Virtual Reality Display Influences Dynamic Movement Patterns in Gaming-Based Research Samuel T. Leitkam 1 , Rhea Proctor 2 , Jenna Cost 2 , Megan E. Applegate 2 , Christopher R. France 4 , James S. Thomas 1,2,3 1 Ohio Musculoskeletal & Neurological Institute, Ohio University, 2 School of Rehabilitation and Communication Sciences, Division of Physical Therapy, 3 Department of Biomedical Sciences College of Osteopathic Medicine, 4 Department of Psychology, Ohio University, Athens, OH • At intercept, the vertical and lateral hand positions showed no difference between the two displays (Fig. 5). • At intercept, the anterior hand position was on average 16.5 ± 3.6 cm closer to the body in 3D- TV compared to OR (p<0.05; Fig. 5). • When playing dodgeball with the OR, for any given impact location, subjects chose to intercept the balls further away from their body compared to games played with the 3D-TV. • Hand position did not show a statistically significant relationship with the lumbar angle at target intercept (Fig. 5). • As shown in Figure 6, joint excursions of the ankle, knee, hip, lumbar spine, and shoulder were greater in OR compared to 3D-TV (p<0.05). • Display type resulted in angular excursions that were very different for successful intercepts of balls launched to the same location. • Gaming in virtual reality is increasingly being investigated as a clinical tool to promote movement and rehabilitation. • The purpose of this study was to determine if the type of display used in a virtual reality (VR) game affected the movement patterns used in performing a kinematically redundant dynamic task. • Participants • Seventeen subjects (10 male, 7 female) aged 18-35 played the same VR dodgeball game under two different display conditions. • Test Conditions • Condition 1: 3D-TV Presentation • In the 3D-TV display, the subject wore 3D shutter glasses and was oriented to their avatar on the 3D-TV in the third person perspective (Fig. 1A,1B). • Condition 2: Oculus Rift (OR) Presentation • In the OR display, the subject wore a head mounted display and was oriented to their avatar in the first person perspective (Fig. 1C,1D) • Order of display was randomized for each subject. • Gameplay • Thirty virtual balls were launched at the subjects during each round. Subjects scored points by successfully positioning the virtual ball held in both hands to intercept each launched ball. • The tasks required both appropriate joint excursions and the correct timing of these excursions to block the launched ball. • The tasks required dynamic movement. • The tasks allowed redundant movement solutions for successful completion. • The impact locations were scaled to the anthropometrics of each subject to normalize the amount of theoretical lumbar flexion required to block each launched ball (Fig. 2). For each subject, the impact locations of the launched balls were randomized, but identical for the games played in each display. • The vertical range of impact locations was increased for each successive level of the game, requiring greater movement to reach the lowest balls (Fig. 3). • Data Collection • The kinematics, as measured with Vicon Bonita cameras, Vicon Tracker, and The MotionMonitor were defined by angular excursions between a neutral posture and posture at time of intercept of the launched ball. • Measures • Excursions of the ankle, knee, hip, lumbar spine, shoulder, and elbow were analyzed. • Position of the centroid of the hands at intercept of the launched ball was extracted. • Statistical Analyses • Mixed-model MANOVAs were performed with display (3D-TV, OR) and projected impact location (high, middle, low) as within subject factors and sex as the between subjects factor. Introduction Methods Results Conclusions Lumbar Angle at Contact (degrees) This study was funded by the NIH R21 AR064430-01A1. Ohio University IRB #15X002 Figure 2: Theoretical framework for selecting the impact locations of each round of gameplay. Five impact heights (IH) were chosen spanning the distance from the head to the height to the lowest impact location determined by a theoretical amount of lumbar flexion. Figure 3: Range of impact locations for each of the levels. Levels corresponded to the lowest targets requiring no lumbar flexion and 15, 30, and 60 degrees of lumbar flexion. Figure 6: The effect of display type on joint excursions at each impact height (IH) collapsed across game levels, sets, and trials (i.e. balls thrown). A) Ankle B) Knee C) Hip D) Lumbar spine E) Shoulder