Proceedings of Virtual Reality International Conference (VRIC 2011), 6-8 April 2011, Laval, France.
`RICHIR Simon, SHIRAI Akihiko Editors. International conference organized by Laval Virtual.
`
`
`
`The Jumper Metaphor: An Effective Navigation Technique
`
`for Immersive Display Setups
`
`
`
`BOLTE, Benjamin, STEINICKE, Frank, BRUDER, Gerd
`
`Visualization and Computer Graphics Research Group, University of Münster, Germany
` {b.bolte|fsteini|gerd.bruder}@uni-muenster.de
`
`
`
`(a)
`
`
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1. Illustration of the jumper metaphor showing a jump sequence: (a) user's view to a target location before the jump, (b) frame during the
`jump, and (c) after the jump at the target location.
`
`
`Abstract—Recently, several novel user interfaces have been
`introduced, which allow users to actively move the body in
`order to interact with a displayed immersive virtual
`environment (IVE). However, in most situations the virtual
`world in which the user is immersed represents a space that
`is considerably larger than the available interaction space
`within which she can move. To overcome this limitation,
`traditionally, users can travel indirectly by exploiting input
`devices, with which the viewpoint in the environment can be
`changed without actually requiring a
`large physical
`movement. However, for several applications, it appears
`reasonable to consider more natural methods for traveling
`through IVEs. In this paper, we introduce the jumper
`metaphor, which combines natural direct walking with
`magical locomotion through large-scale IVEs. The key
`characteristic of the jumper metaphor is that it supports
`real walking for short-distances, whereas if the user intends
`to travel a larger distance, the metaphor predicts the
`planned target location in the virtual world and then lets the
`user virtually jump to that particular target. We evaluated
`this method in an IVE and found that the jumper metaphor
`has the potential to allow more effective exploration in
`comparison to real walking, with only minor effects on
`space cognition and disorientation.
`
`Keywords-3D user interface; navigation; locomotion;
`immersive display environments
`
`I.
`
` INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
`
`During the last few years, virtual reality (VR) display
`technologies such as head-mounted displays (HMDs),
`
`stereoscopic projection screens and autostereoscopic
`displays became more and more popular for applications
`in
`the fields of entertainment, serious games and
`edutainment. These technologies can provide users with
`an unchallenged spatial impression of an immersive
`virtual environment (IVE) as well as understanding of
`distances between objects or
`landmarks
`in
`the
`environment [28]. However, immersive displays are often
`combined with interaction devices, e.g., mouse, keyboard,
`joystick or gamepads, for providing (often unnatural)
`inputs to generate self-motion.
`
`More and more research groups are investigating
`natural, multimodal methods of generating self-motion.
`For example, in [23] Ware and Osborne compared three
`different metaphors to modify the viewpoint in desktop-
`based environments using six degrees of freedom (DOF)
`input devices. Due to the fact that each considered
`metaphor had various advantages and disadvantages,
`Ware and Osborne suggested that the choice of method
`should depend on the requirements of the interaction task.
`In the context of immersive virtual environments, world-
`in-miniature (WIM) metaphors are often used as an
`indirect metaphor for navigation [18, 22, 13, 27]. With
`these approaches the virtual representation of the user is
`directly manipulated within a hand-held miniature or map
`of the IVE. These manipulations are applied directly to the
`user’s point of view in the IVE.
`
`Several novel devices and user interfaces have been
`developed over the past years, which allow to capture
`user’s body movements in front of a display and map
`
`Laval Virtual VRIC 2011 Proceedings - RICHIR Simon, SHIRAI Akihiko Editors
`
`Falkbuilt Ex. 1021, Page 001
`
`

`

`BOLTE, Benjamin & al., Jumper Metaphor: An Effective Navigation Technique for Immersive Display Setups
`VRIC 2011 proceedings
`
`
`detected movements to camera motions in a virtual world.
