This Article 
   
 Share 
   
 Bibliographic References 
   
 Add to: 
 
Digg
Furl
Spurl
Blink
Simpy
Google
Del.icio.us
Y!MyWeb
 
 Search 
   
A Comparative Study of Desktop, Fishtank, and Cave Systems for the Exploration of Volume Rendered Confocal Data Sets
May/June 2008 (vol. 14 no. 3)
pp. 551-563
We present a participant study that compares biological exploration tasks using volume renderings of laser confocal microscopy data across three environments which vary in level of immersion. For the tasks, data, and visualization approach used in our study, we found that subjects qualitatively preferred and quantitatively performed better in environments with greater levels of immersion. Subjects performed real-world biological data analysis tasks that emphasized understanding spatial relationships including characterizing the general features in a volume, identifying co-located features, and reporting geometric relationships such as whether clusters of cells were coplanar. After analyzing data in each environment, subjects were asked to choose which environment they wanted to analyze additional data sets in-- subjects uniformly selected the Cave environment.

[1] L. Arns, C. Cruz-Neira, and D. Cook, “The Benefits of Statistical Visualization in an Immersive Environment,” Proc. IEEE Virtual Reality (VR '99), vol. 88, 1999.
[2] K.W. Arthur, K.S. Booth, and C. Ware, “Evaluating 3D Task-Performance for Fish Tank Virtual Worlds,” ACM Trans. Information Systems, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 239-265, 1993.
[3] E. Bangi and K.A. Wharton, “Dpp and Gbb Exhibit Different Effective Ranges in the Establishment of the BMP Activity Gradient Critical for Drosophila Wing Patterning,” Developmental Biology, vol. 295, pp. 178-193, 2006.
[4] D. Bowman and D. Raja, “A Method for Quantifying the Benefits of Immersion Using the CAVE,” Presence-Connect, vol. 4, no. 2, 2004.
[5] J.R. Brotons-Mas, S. O'Mara, and M.V. Sanchez-Vives, “Neural Processing of Spatial Information: What We Know about Place Cells and What They Can Tell Us about Presence,” Presence-Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 485-499, 2006.
[6] 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.
[7] C. Demiralp, C.D. Jackson, D.B. Karelitz, S. Zhang, and D.H. Laidlaw, “CAVE and Fishtank Virtual-Reality Displays: A Qualitative and Quantitative Comparison,” IEEE Trans. Visualization and Computer Graphics, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 323-330, May/June 2006.
[8] K. Gruchalla, “Immersive Well-Path Editing: Investigating the Added Value of Immersion,” Proc. IEEE Virtual Reality (VR '04), Mar. 2004.
[9] C.M. Jarque and A.K. Bera, “Efficient Tests for Normality, Homoscedasticity and Serial Independence of Regression Residuals,” Economics Letters, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 255-259, 1980.
[10] P. Johansson and A. Ynnerman, “Immersive Visual Interfaces-Assessing Usability by the Effects of Learning/Results from an Empirical Study,” J. Computing and Information Science in Eng., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 124-131, 2004.
[11] W.H. Kruskal and W. Allen Wallis, “Use of Ranks in One-Criterion Variance Analysis,” J. Am. Statistical Assoc., vol. 47, no. 260, pp. 583-621, Dec. 1952.
[12] K. Mania and A. Chalmers, “The Effects of Levels of Immersion on Memory and Presence in Virtual Environments: A Reality Centered Approach,” Cyberpsychology and Behavior, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 247-264, 2001.
[13] R.P. McMahan, D. Gorton, J. Gresock, W. McConnell, and D.A. Bowman, “Separating the Effects of Level of Immersion and 3D Interaction Techniques,” Proc. ACM Symp. Virtual Reality Software and Technology, 2006.
[14] D.W. Mizell, S.P. Jones, M. Slater, and B. Spanlang, Comparing Immersive Virtual Reality with Other Display Modes for Visualizing Complex 3D Geometry, http://www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/research/vr/Projects/ Immersion/Experiment2paper.pdf, 2002.
[15] T. Ni, D.A. Bowman, and J. Chen, “Increased Display Size and Resolution Improve Task Performance in Information-Rich Virtual Environments,” Proc. Conf. Graphics Interface, 2006.
[16] C. North, “Visualization Viewpoints: Toward Measuring Visualization Insight,” IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 6-9, May/June 2006.
[17] N.F. Polys, S. Kim, and D.A. Bowman, “Effects of Information Layout, Screen Size, and Field of View on User Performance in Information-Rich Virtual Environments,” Proc. ACM Symp. Virtual Reality Software and Technology, 2005.
[18] D. Raja, D. Bowman, J. Lucas, and C. North, “Exploring the Benefits of Immersion in Abstract Information Visualization,” Proc. Immersive Projection Technology Workshop, 2004.
[19] M.V. Sanchez-Vives and M. Slater, “From Presence to Consciousness through Virtual Reality,” Nature Revs. Neuroscience, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 332-339, 2005.
[20] P. Saraiya, C. North, and K. Duca, “An Insight-Based Longitudinal Study of Visual Analytics,” IEEE Trans. Visualization and Computer Graphics, vol. 12, no. 6, Nov./Dec. 2006.
[21] P. Saraiya, C. North, and K. Duca, “An Insight-Based Methodology for Evaluating Bioinformatics Visualizations,” IEEE Trans. Visualization and Computer Graphics, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 443-456, July/Aug. 2005.
[22] J.P. Schulze, DeskVOX, http:/deskvox.sourceforget.net, 2007.
[23] J.P. Schulze, A.S. Forsberg, and M. Slater, “Analysis of Subject Behavior in a Virtual Reality User Study,” Proc. Eighth Ann. Int'l Workshop Presence (Presence '05), Slater M, ed., pp. 255-260, 2005.
[24] A. Sutcliffe, B. Gault, and J.E. Shin, “Presence, Memory and Interaction in Virtual Environments,” Int'l J. Human-Computer Studies, vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 307-327, 2005.
[25] D.S. Tan, D. Gergle, P. Scupelli, and R. Pausch, “Physically Large Displays Improve Performance on Spatial Tasks,” ACM Trans. Computer-Human Interaction, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 71-99, Mar. 2006.
[26] M. Usoh et al., “Walking $>$ Walking-in-Place $>$ Flying, in Virtual Environments,” Proc. SIGGRAPH, pp. 359-364, 1999.

Index Terms:
Virtual reality, Evaluation/methodology, Applications
Citation:
Prabhat, Andrew Forsberg, Michael Katzourin, Kristi Wharton, Mel Slater, "A Comparative Study of Desktop, Fishtank, and Cave Systems for the Exploration of Volume Rendered Confocal Data Sets," IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 551-563, May-June 2008, doi:10.1109/TVCG.2007.70433
Usage of this product signifies your acceptance of the Terms of Use.