CEUS-00990; No of Pages 13

Computers, Environment and Urban Systems xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers, Environment and Urban Systems

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ceus

Virtual reality as an empirical research tool — Exploring user experience in a real

building and a corresponding virtual model
S.F. Kuliga a,⁎, T. Thrash b, R.C. Dalton c, C. Hölscher a,b
a
Institute of Computer Science and Social Research, Center for Cognitive Science, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
b
Department of Humanities, Social and Political Science, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich (ETH), Zurich, Switzerland
c
Faculty of Engineering and Environment, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Virtual reality (VR) allows for highly-detailed observations, accurate behavior measurements, and systematic en-
Received 18 June 2014 vironmental manipulations under controlled laboratory circumstances. It therefore has the potential to be a valu-
Received in revised form 22 August 2015 able research tool for studies in human–environment interaction, such as building usability studies and post- as
Accepted 10 September 2015
well as pre-occupancy building evaluation in architectural research and practice.
Available online xxxx
In order to fully understand VR as a valid environmental representation, it is essential to examine to what extent
Keywords:
not only user cognition and behavior, but also users' experiences are analogous in real and virtual environments.
Virtual reality (VR) This work presents a multi-method approach with two studies that investigated the correspondence of building
User experience users' experience in a real conference center and a highly-detailed virtual model of the same building as well as a
Pre-occupancy evaluation third study that virtually implemented systematic redesigns to the existing building layout.
Real building In the context of reporting users' experiential building evaluations, this article discusses the potential, prerequi-
Research tool sites and opportunities for the implementation of virtual environments as an empirical research tool in the field
Building usability of human–environment interaction. Based on quantitative data, few statistically significant differences between
ratings of the real and the virtual building were found; however analyses based on qualitative data revealed dif-
ferences relating to atmospherics. The main conclusion of this article is that VR has a strong potential to be used as
an empirical research tool in psychological and architectural research and that future studies could supplement
behavioral validation.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The main purpose of this article is twofold: first, to reinvestigate envi-
ronmental comparability, by comparing how users experience a real, ex-
The use of virtual reality (VR) is well-established in many domains. tant and a corresponding, virtually simulated building (Study 1 + 2).
VR has been implemented as a research tool, e.g., for navigation and Second, to extend previous research towards assessing how users re-
spatial cognition research, simulated medical treatment and skill training spond to major redesigns of the existing building in VR (Study 3).
(Cliburn & Winlock, 2002; Dalton, 2001; Loomis, Blascovich, & Beall,
1999; Ruddle, Payne, & Jones, 1997, Darken & Sibert, 1996; 1.1. VR in the architectural domain
Tanja-Dijkstra et al., 2014; Larsen, Oestergaard, Ottesen, & Soerensen,
2012). Research focused on direct comparisons between real and virtual Virtual environments (VEs) lend themselves to building evaluation.
environments investigated how cognitive and affective environmental They allow systematic environmental manipulations that cannot (or not
appraisal and human movement patterns correspond in both environ- effectively) be implemented in real environments (REs) once these are
ments (e.g., Westerdahl et al., 2006; De Kort, Ijsselsteijn, Kooijman, & occupied. While it would be challenging to substantially alter spatial
Schuurmans, 2003; Bishop & Rohrmann, 2003; Skorupka, 2009; Haq, configuration in an existing building, the effect of several redesigns on
Hill, & Pramanik, 2005; Dalton, 2003; Witmer, Bailey, Knerr & Parsons, users' behavior can efficiently be simulated in VR without interrupting
1996). In addition, the use of VR could also be relevant for pre- and ongoing building usage. In spatial cognition research VR has already
post-occupancy building evaluation, which could pave the way towards been implemented for this purpose, e.g., to study wayfinding perfor-
enhancing the usability of architectural environments. mance and spatial memory after systematically rearranging major cir-
culation areas (Werner & Schindler, 2004). Similarly, virtual reality
can support ‘pre-occupancy evaluation,’ an environmental evaluation
⁎ Corresponding author at: University of Freiburg, Institute of Computer Science and
Social Research, Center for Cognitive Science, Friedrichstrasse 50, 79098 Freiburg,
from the users' perspective prior to the occupation of a building
Germany. (Guski & Schuemer, 2008). However, only a few studies have investigat-
E-mail address: [email protected] (S.F. Kuliga). ed this potential so far; e.g., Palmon, Sahar, Wiess, and Oxman (2006)

