Technological Advances in Two Generations of Consumer-Grade VR Systems: Effects on User Experience and Task Performance

TL;DR

This study investigates whether 10-year-old consumer-grade IVR hardware and a modern counterpart yield different user experiences or task performance when evaluated in their commercially available configurations. Using a $2\times5$ mixed design across five VR tasks, the authors measured presence, sense of embodiment, appearance/plausibility, workload, and objective performance, with Bayesian analyses supporting null effects for generational improvements. Despite substantial hardware advances (e.g., higher resolution, increased tracking coverage, and lower latency), results show only small effect sizes and no robust differences between systems. The findings support the validity of prior research that used older IVR configurations and emphasize that wearability, comfort, and task design may matter more than incremental hardware upgrades. The work highlights the complexity of translating technical immersion gains into perceived user benefits and advocates for user-centered, component-level studies to disentangle the sources of embodiment and presence in IVR.

Abstract

Integrated VR (IVR) systems consist of a head-mounted display (HMD) and body-tracking capabilities. They enable users to translate their physical movements into corresponding avatar movements in real-time, allowing them to perceive their avatars via the displays. Consumer-grade IVR systems have been available for 10 years, significantly fostering VR research worldwide. However, the effects of even apparently significant technological advances of IVR systems on user experience and the overall validity of prior embodiment research using such systems often remain unclear. We ran a user-centered study comparing two comparable IVR generations: a nearly 10-year-old hardware (HTC Vive, 6-point tracking) and a modern counterpart (HTC Vive Pro 2, 6-point tracking). To ensure ecological validity, we evaluated the systems in their commercially available, as-is configurations. In a 2x5 mixed design, participants completed five tasks covering different use cases on either the old or new system. We assessed presence, sense of embodiment, appearance and behavior plausibility, workload, task performance, and gathered qualitative feedback. Results showed no significant system differences, with only small effect sizes. Bayesian analysis further supported the null hypothesis, suggesting that the investigated generational hardware improvements offer limited benefits for user experience and task performance. For the 10-year generational step examined here, excluding potential technological progress in the necessary software components, this supports the validity of conclusions from prior work and underscores the applicability of older configurations for research in embodied VR.

Figures (3)

• Figure 1: The figure shows (1) the VR hardware components of the new (left) and the old IVR system (middle), and (2) the avatar's pose generation from the hardware's data (right).
• Figure 2: The figure shows the study procedure with the VR exposure on the right. Participants underwent five VR tasks in randomized order, either in the new IVR system or the old one.
• Figure 3: These figures outline interaction plots for selected mean values for the user experience qualia. The task factor is plotted on the x-axis, while the separate lines represent the IVR system factor. Error bars show the standard error.