigating Differences Between Real and Virtual Environments.

Virtual reality systems are a popular tool in behavioral sciences. The participants' behavior is, however, a response to cognitively processed stimuli. Consequently, researchers must ensure that virtually perceived stimuli resemble those present in the real world to ensure the ecological validity of collected findings. Our article provides a literature review relating to distance perception in virtual reality. Furthermore, we present a new study that compares verbal distance estimates within real and virtual environments. The virtual space-a replica of a real outdoor area-was displayed using a state-of-the-art head-mounted display. Investigated distances ranged from 8 to 13 m. Overall, the results show no significant difference between egocentric distance estimates in real and virtual environments. However, a more in-depth analysis suggests that the order in which participants were exposed to the two environments may affect the outcome. Furthermore, the study suggests that a rising experience of immersion leads to an alignment of the estimated virtual distances with the real ones. The results also show that the discrepancy between estimates of real and virtual distances increases with the incongruity between virtual and actual eye heights, demonstrating the importance of an accurately set virtual eye height.

Pedestrians Accept Shorter Distances to Light Vehicles Than Dark Ones When Crossing the Street.

Does the brightness of an approaching vehicle affect a pedestrian's crossing decision? Thirty participants indicated their street-crossing intentions when facing approaching light or dark vehicles. The experiment was conducted in a real daylight environment and, additionally, in a corresponding virtual one. A real road with actual cars provides high face validity, while a virtual environment ensures the scenario's precise reproducibility and repeatability for each participant. In both settings, participants judged dark vehicles to be a more imminent threat-either closer or moving faster-when compared with light ones. Secondary results showed that participants accepted a significantly shorter time-to-contact when crossing the street in the virtual setting than on the real road.

Road crossing decisions in real and virtual environments: A comparative study on simulator validity.

Virtual reality (VR) is a valuable tool for the assessment of human perception and behavior in a risk-free environment. Investigators should, however, ensure that the used virtual environment is validated in accordance with the experiment's intended research question since behavior in virtual environments has been shown to differ to behavior in real environments. This article presents the street crossing decisions of 30 participants who were facing an approaching vehicle and had to decide at what moment it was no longer safe to cross, applying the step-back method. The participants executed the task in a real environment and also within a highly immersive VR setup involving a head-mounted display (HMD). The results indicate significant differences between the two settings regarding the participants' behaviors. The time-to-contact of approaching vehicles was significantly lower for crossing decisions in the virtual environment than for crossing decisions in the real one. Additionally, it was demonstrated that participants based their crossing decisions in the real environment on the temporal distance of the approaching vehicle (i.e., time-to-contact), whereas the crossing decisions in the virtual environment seemed to depend on the vehicle's spatial distance, neglecting the vehicle's velocity. Furthermore, a deeper analysis suggests that crossing decisions were not affected by factors such as the participant's gender or the order in which they faced the real and the virtual environment.

Effects of simulated mild vision loss on gaze, driving and interaction behaviors in pedestrian crossing situations.

PURPOSE: Interaction is the process of behavior adaption between two or more participants primarily based on what they visually perceive. It is an important aspect of traffic participation and supports a safe and efficient flow of traffic. However, prior driving simulator studies investigating the effects of vision impairment have typically used pre-programmed pedestrians that did not interact with the human driver. In the current study we used a linked pedestrian and driving simulator setting to increase the ecological validity of the experimental paradigm. We evaluated the effects of mild vision loss on interactions between drivers and human-controlled, interactive pedestrians compared to preprogrammed, non-interactive pedestrians. METHOD: Young subjects (mean age 31 years) wore safety goggles with diffusing filters that reduced visual acuity to 20/50 Snellen and contrast sensitivity to 1.49 log units. Two types of crossings (zebra vs. free lane) and two types of pedestrians (non-interactive vs. interactive) were presented to the driver using a multiple simulator setting. Gaze, safety and time series measures were analyzed to quantify the behavior of the participants during the different crossing situations. RESULTS: Simulated vision impairment significantly increased the time taken to first fixate on the pedestrian, but only had mild adverse effects on safety measures and subsequent interactions. By comparison, pedestrian type and crossing type were found to significantly affect interaction measures. In crossings with the interactive pedestrians the behavior adaption between the driver and the pedestrian took longer and was less correlated in contrast to the situations with the non-interactive pedestrian. CONCLUSION: Mild vision impairment (slightly worse than the common 20/40 requirement for driving) had little effect on interactions with pedestrians once they were detected and only had mild adverse consequences on driving safety. Time series measures were sensitive to differences in behavior adaption between road users depending on the level of interaction and type of crossing situation.