Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
129 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
28 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
42 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Touching the Moon: Leveraging Passive Haptics, Embodiment and Presence for Operational Assessments in Virtual Reality (2402.15694v1)

Published 24 Feb 2024 in cs.HC

Abstract: Space agencies are in the process of drawing up carefully thought-out Concepts of Operations (ConOps) for future human missions on the Moon. These are typically assessed and validated through costly and logistically demanding analogue field studies. While interactive simulations in Virtual Reality (VR) offer a comparatively cost-effective alternative, they have faced criticism for lacking the fidelity of real-world deployments. This paper explores the applicability of passive haptic interfaces in bridging the gap between simulated and real-world ConOps assessments. Leveraging passive haptic props (equipment mockup and astronaut gloves), we virtually recreated the Apollo 12 mission procedure and assessed it with experienced astronauts and other space experts. Quantitative and qualitative findings indicate that haptics increased presence and embodiment, thus improving perceived simulation fidelity and validity of user reflections. We conclude by discussing the potential role of passive haptic modalities in facilitating early-stage ConOps assessments for human endeavours on the Moon and beyond.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (78)
  1. Evaluation of dual multi-mission space exploration vehicle operations during simulated planetary surface exploration. Acta Astronautica 90, 2 (2013), 203–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2012.02.022
  2. The Role of Interaction in Virtual Embodiment: Effects of the Virtual Hand Representation. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR’16). IEEE, Greenville, SC, USA, 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1109/VR.2016.7504682
  3. Axiom Space. 2023. The Next-Generation Spacesuit. https://www.axiomspace.com/axiom-suit
  4. Using Operational Scenarios in a Virtual Reality Enhanced Design Process. Education Sciences 11, 8 (2021), 448–465. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11080448
  5. Haptic Retargeting: Dynamic Repurposing of Passive Haptics for Enhanced Virtual Reality Experiences. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1968–1979. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858226
  6. Development of alternative reality environments for spacecraft habitat design evaluation. Virtual Reality 25, 2 (6 2021), 399–408. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10055-020-00462-6/METRICS
  7. An Empirical Evaluation of the System Usability Scale. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447310802205776 24, 6 (8 2008), 574–594. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447310802205776
  8. Assessing the Acceptability of Science Operations Concepts and the Level of Mission Enhancement of Capabilities for Human Mars Exploration Extravehicular Activity. Astrobiology 19, 3 (2019), 321–346. https://doi.org/10.1089/ast.2018.1912
  9. Using Science-Driven Analog Research to Investigate Extravehicular Activity Science Operations Concepts and Capabilities for Human Planetary Exploration. Astrobiology 19, 3 (2019), 300–320. https://doi.org/10.1089/ast.2018.1861
  10. Mission enhancing capabilities for science-driven exploration extravehicular activity derived from the NASA BASALT research program. Planetary and Space Science 193 (2020), 105003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pss.2020.105003
  11. Training Safe and Effective Spaceflight Operations Using Terrestrial Analogues. In Space Safety is No Accident. Springer, Cham, Friedrichshafen, Germany, 313–318. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15982-9{_}37
  12. Olaf Blanke and Thomas Metzinger. 2009. Full-body illusions and minimal phenomenal selfhood. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 13, 1 (1 2009), 7–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.10.003
  13. Matthew Botvinick and Jonathan Cohen. 1998. Rubber hands ‘feel’ touch that eyes see. Nature 391, 6669 (1998), 756. https://doi.org/10.1038/35784
  14. John Brooke. 1996. SUS: A ’Quick and Dirty’ Usability Scale. In Usability Evaluation In Industry. CRC Press, London, United Kingdom, 207–212. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781498710411-35
  15. Lunar analogue facilities development at EAC: the LUNA project. Journal of Space Safety Engineering 7, 4 (12 2020), 510–518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsse.2020.05.002
  16. David Coan. 2020. Exploration EVA System Concept of Operations. Technical Report. NASA, Los Altos. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20205008200
  17. Interviews with the Apollo lunar surface astronauts in support of planning for EVA systems design. Technical Report. NASA, Los Altos.
