A Study on Gesture Interaction with a 3D Audio Display Georgios - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶

Oct 29, 2022 414 likes •563 views

A Study on Gesture Interaction with a 3D Audio Display Georgios Marentakis Stephen Brewster http://www.audioclouds.org Motivation for Gesture Controlled Spatial Audio Displays Research Visual Display Limitations Use Audio, Spatial

SLIDE 1

Georgios Marentakis Stephen Brewster

A Study on Gesture Interaction with a 3D Audio Display

http://www.audioclouds.org

SLIDE 2

Motivation for Gesture Controlled Spatial Audio Displays Research

Visual Display Limitations
Use Audio, Spatial Audio
Conventional Input Devices (Mouse,

Keyboard) are hard to use when mobile

Use gestures

SLIDE 3

Literature Review

Cohen et al, Audio Windows, Interacting

with spatial sound, pointing, moving and grabbing sound, filtears

Schmandt et al, Nomadic Radio, Audio

Hallway, Dynamic Soundscape

Brewster et al, Auditory Pie Menus

SLIDE 4

Announcement

Weather forecast

Background task Radio

Interface Design

Substitute/Augment Visual Display with a

gesture controlled Auditory Display

SLIDE 5

Spatial Sound -> Ambiguity

Auditory Perception of Space is less

accurate than the Visual Counterpart

Non-Individualized Ear Measurements
Performance improves with experience,

most experiments done with trained listeners

Ideally …

SLIDE 6

Browsing & Selecting Experiment

Effect of Interaction Technique
Effect of Sound Position
Effect of Feedback
Effective Selection Angles
Real Time Orientation Update
On Target Audio Feedback/No Feedback
Three interaction techniques for browsing and

selecting a sound.

Features We look for

SLIDE 7

Interaction

Browsing Selecting

Getting Feedback Orientation Update On Target Confirmation

SLIDE 8

Experiment Design

Independent Variables

Three interaction

methods

Feedback vs. No

Feedback (Between Subjects)

8 sound positions,

random order

Dependent Variables

Effective Selection Angle (Two Down - One Up Procedure) Angular Deviation from Target

SLIDE 9

Procedure

Twelve participants: five females, seven males Age span: 19 to 30. Participants had no experience in interacting with a spatial audio display

SLIDE 10

Effective Selection Angle - Feedback

Interaction Technique F2, 22 = 10.777, p< 0.001 Sound Location not Significant – Participants were facing the sound

LOCATION

360 270 225 180 135 90 45

Mean Effective Angle

14 12 10 8 6 4 2 Tablet Hand Head

Tablet significantly more accurate No difference between hand and head Only 1 out of 3 participants could complete the no feedback case. It took much longer, but accuracy was comparable.

SLIDE 11

Deviation analysis

Head270 Head180 Head90 Head0 Hand270 Hand180 Hand90 Hand0 Tablet270 Tablet180 Tablet90 Tablet0

Mean Deviation +- 1 SD

30 20 10

Interaction Method F2,192 = 7.463, p < 0.001 Sound Position F7,672 = 7.987, p < 0.001 225° != 0°, 45°, 90°, 135°, 270°, 315° 180° != 45°, 270°, 315°

SLIDE 12

Ease of Use & Comfort

Head Hand Tablet

Mean Ease of Use Ratings

7.5 7.0 6.5 6.0 5.5 5.0 4.5 Head Hand Tablet

Mean Comfort Ratings

7.5 7.0 6.5 6.0 5.5 5.0 4.5

Tablet significantly harder to use No statistical difference between hand and head

SLIDE 13

Conclusion

Effective angle is interaction method dependent
Tablet significantly better but not preferable from

users, unnatural.

Hand based interaction ineffective for sound

locations in the back of a user

On Target Cue very Important
Real Time Orientation Update Cue quite

demanding

SLIDE 14

Future Work

Sound Design
Display Design
Multiple Sounds
Feedback
Navigation