1 / 17

The JEDI - Training

The JEDI - Training. A Playful Evaluation of Interactive Head-Mounted Augmented Reality Display Systems . Christopher S. Oe zbek, Björn Giesler and Rüdiger Dillmann Institute for Computer Design and Fault Tolerance (IRF)

sebastien
Download Presentation

The JEDI - Training

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The JEDI - Training A Playful Evaluation of Interactive Head-Mounted Augmented Reality Display Systems Christopher S. Oezbek, Björn Giesler and Rüdiger Dillmann Institute for Computer Design and Fault Tolerance (IRF) Chair for Industrial Applications of Informatics and Microsystems (IAIM) Universität Karlsruhe (TH), Germany Electronic Imaging Conference Thursday, 22nd January 2004 San Jose, CA

  2. Background (1/2) Augmented Reality (AR) is the concept of adding 3D virtual elements to the real world. This is in contrast to simulation or virtual environments where a real world does not exist. AR therefore requires: • Tracking of the position of real-world elements of interest • Registration of the user in relation to the virtual world Furthermore, interactive AR does require easy and precise control of a set of virtual elements by the potential user. Some definitions of AR require interactivity as a mandatory characteristic.

  3. Background (2/2) Although other senses like hearing, touching, and even smelling are included in this definition, the main focus of AR research is on the visual sense so far. Besides the limited exception of projection display systems, visual augmentation is most commonly achieved by using head-mounted displays. Two types of head-mounted displays have been realized and are available: • Optical See Through (OST) • Video See Through (VST)

  4. Optical See Through (OST) Using a partially transmissive mirror, the real world image is combined with virtual pictures generated in the HMD. Since no input is generated by the head-mounted display, head tracking needs to be done using an extra device. Advantages: • Real-world directly visible (Resolution, delay, eye offset) • Safety System used in Jedi-Training: • Sony Glasstron • Stationary NDI Polaris infrared tracker

  5. Video See Through (VST) Video cameras capture the real world. Those pictures are combined with virtual elements and displayed to the user. Since input is gathered from the surrounding world, no special tracking device needs to be attached. Advantages: • Better composition strategies (opacity, delay) • No registration required System used in Jedi-Training: • Trivisio ARVision 3D-HMD • ARtoolkit image based marker tracking

  6. Goals of the Experiment Compare both systems with respect to: • Performance and Effectiveness • 3D feeling • Tracking • Comfort • Acceptance • Effect of preexisting knowledge

  7. Methods (1/2) • To achieve the named goals, a game was introduced resembling the laser light saber training from the film Star Wars. • A small spherical remote robot was displayed in the user´s field of view. Moving randomly inside a predefined area, the drone fired laser rays against the player who had to fend them off with his light saber. • For each succesful defend the player scored one point and the session ended after five unsuccessful defends.

  8. A little Mock-up

  9. Methods (2/2) Players were divided into two groups: • Group A started with OST and after three sessions crossed over to the VST system for another three sessions. • Group B started with VST and moved on to OST After each run each player was asked to enter his name using a conventional keyboard and scores were recorded. A questionnaire on a scale of 0 - 10 was deployed afterwards to gather subjective data.

  10. Study Population • 31 CS students from University Karlsruhe • 27 male, 4 female • 13 participants wore spectacles • 15 participants started with OST • 16 participants started with VST

  11. With OST-System Starting Group; n=15 With VST-System Starting Group; n=16 Study Population N: 31 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.

  12. Scores with OST-System Scores with VST-System Results N: 31 n.s. p<0,05 p<0,05 n.s. Initial 3 games The learning periode

  13. OST-System VST-System Group A Results N: 31 Group B p<0.05 Score p<0.01 p<0.01 n.s. p<0.05 n.s. Initial 3 runs Learning effect Final 3 games Experienced level

  14. OST-System VST-System Results N: 31 p<0,05 n.s. p<0,05 p<0,05 p<0,05

  15. OST-System VST-System Results N: 31 p<0,05 p<0,05 p<0,05 p<0,05 p<0,05

  16. Conclusions • The optical see through system achieves higher scores, is more comfortable to use, and more accepted than the VST solution. • No measure of preexisting knowledge/skill correlated with score results. • Image based tracking via the ARtoolkit should not be used for object tracking. • High framerates and low delay are the most pressing issues for VST solutions. • With forthcoming improvements comparative testing will become more neccesary. • From the perspective of today both systems have the potential to become the gold standard.

  17. Thank you

More Related