This Article 
 Bibliographic References 
 Add to: 
CAVE and Fishtank Virtual-Reality Displays: A Qualitative and Quantitative Comparison
May/June 2006 (vol. 12 no. 3)
pp. 323-330

Abstract—We present the results from a qualitative and quantitative user study comparing fishtank virtual-reality (VR) and CAVE displays. The results of the qualitative study show that users preferred the fishtank VR display to the CAVE system for our scientific visualization application because of perceived higher resolution, brightness and crispness of imagery, and comfort of use. The results of the quantitative study show that users performed an abstract visual search task significantly more quickly and more accurately on the fishtank VR display system than in the CAVE. The same study also showed that visual context had no significant effect on task performance for either of the platforms. We suggest that fishtank VR displays are more effective than CAVEs for applications in which the task occurs outside the user's reference frame, the user views and manipulates the virtual world from the outside in, and the size of the virtual object that the user interacts with is smaller than the user's body and fits into the fishtank VR display. The results of both studies support this proposition.

[1] C. Cruz-Neira, D.J. Sandin, and T.A. DeFanti, “Surround-Screen Projection-Based Virtual Reality: The Design and Implementation of the Cave,” Proc. 20th Ann. Conf. Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, pp. 135-142, 1993.
[2] C. Ware, K. Arthur, and K.S. Booth, “Fish Tank Virtual Reality,” Proc. Conf. Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 37-42 1993.
[3] I. Biederman, A.L. Glass, and E.W. Stacy Jr., “Searching for Objects in Real-World Scenes,” J. Experimental Psychology, vol. 97, no. 1, pp. 22-27, 1973.
[4] J.M. Wolfe, “What Can 1 Million Trials Tell Us about Visual Search?” Psychological Science, vol. 9, pp. 33-39, 1998.
[5] D. Mumford, S.M. Kosslyn, L.A. Hillger, and R.J. Herrnstein, “Discriminating Figure from Ground: The Role of Edge Detection and Region Growing,” Proc. Nat'l Academy of Science, vol. 84, pp. 7354-7358, 1987.
[6] C. Ware and G. Franck, “Evaluating Stereo and Motion Cues for Visualizing Information Nets in Three Dimensions,” ACM Trans. Graphics, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 121-140, Apr. 2000.
[7] K. Arthur, K. Booth, and C. Ware, “Evaluating 3D Task-Performance for Fish Tank Virtual Worlds,” ACM Trans. Information Systems, vol. 11, pp. 239-265, 1993.
[8] R. Pausch, D. Proffitt, and G. Williams, “Quantifying Immersion in Virtual Reality,” Proc. 24th Ann. Conf. Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, pp. 13-18, 1997.
[9] G. Robertson, M. Czerwinski, and M. van Dantzich, “Immersion in Desktop Virtual Reality,” Proc. 10th Ann. ACM Symp. User Interface Software and Technology, pp. 11-19, 1997.
[10] D.A. Bowman, A. Datey, U. Farooq, Y.S. Ryu, and O. Vasnaik, “Empirical Comparisons of Virtual Environment Displays,” Technical Report TR-01-19, Dept. of Computer Science, Virginia Tech., 2001.
[11] S. Zhang, Ç. Demiralp, D. Keefe, M. DaSilva, D.H. Laidlaw, B.D. Greenberg, P. Basser, C. Pierpaoli, E. Chiocca, and T. Deisboeck, “An Immersive Virtual Environment for DT-MRI Volume Visualization Applications: A Case Study,” Proc. Conf. Visualization '01, pp. 437-440, 2001.
[12] W.W. Tryon, “Evaluating Statistical Difference, Equivalence, and Indeterminacy Using Inferential Confidence Intervals: An Integrated Alternative Method of Conducting Null Hypothesis Statistical Tests,” Psychological Methods, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 371-386, 2001.
[13] M.M. Chun, “Contextual Cueing of Visual Attention,” Trends in Cognitive Science, vol. 4, pp. 170-178, 2000.
[14] J.M. Wolfe, A. Oliva, T.S. Horowitz, S.J. Butcher, and A. Bompas, “Segmentation of Objects from Backgrounds in Visual Search Tasks,” Vision Research, vol. 42, pp. 2985-3004, 2002.
[15] D.J. Kasik, J.J. Troy, S.R. Amorosi, M.O. Murray, and S.N. Swamy, “Evaluating Graphics Displays for Complex 3D Models,” IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, vol. 22, pp. 56-64, 2002.
[16] D.H. Laidlaw, M. Kirby, C. Jackson, J.S. Davidson, T. Miller, M. DaSilva, W. Warren, and M. Tarr, “Comparing 2D Vector Field Visualization Methods: A User Study,” IEEE Trans. Visualization and Computer Graphics, vol. 11, pp. 59-70, 2005.

Index Terms:
User study, virtual reality, display, CAVE, fishtank VR, DT-MRI visualization.
?agatay Demiralp, Cullen D. Jackson, David B. Karelitz, Song Zhang, David H. Laidlaw, "CAVE and Fishtank Virtual-Reality Displays: A Qualitative and Quantitative Comparison," IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 323-330, May-June 2006, doi:10.1109/TVCG.2006.42
Usage of this product signifies your acceptance of the Terms of Use.