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2015.09.006
0198-9715/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Kuliga, S.F., et al., Virtual reality as an empirical research tool — Exploring user experience in a real building and a
corresponding virtual model, Computers, Environment and Urban Systems (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2015.09.006
2 S.F. Kuliga et al. / Computers, Environment and Urban Systems xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

assessed how people with disabilities perceived the accessibility of a controlled experimental environments with high realism and ecological
planned building. validity (De Kort et al., 2003; Loomis et al., 1999).
Current application scenarios for VR focus mostly on domain- The more an environmental representation comes to resemble the
specific architectural experts and less on the experiences of future or real-world environment it mimics, the more realistic users' responses
current building users. Drettakis, Roussou, Reche, and Tsingos (2007) are expected to be (Freeman et al., 2000, p. 151); at its extreme (hypo-
asked a small sample of experts to rearrange environmental objects in thetically) leading to indistinguishable environments and thus equiva-
a virtual urban square and to collaboratively discuss their design solu- lent responses (Loomis et al., 1999). Present day VR-technology is
tions. Others aimed at integrating simulated agent movement based technologically capable of simulating highly realistic, highly detailed,
on quantitative spatial theory, such as space syntax, into these applica- and ‘complex’ (i.e., large-scale, multi-level) environments.1 Common
tions (e.g., Broll et al., 2004); or understood VR as a collaboration tool for presentation devices include single or multiple connected desktop
supporting stakeholders who work at physically separated locations screens (e.g., Hochmair, Büchner, & Hölscher, 2008; Kalff & Strube,
(e.g., Argelaguet, Kulik, Kunert, Andujar, & Froehlich, 2011). Recent re- 2008) and large projection screens that partially or completely sur-
search investigated the potential of using VR for architectural education round participants and that can be used for individual or group presen-
with the aim of providing architecture students with a user-perspective tation (e.g., Schneider et al., 2013; Fröhlich & Wachsmuth, 2013). More
experience of their own building designs during an early design stage immersive presentation devices, such as head-mounted displays use
(Schneider et al., 2013). head-based tracking and rendering to allow highly realistic, real-time
Thus, for environmental planners, VR offers numerous advantages, rotation of the head. Translation of body movements, such as walking,
like visualizing, experimenting, experiencing, analyzing and collabora- can be simulated by using either a joystick/joypad, or physically within
tively discussing planned designs and already constructed buildings. Nev- a designated area/on a treadmill. Recently developed head-mounted
ertheless, information about how building users interpret, interact with displays that were originally designed for entertainment purposes,
and experience virtual, architectural (re)designs before construction is such as the Oculus Rift (Oculus VR, Inc, 2014), may over time become af-
not yet widely integrated into applications — despite the availability of fordable and efficient research tools.
high-quality, affordable technology (e.g., Oculus Rift, HTC Vive, Google Current computer graphics are able to provide visual experiences
Cardboard, Samsung Gear VR, LeapMotion, Virtuix Omni). If the use of which relate strongly to real visual experiences (visual realism). Some
virtual simulations and user evaluations were more integrated into devices (e.g., head-mounted displays, CAVEs) can, in addition, represent
user-centered design, this could lead to improved usability of buildings. perceptual and bodily experiences that relate to real-world user perfor-
In the current work, building usability is conceptually defined by building mance (behavioral realism); e.g., by providing feedback about changes
functionality, along with a pleasant, satisfying environmental experience in viewing directions, head and body rotations. The question then is
for building users. It is thus following conceptual approaches by Krukar, which elements of users' experiences in real and virtual environments
Dalton, and Hölscher (2016). are directly transferable from more immersive technology to less
immersive technology (e.g., video presentations). On the one hand,
1.2. VR in the psychological-research domain due to simulating both visual and behavioral realism, more immersive
