Perception of Visual Variables on Virtual Wall-Sized Tiled Displays in Immersive Environments

TL;DR

This paper investigates how well users perceive visual variables on virtual wall-sized tiled displays in immersive VR, addressing layout and interaction factors. Using two formal studies, it demonstrates that curved virtual displays (Cylinder and Cockpit) reduce reading errors compared with a flat layout, albeit with longer task times, and it replicates a real-world study to show curved VR layouts can outperform physical flat walls in accuracy. A second study shows that four VR interaction techniques (Selection, Walking, Steering, Teleportation) can improve perception, especially when paired with a Personal display, though some techniques incur time costs and motion-sickness considerations. Overall, the work indicates that VR-enabled wall-sized displays are a viable workspace for visual analytics, with curvature and targeted 3D interactions enabling more accurate reading of visual variables and nuanced task strategies in immersive environments.

Abstract

We investigate the perception of visual variables on wall-sized tiled displays within an immersive environment. We designed and conducted two formal user studies focusing on elementary visualization reading tasks in VR. The first study compared three different virtual display arrangements (Flat, Cylinder, and Cockpit). It showed that participants made smaller errors on virtual curved walls (Cylinder and Cockpit) compared to Flat. Following that, we compared the results with those from a previous study conducted in a real-world setting. The comparative analysis showed that virtual curved walls resulted in smaller errors than the real-world flat wall display, but with longer task completion time. The second study evaluated the impact of four 3D user interaction techniques (Selection, Walking, Steering, and Teleportation) on performing the elementary task on the virtual Flat wall display. The results confirmed that interaction techniques further improved task performance. Finally, we discuss the limitations and future work.

Figures (13)

• Figure 1: The stimulus was shown either on a frontal display (Frontal) or a personal display (Personal). The modulus was shown in one of nine different positions on the virtual wall (A1$\sim$H4).
• Figure 1: (A) VR devices used for the user studies including the Vive Pro Eye, two controllers, and wireless adapter, and a battery. (B) Two controllers were seen by participants within the VR space. They are called the task-performing controller and interaction controller. Participants are instructed to hold the task-performing controller in their dominant hand and the interaction controller in their non-dominant hand.
• Figure 2: Study 1 analysis results. For each set of results by rows and columns, the measurement averages are presented first, followed by the pairwise comparison results with error bars. The error bars represent 95% Bootstrap confidence intervals (CIs). Adjusted CIs for the pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni correction are highlighted in red.
• Figure 2: Study 1 Results: Detailed Results by Modulus Locations
• Figure 3: Comparison between our Study 1 results and the earlier work bezerianos2012perception investigated in the real-world setting (RFlat).