Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Kevin Arthur

dblp:94/1572 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 1999
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 1Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper
Immersive interaction · 91% Wearable and physiological sensing · 9%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Immersive interaction
virtual reality locomotion
0.011999
Walking > Walking-in-Place > Flying, in Virtual Environments · SIGGRAPH 1999
Immersive interaction › virtual reality › presence
virtual reality presence
0.011999
Walking > Walking-in-Place > Flying, in Virtual Environments · SIGGRAPH 1999
Immersive interaction › virtual reality locomotion
walking-in-place
0.011999
Walking > Walking-in-Place > Flying, in Virtual Environments · SIGGRAPH 1999
YearPublicationVenuePosition
1999 Walking > Walking-in-Place > Flying, in Virtual Environments
abstract
A study by Slater, et al., [1995] indicated that naive subjects in an immersive virtual environment experience a higher subjective sense of presence when they locomote by walking-in-place (virtual walking) than when they push-button-fly (along the floor plane).We replicated their study, adding real walking as a third condition.Our study confirmed their findings.We also found that real walking is significantly better than both virtual walking and flying in ease (simplicity, straightforwardness, naturalness) as a mode of locomotion.The greatest difference in subjective presence was between flyers and both kinds of walkers.In addition, subjective presence was higher for real walkers than virtual walkers, but the difference was statistically significant only in some models.Follow-on studies show virtual walking can be substantially improved by detecting footfalls with a head accelerometer.As in the Slater study, subjective presence significantly correlated with subjects' degree of association with their virtual bodies (avatars).This, our strongest statistical result, suggests that substantial potential presence gains can be had from tracking all limbs and customizing avatar appearance.An unexpected by-product was that real walking through our enhanced version of Slater's visual-cliff virtual environment (Figure 1) yielded a strikingly compelling virtual experience-the strongest we and most of our visitors have yet experienced.The most needed system improvement is the substitution of wireless technology for all links to the user.
Martin Usoh, Kevin Arthur, Mary C. Whitton, Rui Bastos, Anthony Steed, Mel Slater, Frederick P. Brooks Jr.
SIGGRAPH2