F) Elbow. NS = not significant. Unless noted by NS, all differences were significant (p ≤ 0.05). • These results together show that the type of display used in a VR game will have a significant effect on the kinematic patterns used to play the game. • Greater overall angular movement is expected for VR games with first-person perspective in comparison to 3D-TV games with a third-person perspective. • The theoretical model of inducing precise lumbar motions through targeting hand positions is insufficiently robust for this dynamic, kinematically redundant task, and a better model is needed for future research seeking to induce lumbar motion with virtual dodgeball gameplay. Figure 5: Hand position at time of ball contact for all games for all subjects shown in the sagittal plane. A) Results of the games played on the 3D-TV. B) Results of the games played on the Oculus Rift. Trials that were successfully blocked are colored-in corresponding to the degree of lumbar flexion that was utilized at the time of ball contact. The origin is set to the center of medial malleoli of the ankles. Significant differences were shown between the two displays for anterior hand displacement at contact (p ≤ 0.05). Figure 1: Visual representations of the game. A) Individual playing game on 3D-TV while controlling avatar in third-person view. B) Participant’s third-person view of avatar on the 3D-TV. C) Participant’s first-person view in Oculus Rift. D) Individual playing game while wearing the Oculus Rift headset with scene duplicated on the TV . Figure 4: Launched ball trajectories for a single level of the game NS NS NS Impact Height IH1 IH2 IH3 IH4 Ankle Dorsiflexion (degrees) 0 20 40 60 80 3DTV Oculus Impact Height IH1 IH2 IH3 IH4 Knee Flexion (degrees) 0 20 40 60 80 Impact Height IH1 IH2 IH3 IH4 Hip Flexion (degrees) 0 20 40 60 80 Impact Height IH1 IH2 IH3 IH4 Lumbar Flexion (degrees) 0 20 40 60 80 Impact Height IH1 IH2 IH3 IH4 Shoulder Flexion (degrees) 0 20 40 60 80 Impact Height IH1 IH2 IH3 IH4 Elbow flexion (degrees) -80 -60 -40 -20 0 1A 1B 1C 1D 6A 6D 6B 6E 6C 6F 5A 5B
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Virtual Reality Display Influences Dynamic Movement Patterns
in Gaming-Based Research
Samuel T. Leitkam1, Rhea Proctor2, Jenna Cost2, Megan E. Applegate2, Christopher R. France4, James S. Thomas1,2,3
1Ohio Musculoskeletal & Neurological Institute, Ohio University, 2School of Rehabilitation and Communication Sciences, Division of Physical Therapy, 3Department of Biomedical Sciences College of Osteopathic Medicine, 4Department of Psychology, Ohio University, Athens, OH
• At intercept, the vertical and lateral hand
positions showed no difference between the two
displays (Fig. 5).
• At intercept, the anterior hand position was on
average 16.5 ± 3.6 cm closer to the body in 3D-
TV compared to OR (p<0.05; Fig. 5).
• When playing dodgeball with the OR, for
any given impact location, subjects chose
to intercept the balls further away from
their body compared to games played with
the 3D-TV.
• Hand position did not show a statistically
significant relationship with the lumbar angle at
target intercept (Fig. 5).
• As shown in Figure 6, joint excursions of the
ankle, knee, hip, lumbar spine, and shoulder
were greater in OR compared to 3D-TV
(p<0.05).
• Display type resulted in angular
excursions that were very different for
successful intercepts of balls launched to
the same location.
• Gaming in virtual reality is increasingly being investigated as a
clinical tool to promote movement and rehabilitation.
• The purpose of this study was to determine if the type of
display used in a virtual reality (VR) game affected the
movement patterns used in performing a kinematically
redundant dynamic task.
• Participants
• Seventeen subjects (10 male, 7 female) aged 18-35 played
the same VR dodgeball game under two different display
conditions.
• Test Conditions
• Condition 1: 3D-TV Presentation
• In the 3D-TV display, the subject wore 3D shutter
glasses and was oriented to their avatar on the 3D-TV
in the third person perspective (Fig. 1A,1B).
• Condition 2: Oculus Rift (OR) Presentation
• In the OR display, the subject wore a head mounted
display and was oriented to their avatar in the first
person perspective (Fig. 1C,1D)
• Order of display was randomized for each subject.
• Gameplay
• Thirty virtual balls were launched at the subjects during each
round. Subjects scored points by successfully positioning the
virtual ball held in both hands to intercept each launched ball.