`These devices include motion trackers, such as Nintendo
`Wii, but also video- and depth-based solutions such as the
`Microsoft Kinect or Sony EyeToy. Corresponding
`interaction metaphors are often based on navigation
`techniques, which have been introduced years ago in the
`context of 3D user interface and virtual reality research
`[4]. For instance, in [4] Bowman et al. conducted a series
`of experiments in which they compared two different
`metaphors to specify the direction of travel: (i) gaze-
`directed and (ii) hand-directed. Regarding the effects of
`different transition techniques on spatial awareness, they
`found that an abrupt change of view is particularly
`disorienting and suggested to use smooth transitions.
`
`With such tracking and immersive display devices,
`users may navigate through IVEs by real walking in a
`limited interaction space [12, 17, 29]. An obvious
`approach to support real walking in such a setup is to map
`a one meter movement of the user in the real world to a
`one meter movement of the camera in the virtual
`environment. This approach has the drawback that the
`user's movements are restricted by the limited range of
`tracking sensors and a rather small workspace in the real
`world. Thus, concepts for virtual locomotion methods are
`needed that enable walking over large distances in the
`virtual world while remaining within a relatively small
`space in the real world. Various prototypes of advanced
`VR-based interface devices have been developed to
`prevent a displacement in the real world. These devices
`include
`torus-shaped omni-directional
`treadmills [3],
`motion foot pads [8], robot tiles [9], motion carpets [15]
`and stroller-based walking platforms [19]. Although these
`hardware systems represent enormous
`technological
`achievements, they are still very expensive and will not be
`generally accessible in the foreseeable future.
`
`In the context of video games, some simple devices
`such as Nintendo's Power Pad and Balance Board have
`been proposed, which supports walking-in-place (WIP)
`[12, 2, 16, 24] and leaning techniques [11, 6], and thus
`enable
`simplified
`locomotion. These body-centric
`navigation methods allow hands-free navigation, e.g.,
`LaViola et al. developed several body- and foot-based
`metaphors for navigation in IVEs, including a leaning
`technique, with which users could travel short and
`medium distances, whereas larger distances could be
`traveled with a floor-based WIM [11]. However, real
`walking has been shown to be a more presence-enhancing
`locomotion technique than other navigation metaphors
`[20]. While walking in the real world, sensory information
`such as vestibular, proprioceptive, and efferent copy
`signals as well as visual information create consistent
`multi-sensory cues that indicate one's own motion, i.e.,
`acceleration, speed and direction of travel [14]. In this
`context walking is the most basic and intuitive way of
`moving. Keeping such an active and dynamic ability to
`navigate through large-scale environments is of great
`interest [5], i.e., several approaches suggest supporting
`real walking, but simply scale translation motions. For
`instance, Williams et al. have exploited uniform tracker
`gains [25] and used mechanisms, which reset the position
`of the participant within an IVE [26]. Using these
`approaches, users could travel through moderately large
`
`virtual spaces by directly walking within a smaller real
`space. Interrante et al. proposed the seven-league-boots
`metaphor in which translational motions are only scaled in
`the user's main walk direction and therefore, avoids
`discomfort due to lateral bumping [7].
`
`In this paper we introduce and discuss the jumper
`metaphor, which is a new metaphor for hands-free
`traveling through moderately large IVEs, which is based
`on real walking, but in which the mapping between the
`user's actual movement in the real world and her
`movement in the virtual world is manipulated.
`
`
`
`II. THE JUMPER METAPHOR
`
`In this section we describe the jumper metaphor for
`effective exploration of IVEs. The main idea of this
`metaphor is to combine natural interaction in the real
`world with the magical world of VR and games to provide
`an effective, but natural navigation technique. For the
`exploration of objects in a small range, we simply use real
`walking such that the user can walk around objects, or use
`small head movements to explore the environment while
`perceiving motion parallax and occlusion effects similar
`to the real world. To travel over large distances, the user is
`able to specify the travel destination using her viewing
`direction, and then can initiate a jump, which will start a
`smooth viewpoint animation that transfers the user to the
`corresponding target position. In the following, we
`assume that we can track the user's head position as well
`as orientation, for example, by an optical tracking system
`or Kinect sensors, and map it to a corresponding virtual
`camera. The jumper metaphor is composed of the three
`steps described in the following subsections.
