Name
Abstract | ||
|---|---|---|
When simulating self-motion, virtual reality designers ignore non-visual cues at their peril. But providing non-visual cues presents significant challenges. One approach is to accompany visual displays with corresponding real physical motion to stimulate the non-visual, motion-detecting sensory systems in a natural way. However, allowing real movement requires real space. Technologies such as Head Mounted Displays (HMDs) and CAVEYs can be used to provide large immersive visual displays within small physical spaces. It is difficult, however, to provide virtual environments that are as large physically as they are visually. A fundamental problem is that tracking technologies that work well in a small, enclosed environment do not function well over longer distances. Here we describe Trike - a 'rideable' computer system that can be used to present large virtual spaces both visually and physically, and thus provide appropriately matched stimulation to both visual and non-visual sensory systems. |
Year | DOI | Venue |
|---|---|---|
2002 | 10.1007/s100550200009 | Virtual Reality |
Keywords | Field | DocType |
keyords: self-motion simulation,visual and vestibular egomotion cues,visual cues,sensory system,virtual environment,virtual reality,head mounted display | Virtual reality,Computer graphics (images),Space technology,Computer science,Simulation,Computer Aided Design,Self motion,Human–computer interaction,Global Positioning System,Immersion (virtual reality),Sensory system,Visual perception | Journal |
Volume | Issue | Citations |
6 | 2 | 3 |
PageRank | References | Authors |
0.83 | 8 | 12 |
Name | Order | Citations | PageRank |
|---|---|---|---|
| robert s allison | 1 | 217 | 29.68 |
| Laurence R. Harris | 2 | 101 | 10.88 |
| A. R. Hogue | 3 | 3 | 0.83 |
| Urszula Jasiobedzka | 4 | 87 | 7.69 |
| H. L. Jenkin | 5 | 45 | 5.73 |
| Michael Jenkin | 6 | 90 | 8.86 |
| P. M. Jaekl | 7 | 44 | 4.77 |
| J. R. Laurence | 8 | 3 | 0.83 |
| Greg Pentile | 9 | 3 | 0.83 |
| Fara Redlick | 10 | 29 | 3.61 |
| James E. Zacher | 11 | 82 | 5.90 |
| Daniel C. Zikovitz | 12 | 42 | 5.49 |