• The tasks required both appropriate joint excursions
and the correct timing of these excursions to block the
launched ball.
• The tasks required dynamic movement.
• The tasks allowed redundant movement solutions for
successful completion.
• The impact locations were scaled to the anthropometrics of
each subject to normalize the amount of theoretical lumbar
flexion required to block each launched ball (Fig. 2). For each
subject, the impact locations of the launched balls were
randomized, but identical for the games played in each
display.
• The vertical range of impact locations was increased for each
successive level of the game, requiring greater movement to
reach the lowest balls (Fig. 3).
• Data Collection
• The kinematics, as measured with Vicon Bonita cameras,
Vicon Tracker, and The MotionMonitor were defined by
angular excursions between a neutral posture and posture at
time of intercept of the launched ball.
• Measures
• Excursions of the ankle, knee, hip, lumbar spine, shoulder,
and elbow were analyzed.
• Position of the centroid of the hands at intercept of the
launched ball was extracted.
• Statistical Analyses
• Mixed-model MANOVAs were performed with display (3D-TV,
OR) and projected impact location (high, middle, low) as
within subject factors and sex as the between subjects factor.
Introduction
Methods
Results
Conclusions
Lu
mb
ar A
ngle
at
Con
tact (d
egre
es)
This study was funded by the NIH R21
AR064430-01A1.
Ohio University IRB #15X002
Figure 2: Theoretical framework for selecting the impact
locations of each round of gameplay. Five impact heights (IH)
were chosen spanning the distance from the head to the
height to the lowest impact location determined by a
theoretical amount of lumbar flexion.
Figure 3: Range of impact locations for each of the levels.
Levels corresponded to the lowest targets requiring no
lumbar flexion and 15, 30, and 60 degrees of lumbar flexion.
Figure 6: The effect of display type on joint excursions at
each impact height (IH) collapsed across game levels,
sets, and trials (i.e. balls thrown). A) Ankle B) Knee C) Hip
D) Lumbar spine E) Shoulder F) Elbow. NS = not
significant. Unless noted by NS, all differences were
significant (p ≤ 0.05).
• These results together show that the type of
display used in a VR game will have a significant
effect on the kinematic patterns used to play the
game.
• Greater overall angular movement is expected
for VR games with first-person perspective in
comparison to 3D-TV games with a third-person
perspective.
• The theoretical model of inducing precise lumbar
motions through targeting hand positions is
insufficiently robust for this dynamic,
kinematically redundant task, and a better model
is needed for future research seeking to induce
lumbar motion with virtual dodgeball gameplay.
Figure 5: Hand position at time of ball contact for all games for all subjects shown in the sagittal plane. A) Results of the
games played on the 3D-TV. B) Results of the games played on the Oculus Rift. Trials that were successfully blocked are
colored-in corresponding to the degree of lumbar flexion that was utilized at the time of ball contact. The origin is set to the
center of medial malleoli of the ankles. Significant differences were shown between the two displays for anterior hand
displacement at contact (p ≤ 0.05).
Figure 1: Visual representations of the game. A) Individual playing game on 3D-TV while controlling avatar in third-person view.
B) Participant’s third-person view of avatar on the 3D-TV. C) Participant’s first-person view in Oculus Rift. D) Individual playing
game while wearing the Oculus Rift headset with scene duplicated on the TV.
Figure 4: Launched ball trajectories for a single level of the
game
NS
NS NS
Impact Height
IH1 IH2 IH3 IH4
Ankle
Dors
ifle
xio
n (
degre
es)
0
20
40
60
80 3DTV
Oculus
Impact Height
IH1 IH2 IH3 IH4
Knee F
lexio
n (
degre
es)
0
20
40
60
80
Impact Height
IH1 IH2 IH3 IH4
Hip
Fle
xio
n (
degre
es)
0
20
40
60
80
Impact Height
IH1 IH2 IH3 IH4
Lum
bar
Fle
xio
n (
degre
es)
0
20
40
60
80
Impact Height
IH1 IH2 IH3 IH4
Should
er
Fle
xio
n (
degre
es)
0
20
40
60
80
Impact Height
IH1 IH2 IH3 IH4
Elb
ow
fle
xio
n (
degre
es)
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
1A 1B 1C 1D
6A 6D
6B 6E
6C 6F
5A 5B
Related Documents