`
`
`
`A. Jump Target Prediction
`At first, the intended target position for the jump has to be
`identified. Two possibilities exist for how this target
`position can be specified, i.e., explicit or implicit.
`
`As mentioned in Section I, we wanted to avoid explicit
`target selection via additional input devices for the
`navigation task. Therefore, we determine the target
`position pt∈ of the jump implicitly by calculating the
`first intersection point with the scene geometry of the ray
`extending from the user's virtual head position pu∈ (i.e.,
`the position of the virtual camera) along the user's viewing
`direction dview∈ . Hence, if the user wants to specify the
`target position for a jump, she simply has to look to that
`position for tgaze∈ milliseconds.
`
`In head-tracked environments, usually the user slightly
`moves the head during the entire time, which complicates
`the specification of a jump target if the user has to look to
`one specific position over time. Therefore, we predict the
`jump target based on all focus points within tgaze
`milliseconds and tolerate slight variations in the user’s
`viewing direction dview. To ease target selection with
`distant objects, we unproject all focus points with the
`inverted projection and model-view matrix of the first
`focus point within the last tgaze milliseconds into image
`
`Laval Virtual VRIC 2011 Proceedings - RICHIR Simon, SHIRAI Akihiko Editors
`
`Falkbuilt Ex. 1021, Page 002
`
`

`

`BOLTE, Benjamin & al., Jumper Metaphor: An Effective Navigation Technique for Immersive Display Setups
`VRIC 2011 proceedings
`
`
`space coordinates. If all focus points in image space
`coordinates are within a circle with radius rgaze∈ pixels
`for tgaze milliseconds, we use the projection of the center of
`all focus points as the target point pt. As users can move
`effectively by real walking for short distances, a jump can
`only be initiated to positions which are at least 2 meters
`away from the user's current position.
`
`In order to give the user corresponding visual
`feedback about the target position, we display a visual
`target projected to the target position according to the
`user's viewing direction dview and the face normal vector
`n∈ at the target position pt (see Fig. 1(a)). The visual
`target grows constantly to its full size within tgrow∈
`milliseconds. If the user wants to choose a different target
`position, she simply has to focus on a point outside the
`displayed target area. As soon as one focus point is
`outside the circle with radius rgaze pixels, the projected
`visual target disappears and the user can specify a new
`target.
`
`(cf.
`observation
`experimental
`to
`According
`Section III), we use tgaze = 500 milliseconds, rgaze = 75
`pixels and tgrow = 2000 milliseconds, i.e., when a user
`looks within a circle with radius 75 pixels in image space
`coordinates for 500 milliseconds she has specified a jump
`target position and the visual target, which is projected on
`this position, grows
`to
`its full size within 2000
`milliseconds.
`
`
`
`B. Jump Activation
`After the user has specified the jump target position
`pt∈ , she can initiate the jump to that target by moving
`towards the target with a reasonable speed. Therefore, we
`define an acceleration threshold at∈
` in meters per
`square second, which the user has to exceed in order to
`initiate the jump (see Fig. 4). We use this threshold to
`avoid unintended jumps and to allow the user to explore
`near objects by real walking with accelerations below at.
`
`Due to the jitter and noise of the tracking system as
`well as head bumping during real walking (cf. Section I),
`numerical
`inaccuracies can occur when using
`two
`consecutive tracked head positions for velocity and
`acceleration calculations. Therefore, we use the tracked
`head positions p1,…,pn∈ during the last ∆∈ seconds
`~
`to determine the direction of travel dtravel∈ , velocity
`~3
`v∈ in meters per second and acceleration a∈ in meters
`~
`per square second as follows:
`
`d1ravel = Pn - Pl,
`lld1ravel II
`V=-,1-,
`
`a= V-
`
`Vp
`.1
`
`,
`
`
`
`II · II : ~3 ---+ ~
`is the Euclidean distance and
`where
`vp∈ is the predicted velocity ∆ seconds ago.