  18. Characterizing embodied interaction in First and Third Person Perspective viewpoints. In 2015 IEEE Symposium on 3D User Interfaces (3DUI). IEEE, Arles, France, 67–72. https://doi.org/10.1109/3DUI.2015.7131728
  19. Towards “Avatar-Friendly” 3D Manipulation Techniques: Bridging the Gap Between Sense of Embodiment and Interaction in Virtual Reality. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’21). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445379
  20. Dean B Eppler. 1991. Lighting constraints on lunar surface operations. Technical Report. NASA.
  21. The Effects of Body Tracking Fidelity on Embodiment of an Inverse-Kinematic Avatar for Male Participants. In 2020 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR). IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, 54–63. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISMAR50242.2020.00025
  22. Can Wearable Haptic Devices Foster the Embodiment of Virtual Limbs? IEEE Transactions on Haptics 12, 3 (7 2019), 339–349. https://doi.org/10.1109/TOH.2018.2889497
  23. Quantitative and Qualitative Exploration of the Effect of a Wearable Item on Non-Organic Virtual Limb Embodiment and User Behavior in Immersive Environments. PRESENCE: Virtual and Augmented Reality 30 (12 2021), 213–231. https://doi.org/10.1162/pres{_}a{_}00389
  24. From robot to virtual doppelganger: Impact of visual fidelity of avatars controlled in third-person perspective on embodiment and behavior in immersive virtual environments. Frontiers Robotics AI 6, FEB (2 2019), 412036. https://doi.org/10.3389/FROBT.2019.00008/BIBTEX
  25. Using Virtual Reality for Science Missions At The Lunar South Pole. Technical Report. NASA.
  26. Sandra G. Hart. 2006. Nasa-Task Load Index (NASA-TLX); 20 Years Later. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting 50, 9 (10 2006), 904–908. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120605000909
  27. Passive Real-World Interface Props for Neurosurgical Visualization. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’94). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 452–458. https://doi.org/10.1145/191666.191821
  28. H.G. Hoffman. 1998. Physically touching virtual objects using tactile augmentation enhances the realism of virtual environments. In Proceedings. IEEE 1998 Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium (Cat. No.98CB36180) (VR’98). IEEE Comput. Soc, Atlanta, GA, USA, 59–63. https://doi.org/10.1109/VRAIS.1998.658423
  29. Is This My Hand I See Before Me? The Rubber Hand Illusion in Reality, Virtual Reality, and Mixed Reality. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 15, 4 (8 2006), 455–464. https://doi.org/10.1162/PRES.15.4.455
  30. Brent Edward Insko. 2001. Passive Haptics Significantly Enhances Virtual Environments. Ph. D. Dissertation. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. http://www.cs.unc.edu/Research/eve/dissertations/2001-Insko.pdf
  31. Riitta Jääskeläinen. 2002. Think-aloud protocol studies into translation. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 14, 1 (12 2002), 107–136. https://doi.org/10.1075/TARGET.14.1.05JAA
  32. Jason Jerald. 2015. The VR Book. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/2792790
  33. ”Do You Feel in Control?”: Towards Novel Approaches to Characterise, Manipulate and Measure the Sense of Agency in Virtual Environments. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 24, 4 (4 2018), 1486–1495. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2018.2794598
