Usability Comparison between 2D and 3D Control Methods for the Operation of Hovering Objects

被引:1
|
作者
Lee, Daeseong [1 ]
Kim, Hajun [2 ]
Yoon, Heesoo [3 ]
Lee, Wonsup [4 ]
机构
[1] Swen Inc, Seoul 06178, South Korea
[2] Neowiz Inc, AI Res Ctr, Seongnam 13487, South Korea
[3] Meissa Inc, Seoul 06128, South Korea
[4] Handong Global Univ, Sch Global Entrepreneurship & Informat Commun Tec, Pohang 37554, South Korea
基金
新加坡国家研究基金会;
关键词
hovering object; 3D movement; depth camera; hand-gesture interface; eye-hand coordination;
D O I
10.3390/drones7080520
中图分类号
TP7 [遥感技术];
学科分类号
081102 ; 0816 ; 081602 ; 083002 ; 1404 ;
摘要
This paper experimentally analyzed the cognitive load of users based on different methods of operating hovering objects, such as drones. The traditional gamepad-type control method (2D) was compared with a control method that mapped the movement directions of the drone to the natural manipulation gestures of the user using a Leap Motion device (3D). Twenty participants operated the drone on an obstacle course using the two control methods. The drone's trajectory was measured using motion-capture equipment with a reflective marker. The distance traveled by the drone, operation time, and trajectory smoothness were calculated and compared between the two control methods. The results showed that when the drone's movements were mapped to the user's natural directional gestures, the drone's 3D movements were perceived as more natural and smoother. A more intuitive drone control method can reduce cognitive load and minimize operational errors, making it more user friendly and efficient. However, due to the users' lack of familiarity with Leap Motion, it resulted in longer distance and time and lower subjective satisfaction; therefore, a more improved 3D control method over Leap Motion is needed to address the limitations.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] A comparison between 2D and 3D methods of quantifying facial morphology
    Anas, I. Y.
    Bamgbose, B. O.
    Nuhu, Saleh
    HELIYON, 2019, 5 (06)
  • [2] Accuracy Comparison of Roadway Earthwork Computation between 3D and 2D Methods
    Cheng, Jian-chuan
    Jiang, Long-jian
    INTELLIGENT AND INTEGRATED SUSTAINABLE MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS PROCEEDINGS FROM THE 13TH COTA INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF TRANSPORTATION PROFESSIONALS (CICTP2013), 2013, 96 : 1277 - 1285
  • [3] Comparison between 3D and 2D Cephalometric Analyses
    Bholsithi, W.
    Sinthanayothin, C.
    Chintakanon, K.
    Komolpis, R.
    Tharanon, W.
    4TH KUALA LUMPUR INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING 2008, VOLS 1 AND 2, 2008, 21 (1-2): : 540 - +
  • [4] 2D and 3D analysis methods of facial asymmetry in comparison
    Berssenbruegge, Philipp
    Berlin, Nina Franka
    Kebeck, Guenther
    Runte, Christoph
    Jung, Susanne
    Kleinheinz, Johannes
    Dirksen, Dieter
    JOURNAL OF CRANIO-MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, 2014, 42 (06) : E327 - E334
  • [5] Change blindness to 2D and 3D objects
    Gusev, A. N.
    Mikhaylova, A.
    Utochkin, I. S.
    Zakharkinl, D. V.
    PERCEPTION, 2012, 41 : 75 - 75
  • [6] 2D Touching of 3D Stereoscopic Objects
    Valkov, Dimitar
    Steinicke, Frank
    Bruder, Gerd
    Hinrichs, Klaus
    29TH ANNUAL CHI CONFERENCE ON HUMAN FACTORS IN COMPUTING SYSTEMS, 2011, : 1353 - 1362
  • [7] Registration Using Nanotube Stationary Tomosynthesis: Comparison of 3D/3D to 3D/2D Methods
    Frederick, B.
    Lalush, D.
    Chang, S.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2010, 37 (06)
  • [8] Comparison between a 2D froth and a cut of 3D froth
    Oger, L
    Richard, P
    Troadec, JP
    Gervois, A
    POWDERS AND GRAINS 2001, 2001, : 7 - 10
  • [9] Qualitative Comparison of 2D and 3D Atmospheric Corrosion Detection Methods
    De Kerf, Thomas
    Hasheminejad, Navid
    Blom, Johan
    Vanlanduit, Steve
    MATERIALS, 2021, 14 (13)
  • [10] Robust Duplicate Detection of 2D and 3D Objects
    Vajda, Peter
    Ivanov, Ivan
    Goldmann, Lutz
    Lee, Jong-Seok
    Ebrahimi, Touradj
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MULTIMEDIA DATA ENGINEERING & MANAGEMENT, 2010, 1 (03): : 19 - 40