`
`walking with an acceleration greater than 1.5 meters per
`square second, where the prediction of the acceleration is
`based on the received tracking data during the last 0.25
`seconds.
`
`
`
`C. Jump Animation
`As mentioned above, the jump is initiated if the user has
`specified a target and exceeds the acceleration threshold
`by walking
`towards
`the
`target. The start point
`ps = pu∈ of the animation is defined by the current
`position of the user pu∈ . The end point pe = pt + λn∈
`is given by the target position pt, which is adjusted by
`λ∈ meters in the direction towards the user's current
`position along the face normal n∈ at the target position
`in order to prevent jumping directly into an object (cf. Fig.
`1(c)). In addition, we adjust the height of the end point
`pe,y∈ according to the start point height ps,y∈ and the
`~
`difference between the terrain height at the start point
`hs∈ and end point he∈ , i.e., pe,y = ps,y + (he – hs).
`~
`The position of the virtual camera during the jump
`animation is calculated using an interpolation function
`
` ,
`
`where t∈[0,1] denotes the time progress of the
`animation, i.e., the animation starts on t = 0 and ends on t
`= 1. The duration of the animation tanim∈ in milliseconds
`depends on the distance d∈ to the target position pt and a
`scaling factor sanim∈ , i.e., tanim = d · sanim.
`
`In order to avoid disorientation, we use a smooth ease-
`in/ease-out jump animation of the straight connection of
`the start and end point (cf. Section I). We achieve this by
`using a sigmoid logistic function for our interpolation
`function
`
` .
`
`To support the notion of a “magic” metaphor, we use a
`motion blur effect in the border of the viewport which
`fades out to the center (see Fig. 1(b)).
`
`(cf.
`observation
`experimental
`to
`According
`Section III), we use sanim = 180 and λ = 1 meter, i.e., the
`jump animation towards the end position, which is
`adjusted by 1 meter towards the user’s current position
`along the face normal at the jump target position, lasts for
`1800 milliseconds in case of a jump distance of 10 meters.
`
`
`
`III. EVALUATION
`
`In this section we describe the user study that we have
`conducted in order to evaluate the proposed jumper
`metaphor navigation technique. In the evaluation we
`compared the jumper metaphor to real walking to
`teleportation. The goal of the study was to evaluate if the
`jumper metaphor can be used as an effective navigation
`technique in immersive game environments.
`
`(cf.
`observation
`experimental
`to
`According
`Section III), we use ∆ = 0.25 seconds and at = 1.5 meters
`per square second, i.e., a user can initiate a jump by real
`
`
`
`Laval Virtual VRIC 2011 Proceedings - RICHIR Simon, SHIRAI Akihiko Editors
`
`Falkbuilt Ex. 1021, Page 003
`
`

`

`BOLTE, Benjamin & al., Jumper Metaphor: An Effective Navigation Technique for Immersive Display Setups
`VRIC 2011 proceedings
`
`
`
` (a) (b)
`
`
`
`Figure 2. Example images of the evaluation: (a) simple game environment with a user's avatar (note: during the experiment, the user could not see
`her own avatar from a third person's view), and (b) subject walking through the laboratory space in order to navigate to randomly highlighted virtual
`objects.
