Physical walking is often considered the gold standard for VR travel whenever feasible. However, limited free-space walking areas in the real-world do not allow exploring larger-scale virtual environments by actual walking. Therefore, users often require handheld controllers for navigation, which can reduce believability, interfere with simultaneous interaction tasks, and exacerbate adverse effects such as motion sickness and disorientation. To investigate alternative locomotion options, we compared handheld Controller (thumbstick-based) and physical walking versus a seated (HeadJoystick) and standing/stepping (NaviBoard) leaning-based locomotion interface, where seated/standing users travel by moving their head toward the target direction. Rotations were always physically performed. To compare these interfaces, we designed a novel simultaneous locomotion and object interaction task, where users needed to keep touching the center of upward moving target balloons with their virtual lightsaber, while simultaneously staying inside a horizontally moving enclosure. Walking resulted in the best locomotion, interaction, and combined performances while the controller performed worst. Leaning-based interfaces improved user experience and performance compared to Controller, especially when standing/stepping using NaviBoard, but did not reach walking performance. That is, leaning-based interfaces HeadJoystick (sitting) and NaviBoard (standing) that provided additional physical self-motion cues compared to controller improved enjoyment, preference, spatial presence, vection intensity, motion sickness, as well as performance for locomotion, object interaction, and combined locomotion and object interaction. Our results also showed that less embodied interfaces (and in particular the controller) caused a more pronounced performance deterioration when increasing locomotion speed. Moreover, observed differences between our interfaces were not affected by repeated interface usage.

Continuous locomotion in VR provides uninterrupted optical flow, which mimics real-world locomotion and supports path integration . However, optical flow limits the maximum speed and acceleration that can be effectively used without inducing cybersickness. In contrast, teleportation provides neither optical flow nor acceleration cues, and users can jump to any length without increasing cybersickness. However, teleportation cannot support continuous spatial updating and can increase disorientation. Thus, we designed 'HyperJump' in an attempt to merge benefits from continuous locomotion and teleportation. HyperJump adds iterative jumps every half a second on top of the continuous movement and was hypothesized to facilitate faster travel without compromising spatial awareness/orientation. In a user study, Participants travelled around a naturalistic virtual city with and without HyperJump (equivalent maximum speed). They followed waypoints to new landmarks, stopped near them and pointed back to all previously visited landmarks in random order. HyperJump was added to two continuous locomotion interfaces (controller- and leaning-based). Participants had better spatial awareness/orientation with leaning-based interfaces compared to controller-based (assessed via rapid pointing). With HyperJump, participants travelled significantly faster, while staying on the desired course without impairing their spatial knowledge. This provides evidence that optical flow can be effectively limited such that it facilitates faster travel without compromising spatial orientation. In future design iterations, we plan to utilize audio-visual effects to support jumping metaphors that help users better anticipate and interpret jumps, and use much larger virtual environments requiring faster speeds, where cybersickness will become increasingly prevalent and thus teleporting will become more important.

Virtual reality (VR) has the potential to support profound emotional experiences, such as experiencing awe when virtually viewing the Earth from space. In doing so, VR can potentially both give people positive emotional experiences contributing to their overall well-being and give researchers a way to study these profound emotional experiences in a more controlled environment. Through a design refinement process, we explored the potential influence of the "set and setting''--one's mindset and the physical and social environment--when transitioning people into and out of VR designed to support profound emotional experiences. We present our findings from a design refinement session and a case study exploring how set and setting may support the profound emotional experience of awe. We discuss common themes in user experience and trends of awe-related behavioural and introspective measures. Our results contribute to the discourse around the role of the design of set and setting in overall user experience.

Telepresence robots allow people to participate in remote spaces, yet they can be difficult to manoeuvre with people and obstacles around. We designed a haptic-feedback system called "FeetBack," which users place their feet in when driving a telepresence robot. When the robot approaches people or obstacles, haptic proximity and collision feedback are provided on the respective sides of the feet, helping inform users about events that are hard to notice through the robot's camera views. We conducted two studies: one to explore the usage of FeetBack in virtual environments, another focused on real environments. We found that FeetBack can increase spatial presence in simple virtual environments. Users valued the feedback to adjust their behaviour in both types of environments, though it was sometimes too frequent or unneeded for certain situations after a period of time. These results point to the value of foot-based haptic feedback for telepresence robot systems, while also the need to design context-sensitive haptic feedback.