The Effects of Walk-in-Place and Overground Walking on the Acquisition of Spatial Information by People With Visual Impairment in Virtual Reality Wayfinding

Figures & data

Figure 1. The Virtuix Omni and HTC Vive tracker used in the experiments. The red circles on the left and right indicate the IMU sensor used for Virtuix Omni and the HTC Vive tracker.

Figure 2. Base station used for overground walking environment. It tracks the feet of the participant.

Figure 3. The ten routes used in Experiment 1. Participants with visual impairment are presented with four 3D-printed route blocks, and they choose a one block that shows the route they walked during the experiment by touching with hands. For a given path, the path may vary depending on the initial direction the participant is facing; therefore, an arrow is added to the starting point to make the direction right.

Figure 4. (a) The experiment apparatus in the walk-in-place environment. The monitor shows the surrounding environment according to the direction the participant’s head is facing so that the researcher can check the current status. (b) The scene in the monitor. The participants cannot see this scene because they are blind-folded.

Figure 5. Experiment Flow of Experiment 1 (orange: first locomotion device experiment, green: second locomotion device experiment).

Figure 6. Correct memory from experiments 1 and 2 between two locomotion methods. Walk-in-place showed significantly better results than overground walking for memorizing routes. Conversely, overground walking showed significantly better results than walk-in-place for memorizing obstacles.

Figure 7. Results of Experiment 1 between two locomotion methods. (b, c) The number of collisions and errors show significant differences with p < 0.05. (d) The error times show significant differences with p < 0.001.

Figure 8. The line data of V6 in Experiment 1. Left image shows the path that V6 walked using walk-in-place and right image shows the path that V6 walked using overground walking.

Figure 9. The location of obstacles on the paths used in Experiment 2 and the block models used in the evaluation. (a, b) The locations and kinds of obstacles on the paths. (c, d) Participants marked the location of each obstacle using Lego^TM blocks.

Figure 10. Experiment Flow of Experiment 2 (orange: first locomotion device experiment, green: second locomotion device experiment).

Figure 11. Results of Experiment 2 between two locomotion methods. (b) The number of collisions show significant differences with p < 0.05.

Table A1. Demographic information of participants with visual impairment.

ID	Age/Sex	Description of the visual condition
V1	63/M	Low vision for 25 years (with light perception)
V2	47/M	Blind for 3 years
V3	58/M	Low vision for almost 30 years (with shape perception)
V4	74/M	Low vision for 43 years (with light perception)
V5	72/M	Blind for 60 years
V6	58/F	Blind for 29 years
V7	54/F	Low vision from birth (with shape perception)
V8	50/F	Low vision from birth (with shape perception)
V9	60/M	Low vision from birth (with shape perception), no vision perception from left eye
V10	59/F	Blind for 15 years
V11	67/F	Low vision for 18 years (with light perception)
V12	41/F	Blind for 11 years
V13	58/M	Low vision for 10 years (with shape perception), no vision perception from right eye
V14	45/F	Low vision for 20 years (with light and shape perception)
V15	79/M	Low vision for 15 years, no vision perception from left eye
V16	50/M	Low vision for 17 years (with shape perception)

Table A2. Questionnaire with 5-point likert scale used in both experiments.