`
`A. Materials and Methods
`We performed the experiments in a 10 meters times 7
`meters darkened laboratory room. The subjects wore a
`HMD (ProView SR80, 1280x1024@60Hz, 80° diagonal
`field of view) for the visual stimulus presentation. On top
`of the HMD an infrared LED was fixed, which we tracked
`within the laboratory with an active optical tracking
`system (PPT X8 of WorldViz), which provides sub-
`millimeter precision and sub-centimeter accuracy at an
`update rate of 60Hz. The orientation of the HMD was
`tracked with a three DOF inertial orientation sensor
`(InertiaCube 3 of InterSense) with an update rate of
`180Hz. For visual display, system control and logging we
`used an Intel computer with Core i7 processor, 6GB of
`main memory and nVidia Quadro FX 4800.
`
`At the beginning of the experiment, we introduced
`subjects to the metaphors in the three experimental
`conditions:
`
`• Condition RW: In this condition users could
`navigate through the game environment only by
`real walking, for which we used a one-to-one
`mapping between real and virtual motions.
`
`• Condition JM: In this condition users could
`navigate through the game environment by real
`walking and the jumper metaphor as explained in
`Section II (see Fig. 4).
`
`• Condition TP: This condition was similar to
`condition JM, but we did not use an animation
`sequence for the jump, but rather placed the user
`directly to the predicted target location.
`
`We tested the conditions with a within-subject design
`method. During the experiment the room was darkened,
`and a black curtain was fixed around the HMD in order to
`reduce the subject’s perception of the real world. The
`visual stimulus consisted of a simple virtual island with
`five virtual primitive objects, i.e., blue box, red torus,
`orange sphere, green pyramid and pink cylinder, rendered
`
`stereoscopically by Crytek's CryEngine 3 (see Fig. 2) as
`well as our own software. The game environment covered
`an enclosed space of 9 meters times 7 meters and fitted
`entirely into our laboratory space.
`
`In the first trial subjects started in the center of one
`side of the room in the IVE as well as in the laboratory.
`Now one object was randomly highlighted and subjects
`had to navigate to this object by one of the three
`techniques and touch it with their hand. After the user
`successfully touched the object, another object was
`randomly highlighted and subjects had to move from the
`current location to the next target location and so on. After
`each object was reached three times (15 trials), the series
`was over and the next condition was tested. We measured
`the time the subject needed to fulfill the task. The
`sequence of conditions in which subjects participated was
`randomly chosen. We used a different randomly generated
`arrangement of the five virtual objects for each condition.
`The assignment of an arrangement to a particular
`condition was chosen randomly.
`
`After each condition, the subjects had to draw the
`virtual primitive objects into a top view grid and fill out a
`user questionnaire for the used condition. The usability
`questionnaire contained questions concerning the ease-of-
`use,
`ease-of-learn,
`effectiveness,
`and
`satisfaction.
`Furthermore, subjects had to judge the difficulty of the
`task. All questions allowed responses on a 5-point Likert-
`scale.
`
`The maps sketched by the subjects were compared
`with the original map and scored on a 5-point Likert-scale
`by an experimental observer regarding object position and
`dimension. The observer did not know which map
`belonged to which condition. In addition, subjects filled
`out Kennedy's simulator sickness questionnaire (SSQ)
`[10] immediately before and after the experiment as well
`as the Slater-Usoh-Steed (SUS) presence questionnaire
`[21].
`
`
`
`Laval Virtual VRIC 2011 Proceedings - RICHIR Simon, SHIRAI Akihiko Editors
`
`Falkbuilt Ex. 1021, Page 004
`
`

`

`4.00-t-----------------------
`
`3.00
`
`2.00
`
`1.00
`
`0.00
`
`Ease of Learn
`
`Ease of Use
`
`
`Satisfaction
`
`Effectiveness
`
`
`
`BOLTE, Benjamin & al., Jumper Metaphor: An Effective Navigation Technique for Immersive Display Setups
`VRIC 2011 proceedings
`
`B. Participants
`9 male and 2 female (age 22-33, ø: 26.18) subjects
`participated in the study. All subjects were students of
`computer science, mathematics or psychology. All had
`normal or corrected to normal vision. 2 had no game
`experience, 1 had some, and 8 had much game
`experience. 5 of the subjects had experience with walking
`in a HMD setup. All subjects were naïve to the
`experimental conditions. The total time per subject
`including
`pre-questionnaires,
`instructions,
`training,
`experiments, breaks, and debriefing was 45 minutes.