systems are believed to produce higher levels of experiential realism,
For behavioral researchers, VR offers the advantage of highly- such as presence (the subjective, psychological state of being in one
detailed measurements (e.g., precise data indicating where participants place, while physically being in another; Witmer & Singer, 1998). Spa-
navigate, pause and look) under controlled laboratory circumstances. tial learning, for example, is better supported when using highly-
Still, studies investigating the comparability of real and virtual environ- immersive technologies that provide active motion and bodily feedback
ments remain to some extent inconclusive. Some findings suggest that rather than desktop devices (Hegarty, Montello, Richardson, Ishikawa,
people may use similar cues and similar wayfinding strategies and eval- & Lovelace, 2006). On the other hand, although desktop screens with
uate wayfinding difficulty similarly during real and virtual wayfinding high-quality computer-graphics do not offer as much behavioral real-
(e.g., Skorupka, 2009); but others did not find comparable results ism (in terms of bodily feedback) as more immersive technologies do,
(Haq et al., 2005). Similar discussions exist for distance estimations in they sufficiently achieve visual realism. In fact, it may be possible that
VEs (e.g., underestimation, Witmer & Kline, 1998; inaccuracy, Wilson, more immersive systems at times lead to less behavioral realism;
Foreman, & Tlauka, 1997; or correspondence, Ruddle et al., 1997; e.g., due to difficulty with controls.2 The current study used a desktop
Interrante, Ries, & Anderson, 2006). Differences in terms of cognitive, af- VE3 and predefined routes that did not involve any active wayfinding
fective and esthetic user ratings include enhanced liking (“pleasure”) of tasks. Experiential realism was thus approached via visual realism
the real building (Westerdahl et al., 2006) or less positive ratings and (in Studies 1 and 3), which was expected to be sufficient to assess
the absence of psychological arousal in the virtual building (De Kort users' experiences, and active movement was enabled for an approxi-
et al., 2003). These findings may be related to the level of realistic, visual mation of behavioral realism in Study 2.
fidelity of the virtual simulations used in these studies; the degree to
which experiences in the VE resemble real-world experiences (De
Kort et al., 2003). The order in which participants were exposed to ei- 1.4. User experience
ther environment also appears to influence user responses in terms of
environmental appraisal (e.g., Pals, Steg, Dontje, Siero, & van der Zee, In order to better understand how users experience space (with the
2014; Bishop & Rohrmann, 2003) and potentially distance estimations aim of potentially integrating this insight into post- and pre-occupancy
(Ziemer, Plumert, & Kearney, 2010). building evaluations), it is necessary to find a common ground in the def-
inition of ‘user experience’ as it relates to user-centered architectural de-
1.3. Prerequisites for using VR as a research tool sign. In human–computer interaction, the term user experience has been

For the question of environmental comparability it is central to accu-

rately simulate ‘naturalistic’ experiences (Bell, Greene, Fisher, & Baum, 1
For an example of current visual realism in games, see, e.g., Alien:Isolation by Creative
2001) in virtual as in real environments. Towards this end traditional Assembly (2014).
2
simulation approaches in environmental psychology have included A more detailed discussion about the relative influences of technological aspects
(e.g., screen size, field of view, level of realism, stereoscopy, level of detail) on spatial com-
sketches, photographs and slide shows (Bateson & Hui, 1992). More re- prehension and presence is outside the scope of the current work; but, Kalisperis,
cently, ‘virtual laboratories’ that translate the key aspects of a naturalis- Muramoto, Balakrishnan, Nikolic, and Zidic (2006), for example, provide an overview.
tic setting to a simulated one in the research lab provide highly- 3
At the time of the studies VR-tools such as Oculus Rift were not yet available.

Please cite this article as: Kuliga, S.F., et al., Virtual reality as an empirical research tool — Exploring user experience in a real building and a
corresponding virtual model, Computers, Environment and Urban Systems (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2015.09.006
 Download English Version:

https://daneshyari.com/en/article/6921951

Download Persian Version:

https://daneshyari.com/article/6921951

Daneshyari.com