  34. L. Jones. 2000. Kinesthetic Sensing. In Workshop on Human and Machine Haptics. MIT Press, Pacific Grove, CA, 1–10.
  35. The Sense of Embodiment in Virtual Reality. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 21, 4 (12 2012), 373–387. https://doi.org/10.1162/PRES{_}a{_}00124
  36. Luv Kohli. 2013. Redirected Touching. Ph. D. Dissertation. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. http://www.cs.unc.edu/techreports/13-002.pdf
  37. Elena Kokkinara and Mel Slater. 2019. Measuring the Effects through Time of the Influence of Visuomotor and Visuotactile Synchronous Stimulation on a Virtual Body Ownership Illusion. https://doi.org/10.1068/p7545 43, 1 (5 2019), 43–58. https://doi.org/10.1068/P7545
  38. Anatole Lécuyer. 2009. Simulating Haptic Feedback Using Vision: A Survey of Research and Applications of Pseudo-Haptic Feedback. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 18, 1 (2 2009), 39–53. https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.18.1.39
  39. Susan J Lederman and Roberta L Klatzky. 2009. Haptic Perception: A Tutorial. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 71, 7 (2009), 1439–1459.
  40. Kwan Min Lee. 2004. Presence, Explicated. Communication Theory 14, 1 (2 2004), 27–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1468-2885.2004.TB00302.X
  41. Robert William Lindeman. 1999. Bimanual Interaction, Passive-Haptic Feedback, 3D Widget Representation, and Simulated Surface Constraints for Interaction In Immersive Virtual Environments. Ph. D. Dissertation. The George Washington University. https://icg.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs1481/f/lindeman_thesis.pdf
  42. L D Marrus and Bendix Corporation. Aerospace Systems Division. 1968. ALSEP Configuration C One-man Deployment Task Sequence. Technical Report. Bendix Aerospace. https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/ALSEP/pdf/ALSEP%20%23258%20-%20OneManDeployTaskSeq_ATM%20739.pdf
  43. The Benefits of Passive Haptics and Perceptual Manipulation for Extended Reality Interactions in Constrained Passenger Spaces. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Hamburg, Germany, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3581079
  44. “Haptics On-Demand”: A Survey on Encountered-Type Haptic Displays. IEEE Transactions on Haptics 14, 3 (7 2021), 449–464. https://doi.org/10.1109/TOH.2021.3061150
  45. Operational Assessment of Apollo Lunar Surface Extravehicular Activity. Technical Report. NASA. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20170007261
  46. Haptic Fidelity Framework: Defining the Factors of Realistic Haptic Feedback for Virtual Reality. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’22). ACM, New Orleans, LA, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3501953
  47. Mission Operations Branch Flight Crew Division NASA. 1969. Apollo 12 Technical Crew Debriefing. Technical Report. NASA. https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/a12tecdbrf.html
  48. 15 Years of Research on Redirected Walking in Immersive Virtual Environments. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 38, 2 (3 2018), 44–56. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCG.2018.111125628
  49. Propping Up Virtual Reality With Haptic Proxies. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 41, 5 (9 2021), 104–112. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCG.2021.3097671
  50. Using Virtual Reality to Shape Humanity’s Return to the Moon: Key Takeaways from a Design Study. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Vol. 16. ACM, Hamburg, Germany, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3580718
  51. Using Virtual Reality to Design and Evaluate a Lunar Lander: The EL3 Case Study. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts (CHI EA ’22). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491101.3519775
  52. Jeffrey Osterlund and Brad Lawrence. 2012. Virtual reality: Avatars in human spaceflight training. Acta Astronautica 71 (2012), 139–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2011.08.011
  53. Julie Pallant. 2020. SPSS Survival Manual. Routledge, London, UK. 361 pages. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003117452
  54. Virtual skills training: the role of presence and agency. Heliyon 5, 11 (11 2019), e02583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02583
  55. Redirected Walking. In Proceedings of the Eurographics Conference – Short Presentations (EG’01). Eurographics Association, London, UK, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.2312/egs.20011036
  56. Daniel Roth and Marc Erich Latoschik. 2020. Construction of the Virtual Embodiment Questionnaire (VEQ). IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 26, 12 (12 2020), 3546–3556. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2020.3023603
  57. Pseudo-Haptic Weight: Changing the Perceived Weight of Virtual Objects By Manipulating Control-Display Ratio. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300550
  58. Speleology as an analogue to space exploration: The ESA CAVES training programme. Acta Astronautica 184 (7 2021), 150–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2021.04.003