`Subjects were allowed to take breaks at any time.
`
`Figure 3. Pooled results of the usability questionnaires of the (blue)
`real walking (RW), (red)
`jumper metaphor (JM) and (green)
`teleportation (TP) condition.
`
`
`
`C. Results
`Figure 3 shows the average Likert-scale scores as colored
`bars with the standard errors (SE) for conditions RW
`(blue), JM (red) and TP (green). The x-axis shows the
`usability categories, the y-axis represents a 5-point Likert-
`scale (0 corresponds to a negative and 4 to a positive
`rating of the metaphor).
`
`We analyzed the mean Likert-scale scores for each
`usability
`category,
`i.e.,
`ease-of-learn,
`ease-of-use,
`effectiveness and satisfaction, the map sketching task and
`the time to fulfill the task for each of the conditions with a
`one-way ANOVA and performed a post-hoc Tukey test in
`order to analyze statistical effects between the conditions.
`We have found a significant main effect (F(2, 30) =
`10.975; p < 0.01) of the condition on the category
`satisfaction. Post-hoc analysis showed that subjects were
`significantly more satisfied while using real walking (p <
`0.01) or the jumper metaphor (p < 0.01) compared to the
`teleportation metaphor. But, there was no significant
`difference in satisfaction between real walking and the
`jumper metaphor. The average Likert-scale scores for the
`conditions were 3.18 (SE: 0.12) for RW, 2.91 (SE: 0.16)
`for JM, and 1.82 (SE: 0.32) for TP.
`
`In addition, we have found a significant main effect
`(F(2, 30) = 4.731, p < 0.05) of the condition on the
`subject's task judgment. The Tukey test showed that
`subjects judged that they were significantly better at the
`task using real walking (p < 0.05) and the jumper
`metaphor (p < 0.05) compared to teleportation. We found
`the following average Likert-scale scores: 2.70 (SE: 0.31)
`for condition RW, 2.58 (SE: 0.25) for condition JM, and
`1.67 (SE: 0.21) for condition TP.
`
`Furthermore, we have found a significant main effect
`(F(2, 30) = 4.500; p ≤ 0.02) of the condition on the map
`drawing task. In the post-hoc analysis, we found that
`subjects were significantly better at the map drawing task
`using real walking compared to the teleportation metaphor
`(p < 0.02). However, there was no significant difference
`in sketching the map after real walking compared to the
`jumper metaphor. The average Likert-scale scores for the
`conditions were 2.73 (SE: 0.24) for RW, 1.91 (SE: 0.21)
`for JM, and 1.64 (SE: 0.34) for TP. We have not found a
`significant main effect of the condition on the categories
`ease-of-learn, ease-of-use, effectiveness, and the time to
`fulfill the task.
`
`The subjects' mean estimation of their level of feeling
`present in the IVE averaged to 4.38 on a scale from 1 to 7,
`where a higher score
`indicates greater presence.
`Kennedy's SSQ showed an averaged pre-experiment score
`of 1.27 and a post-score of 3.0 for the experiment, which
`is a typical result for HMD setups [1].
`
`
`
`D. Discussion
`On average subjects judged that the jumper metaphor is
`slightly less (but not significant) easy to learn and use
`compared to real walking in an immersive setup (0.41
`average Likert-scale score difference for ease-of-learn,
`respectively 0.27 for ease-of-use). Since the jumper
`metaphor extends real walking by an additional way of
`locomotion, it is reasonable that additional learning and
`training is required to use the jumper metaphor compared
`to real walking.