Questions		Strongly disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly agree
W1.	I wasn’t confused in the virtual wayfinding environment during use.	1	2	3	4	5
W2.	There were very few cases where I didn’t know my location during use (Kalawsky, 1999).	1	2	3	4	5
W3.	There is a function to help you know your location(Darken & Sibert, 1996).	1	2	3	4	5
W4.	The virtual wayfinding environment gives information that helps me to where I want to go (Wickens & Baker, 1995).	1	2	3	4	5
W5.	The audio feedback was helpful to get information about the direction of the guide dog (Woodrow & Thomas, 1995).	1	2	3	4	5
M1.	It was easy to change or rearrange position (Kalawsky, 1999).	1	2	3	4	5
M2.	My movement was not restricted by the exercise equipment (treadmill, tracker).(Slater et al., 1995).	1	2	3	4	5
M3.	Moving in virtual wayfinding environment was free enough (Kalawsky, 1999).	1	2	3	4	5
C1.	It was easy to use and control the input device (Controller) (Kalawsky, 1999).	1	2	3	4	5
C2.	The input device (Controller) was easy to use so that I understood the spatial state of the virtual cane and myself (Shneiderman & Plaisant, 2010).	1	2	3	4	5
C3.	The feedback (feeling) after using the input device (Controller) was well presented to me (Kontarinis & Howe, 1995).	1	2	3	4	5
A1.	The auditory output was perfectly integrated with my activity in VR (Gabbard, 1997).	1	2	3	4	5
A2.	The auditory output had no lag or inconvenient characteristics (Richard et al., 1996).	1	2	3	4	5
A3.	The auditory output was meaningful, timely, and useful (Woodrow & Thomas, 1995).	1	2	3	4	5
P1.	I felt that I was part of VR while using the VR device (Kalawsky, 1999).	1	2	3	4	5
P2.	I was able to use the controller naturally and to react to the virtual environment fluidly (Witmer & Singer, 1998).	1	2	3	4	5
P3.	I thought that the VR experience in this user study was similar to what I had experienced before (Witmer & Singer, 1998).	1	2	3	4	5
E1.	I did not feel significant discomfort while using the device (Gabbard, 1997).	1	2	3	4	5
E2.	Fatigue did not increase with time while I was using the device (Gabbard, 1997).	1	2	3	4	5
E3.	Overwhelming physical fatigue was not evoked while using device (Zhai et al., 1996).	1	2	3	4	5
D1.	I did not feel overwhelming discomfort while in VR (Kennedy et al., 1993).	1	2	3	4	5
D2.	I did not feel any headache while in VR (Kennedy et al., 1993).	1	2	3	4	5
D3.	I did not sweat a lot (Kennedy et al., 1993).	1	2	3	4	5
D4.	I did not feel nauseous (Kennedy et al., 1993).	1	2	3	4	5
R1.	I want to use this VR system again	1	2	3	4	5
R2.	I did not feel any headache or nausea after using the VR device	1	2	3	4	5
R3.	I did not experience vertigo (loss of orientation to vertical upright) after using the VR device (Kennedy et al., 1993)	1	2	3	4	5
S1.	The performance of virtual wayfinding for spatial acquisition was successful	1	2	3	4	5
S2.	It seems that the wayfinding ability improved through this VR system	1	2	3	4	5
S3.	I would like to recommend this system to other people with visual impairment.	1	2	3	4	5

Table A3. Individual results of obstacle detection (0: incorrect; 1: correct).