  59. Harrison H. Schmitt. 2009. From the Moon to Mars. Scientific American 301, 1 (7 2009), 36–43.
  60. Thomas W. Schubert. 2003. The sense of presence in virtual environments: A three-component scale measuring spatial presence, involvement, and realness. Zeitschrift für Medienpsychologie 15, 2 (4 2003), 69–71. https://doi.org/10.1026//1617-6383.15.2.69
  61. Human-in-the-Loop Evaluations: Process and Mockup Fidelity. In 51st International Conference on Environmental Systems. 51st International Conference on Environmental Systems, Saint Paul, Minnesota, US, 1–13. https://hdl.handle.net/2346/89696
  62. The Space Bender: Supporting Natural Walking via Overt Manipulation of the Virtual Environment. In 2020 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR) (VR’20). IEEE, Atlanta, GA, USA, 598–606. https://doi.org/10.1109/VR46266.2020.00082
  63. Mel Slater. 1999. Measuring Presence: A Response to the Witmer and Singer Presence Questionnaire. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 8, 5 (10 1999), 560–565. https://doi.org/10.1162/105474699566477
  64. Mel Slater. 2003. A Note on Presence Terminology.
  65. Mel Slater. 2009. Place illusion and plausibility can lead to realistic behaviour in immersive virtual environments. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 364 (2009), 3549 – 3557.
  66. Inducing illusory ownership of a virtual body. Frontiers in Neuroscience 3, SEP (9 2009), 214–220. https://doi.org/10.3389/NEURO.01.029.2009/BIBTEX
  67. Mel Slater and Sylvia Wilbur. 1997. A Framework for Immersive Virtual Environments (FIVE): Speculations on the Role of Presence in Virtual Environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 6, 6 (12 1997), 603–616. https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.1997.6.6.603
  68. Mandayam A Srinivasan and Cagatay Basdogan. 1997. Haptics in Virtual Environments: Taxonomy, Research Status, and Challenges. Computers & Graphics 21, 4 (1997), 393–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0097-8493(97)00030-7
  69. The lunar environment. In Lunar Sourcebook. Vol. 1. Cambridge University Press Cambridge, Cambridge, UK, 27–60.
  70. The Influence of Passive Haptic Feedback and Difference Interaction Metaphors on Presence and Task Performance. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 19, 3 (6 2010), 197–212. https://doi.org/10.1162/PRES.19.3.197
  71. Multimodal Haptic Display for Virtual Reality: A Survey. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics 67, 1 (1 2020), 610–623. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2019.2920602
  72. Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Reality: Challenges and Research Directions. IEEE Access 9 (2021), 112145–112162. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3103598
  73. Bob G. Witmer and Michael J. Singer. 1998. Measuring Presence in Virtual Environments: A Presence Questionnaire. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 7, 3 (6 1998), 225–240. https://doi.org/10.1162/105474698565686
  74. André Zenner. 2022. Advancing Proxy-Based Haptic Feedback in Virtual Reality. Ph. D. Dissertation. Saarland University. http://dx.doi.org/10.22028/D291-37879
  75. Andre Zenner and Antonio Kruger. 2017. Shifty: A Weight-Shifting Dynamic Passive Haptic Proxy to Enhance Object Perception in Virtual Reality. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 23, 4 (4 2017), 1285–1294. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2017.2656978
  76. André Zenner and Antonio Krüger. 2019. Drag:On: A Virtual Reality Controller Providing Haptic Feedback Based on Drag and Weight Shift. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300441
  77. Andre Zenner and Antonio Kruger. 2019. Estimating Detection Thresholds for Desktop-Scale Hand Redirection in Virtual Reality. In 2019 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR) (VR’19). IEEE, Osaka, Japan, 47–55. https://doi.org/10.1109/VR.2019.8798143
  78. Combining Dynamic Passive Haptics and Haptic Retargeting for Enhanced Haptic Feedback in Virtual Reality. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 27, 5 (5 2021), 2627–2637. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2021.3067777

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Summarize Now