`
`Although we have not found a significant effect on the
`effectiveness and time to fulfill the task, on average
`subjects were 15.5 seconds (11.81%) faster using the
`jumper metaphor compared to real walking even for the
`short distances (<6m) during
`the experiment. The
`efficiency benefit of the jumper metaphor compared to
`real walking depends on the distance a player intends to
`travel, i.e., the larger the distance to travel the larger the
`efficiency benefit of the jumper metaphor.
`
`Subjects were significantly worse at map sketching
`after using teleportation compared to real walking, which
`is an indicator for disorientation during the experiment.
`Subjects were also slightly (but not significant) worse in
`map sketching after using the jumper metaphor in
`comparison to real walking. However, subjects stated that
`they were not disoriented more often using the jumper
`metaphor compared to real walking (0.0 average Likert-
`scale score difference). We assume two possible reasons
`for this: (1) subjects were more focused on the metaphor
`itself than on the object remembering task when using the
`jumper metaphor, (2) the duration of the jump animation
`was too short (as also one of the subjects stated as a
`comment in the questionnaire).
`
`The jump animation seemed to play an important role
`not exclusively on disorientation, but also on the user
`acceptance, because subjects evaluated the teleportation
`metaphor as significantly less satisfying and more difficult
`to fulfill the traveling task. Even for the short distances
`
`Laval Virtual VRIC 2011 Proceedings - RICHIR Simon, SHIRAI Akihiko Editors
`
`Falkbuilt Ex. 1021, Page 005
`
`

`

`BOLTE, Benjamin & al., Jumper Metaphor: An Effective Navigation Technique for Immersive Display Setups
`VRIC 2011 proceedings
`
`
`
`
`
` (a) (b) (c) (d)
`
`
`
`Figure 4. Illustration of a user triggering a jump during the evaluation: (a)-(b) user accelerating from a standing position until (c) the acceleration
`threshold is exceeded, triggering the jump, and (d) user decelerating.
`
`during the experiment, 54.55% of the subjects preferred
`the jumper metaphor over real walking and teleportation.
`For long distances such as in typical game levels, 90.91%
`of the subjects preferred the jumper metaphor.
`
`
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`In this paper we introduced the jumper metaphor, which
`combines the strengths of real walking with magical jump
`navigation for effective exploration of large-scale IVEs.
`We showed that a jump can be initiated based on real
`walking only, without the need for additional 3D input
`devices. The evaluation has shown that the jumper
`metaphor has the potential to allow a more effective
`exploration of IVEs in comparison to real walking, with
`only minor effects on space cognition and disorientation.
`
`The jumper metaphor can easily be used with current
`immersive display setups and novel video game interfaces
`such as the Microsoft Kinect sensor. Due to the positive
`evaluation of this metaphor, we plan to expand the study
`to such video game interfaces. In addition, we will
`analyze different animation effects as well as camera
`trajectories in order to further improve the jumper
`metaphor and to increase efficiency and space cognition.
`
`
`
`ACKNOWLEDGMENT
`
`Authors of this work are supported by the Deutsche
`Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG 29160962). Furthermore,
`we acknowledge the development of the CryEngine by
`Crytek GmbH. All rendering assets in the figures, except
`the visual target and the torus were provided by Crytek’s
`CryEngine.
`
`
`
`iJFCi
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`REFERENCES
`
`[1] B. Bolte, G. Bruder, F. Steinicke, K. H. Hinrichs, and M. Lappe,
`“Augmentation techniques for efficient exploration in head-
`mounted display environments,” in Proceedings of the 17th ACM
`Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology (VRST
`’10), pp.11–18, ACM, 2010.
`
`[2] L. Bouguila, F. Evequoz, M. Courant, and B. Hirsbrunner,
`“Walking-pad: a step-in-place locomotion interface for virtual
`environments,” in Proceedings of the 6th International Conference
`on Multimodal Interfaces (ICMI ’04) , pp.77–81, ACM, 2004.
`
`[3] L. Bouguila, M. Sato, S. Hasegawa, H. Naoki, N. Matsumoto, A.