Treadmill		Evaluators
Participant	Obstacle	A	B	C	D	E
V1	1	0	0	0	0	0
	2	0	0	0	0	0
	3	0	0	0	0	0
	4	1	1	1	1	1
	5	1	1	1	1	1
V2	1	0	1	0	0	0
	2	1	1	1	1	1
	3	1	1	1	1	1
	4	0	0	0	0	0
	5	0	0	0	0	0
V3	1	0	0	0	0	0
	2	0	0	0	0	0
	3	0	0	0	0	0
	4	0	0	0	0	0
	5	0	0	1	0	1
V4	1	0	0	0	0	0
	2	0	0	0	0	0
	3	1	0	1	1	1
	4	1	1	1	1	1
	5	0	0	0	0	0
V5	1	0	1	0	0	0
	2	1	1	1	1	1
	3	1	1	1	1	1
	4	0	1	1	1	1
	5	0	0	0	0	0
V6	1	0	0	0	0	0
	2	0	0	0	0	0
	3	0	0	0	0	0
	4	0	0	0	0	0
	5	0	0	0	0	0
V7	1	0	0	0	0	0
	2	0	0	0	0	0
	3	0	0	0	0	0
	4	0	0	0	0	0
	5	0	0	0	0	0
V8	1	0	0	0	0	0
	2	0	1	0	0	0
	3	0	0	0	0	0
	4	0	0	0	0	0
	5	0	0	0	0	0
V9	1	0	0	0	0	0
	2	0	0	0	0	0
	3	0	0	0	0	0
	4	1	1	1	1	1
	5	0	0	0	0	0
V10	1	0	0	0	0	0
	2	0	0	0	0	0
	3	0	0	0	0	0
	4	0	0	0	0	0
	5	0	0	0	0	0
V11	1	0	0	0	0	0
	2	1	1	1	1	1
	3	0	0	0	0	0
	4	0	0	0	0	0
	5	0	0	0	0	0
V12	1	0	0	0	0	0
	2	0	0	0	0	0
	3	1	1	1	1	1
	4	0	0	0	0	0
	5	0	0	0	0	0
V13	1	1	1	1	1	1
	2	1	1	1	1	1
	3	0	0	0	0	0
	4	0	0	0	0	0
	5	0	0	0	0	0
V14	1	0	0	0	0	0
	2	0	0	0	0	0
	3	1	1	0	0	1
	4	0	0	0	0	0
	5	0	0	0	0	0
V15	1	0	0	0	0	0
	2	0	0	0	0	0
	3	0	0	0	1	0
	4	1	1	0	0	1
	5	0	0	0	0	0
V16	1	0	0	0	0	0
	2	0	0	0	0	0
	3	0	0	0	0	0
	4	0	0	0	0	0
	5	0	0	0	0	0
Tracker		Evaluators
Participant	Obstacle	A	B	C	D	E
V1	1	0	0	0	1	0
	2	1	0	1	1	1
	3	1	1	1	1	1
	4	0	0	0	0	0
	5	0	0	0	0	0
V2	1	0	0	0	0	0
	2	0	0	0	0	0
	3	0	0	0	0	0
	4	1	1	1	1	1
	5	0	0	0	0	0
V3	1	0	0	0	0	0
	2	0	1	0	0	0
	3	1	0	1	1	1
	4	1	1	1	1	1
	5	0	0	0	0	0
V4	1	0	0	0	0	0
	2	0	0	0	0	0
	3	0	0	0	0	0
	4	0	0	1	0	0
	5	0	0	1	1	1
V5	1	0	0	0	0	0
	2	0	0	0	0	0
	3	0	0	0	0	0
	4	0	0	0	0	0
	5	0	0	0	0	0
V6	1	0	0	0	0	0
	2	1	1	1	1	1
	3	0	0	0	0	0
	4	1	1	1	1	1
	5	0	0	1	1	1
V7	1	0	0	0	0	0
	2	0	0	0	0	0
	3	0	0	0	0	0
	4	0	0	0	0	0
	5	0	0	0	0	0
V8	1	0	0	0	0	0
	2	0	0	0	0	0
	3	1	1	1	1	1
	4	0	0	0	0	0
	5	0	0	0	0	0
V9	1	0	0	0	0	0
	2	1	1	1	1	1
	3	0	0	0	0	0
	4	0	0	0	0	0
	5	0	0	0	0	0
V10	1	0	0	0	0	0
	2	0	0	0	0	0
	3	0	0	0	0	0
	4	1	1	1	1	1
	5	0	0	0	0	0
V11	1	0	0	0	0	0
	2	0	0	0	0	0
	3	0	0	0	0	0
	4	0	0	0	0	0
	5	0	0	0	0	0
V12	1	0	0	1	1	0
	2	0	0	0	0	0
	3	0	0	0	0	0
	4	1	1	1	0	1
	5	1	1	1	1	1
V13	1	0	0	0	0	0
	2	0	0	0	0	0
	3	0	0	0	0	0
	4	0	0	0	0	0
	5	0	0	0	0	0
V14	1	0	0	0	0	0
	2	0	0	0	0	0
	3	0	0	0	0	0
	4	1	1	1	1	1
	5	0	0	0	0	0
V15	1	0	0	0	0	0
	2	0	0	0	0	0
	3	0	0	0	0	0
	4	0	0	0	0	0
	5	0	0	0	0	0
V16	1	0	0	0	0	0
	2	0	0	0	0	0
	3	0	0	0	0	0
	4	0	0	0	0	0
	5	0	0	0	0	0

Kalawsky, R. S. (1999). VRUSE—a computerised diagnostic tool: For usability evaluation of virtual/synthetic environment systems. Applied Ergonomics, 30(1), 11–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-6870(98)00047-7

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wickens, C. D., & Baker, P. (1995). Cognitive issues in virtual reality (Virtual Environments and Advanced Interface Design). Oxford Academic Press Inc. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195075557.003.0024

 Google Scholar

Woodrow, B., & Thomas, A. F. (1995). Virtual environments and advanced interface design. Oxford University Press, Inc.

 Google Scholar

Slater, M., Usoh, M., & Steed, A. (1995). Taking steps: The influence of a walking technique on presence in virtual reality. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 2(3), 201–219. https://doi.org/10.1145/210079.210084

 Google Scholar

Shneiderman, B., & Plaisant, C. (2010). Designing the user interface: Strategies for effective human-computer interaction. Pearson Education India.

 Google Scholar

Kontarinis, D. A., & Howe, R. D. (1995). Tactile display of vibratory information in teleoperation and virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 4(4), 387–402. https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.1995.4.4.387

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gabbard, J. L. (1997). A taxonomy of usability characteristics in virtual environments. Virginia Tech.

 Google Scholar

Richard, P., Birebent, G., Coiffet, P., Burdea, G., Gomez, D., & Langrana, N. (1996). Effect of Frame Rate and Force Feedback on Virtual Object Manipulation. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 5(1), 95–108. https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.1996.5.1.95

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Witmer, B. G., & Singer, M. J. (1998). Measuring Presence in Virtual Environments: A Presence Questionnaire. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 7(3), 225–240. https://doi.org/10.1162/105474698565686

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kennedy, R. S., Lane, N. E., Berbaum, K. S., & Lilienthal, M. G. (1993). Simulator sickness questionnaire: An enhanced method for quantifying simulator sickness. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 3(3), 203–220. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327108ijap0303_3

 Google Scholar