`Toyama, J. Ezzine, and D. Maghrebi, “A new step-in-place
`locomotion interface for virtual environment with large display
`system,” in Proceedings of ACM SIGGRAPH 2002 Conference
`Abstracts and Applications (SIGGRAPH ’02), pp.63–63, ACM,
`2002.
`
`[4] D. A. Bowman, D. Koller, and L. F. Hodges, “Travel in
`immersive virtual environments: an evaluation of viewpoint
`motion control techniques,” in Proceedings of the 1997 Virtual
`Reality Annual International Symposium (VRAIS ’97), vol. 7,
`pp.45–52, IEEE, 1997.
`
`[5] G. Bruder, F. Steinicke, and K. H. Hinrichs, “Arch-Explore: a
`natural user interface for immersive architectural walkthroughs,”
`in Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE Symposium on 3D User
`Interfaces (3DUI ’09), pp.75–82, IEEE, 2009.
`
`[6] G. de Haan, E. J. Griffith, and F. H. Post, “Using the Wii balance
`board as a low-cost VR interaction device,” in Proceedings of the
`2008 ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and
`Technology (VRST ’08), pp.289–290, ACM, 2008.
`[7] V. Interrante, B. Ries, and L. Anderson, “Seven league boots: a
`new metaphor for augmented locomotion through moderately
`large scale immersive virtual environments,” in Proceedings of the
`2007 IEEE Symposium on 3D User Interfaces (3DUI ’07),
`pp.167–170, IEEE, 2007.
`
`[8] H. Iwata, H. Yano, H. Fukushima, and H. Noma, “CirculaFloor,”
`IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, vol. 25(1), pp.64–67,
`2005.
`
`[9] H. Iwata, H. Yano, and H. Tomioka, “Powered shoes,” in
`Proceedings of ACM SIGGRAPH Emerging Technologies
`(SIGGRAPH ’06), (28), ACM, 2006.
`
`[10] R. S. Kennedy, N. E. Lane, K. S. Berbaum, and M. G. Lilienthal,
`“Simulator sickness questionnaire: an enhanced method for
`quantifying simulator sickness,” International Journal of Aviation
`Psychology, vol. 3(3), pp.203–220, 1993.
`
`[11] J. J. LaViola Jr., D. A. Feliz, D. F. Keefe, and R. C. Zeleznik,
`“Hands-free multi-scale navigation in virtual environments,” in
`Proceedings of the 2001 Symposium on Interactive 3D Graphics
`(I3D ’01), pp.9–15, ACM, 2001.
`
`[12] S. Razzaque, “Redirected Walking,” PhD thesis, University of
`North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 2005.
`
`Laval Virtual VRIC 2011 Proceedings - RICHIR Simon, SHIRAI Akihiko Editors
`
`Falkbuilt Ex. 1021, Page 006
`
`

`

`BOLTE, Benjamin & al., Jumper Metaphor: An Effective Navigation Technique for Immersive Display Setups
`VRIC 2011 proceedings
`
`
`[13] T. Ropinski, F. Steinicke, and K. H. Hinrichs, “A constrained
`road-based VR navigation technique for travelling in 3D city
`models,” in Proceedings of the 2005 International Conference on
`Augmented Tele-Existence (ICAT ’05), pp.228–235, ACM, 2005.
`
`[22] D. Valkov, F. Steinicke, G. Bruder, and K. H. Hinrichs,
`“Traveling in 3D virtual environments with foot gestures and a
`multi-touch enabled WIM,” in Proceedings of Virtual Reality
`International Conference (VRIC ’10), pp.171–180, 2010.
`
`[14] R. A. Ruddle, and S. Lessels, “The benefits of using a walking
`interface to navigate virtual environments”, ACM Transactions on
`Computer-Human Interaction, vol. 16(1), pp.1–18, 2009.
`[15] M. Schwaiger, T. Thümmel, and H. Ulbrich, “Cyberwalk:
`implementation of a ball bearing platform for humans,” in
`Proceedings of the