A Comparative Study of 3 DOF Travel Techniques for Immersive Virtual Flythroughs: The Leap Motion and the Oculus Rift S Hand Controllers

  • Jean-François LapointeEmail author
  • Norman G. Vinson
  • Bruno Emond
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1253)


This paper describes a comparative study of two different 3 degrees-of-freedom (DOF) flythrough techniques for immersive 3D environments. The results of this qualitative study indicate that the use of the Oculus Rift S hand controllers provides a greater usability than the use of Leap Motion free hand gestures system for a simple 3 DOF flythrough travel task inside immersive virtual environments. However, the correction of technical issues with the current Leap Motion free hand gesture recognition system could lead to different results.


Travel techniques Immersive virtual environments Usability Flythrough 



The authors thank all the participants to this study. This experiment has been approved by the Research Ethics Board from the National Research Council of Canada (protocol 2019-134). This research has been funded by the Digital Technologies Research Centre of the National Research Council of Canada.


  1. 1.
    LaViola, Jr., J.J., Kruijff, E., McMahan, R.P., Bowman, D.A., Poupyrev, I.: 3D User Interfaces: Theory and Practice, 2nd edition (2017)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Usoh, M., Arthur K., Whitton, M., Steed, A., Slater M., Brooks, F.: Walking > virtual walking > flying, in virtual environments. In: Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques (SIGGRAPH), pp. 359–364 (1999)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Oberhauser, R., Lecon, C.: Virtual reality flythrough of program code structures. In: Proceedings of the Virtual Reality International Conference - Laval Virtual (VRIC 2017), 22–24 March, Laval, France, 4 p. (2017)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lapointe, J.-F., Savard, P., Vinson, N.G.: A comparative study of four input devices for desktop virtual walkthroughs. Comput. Hum. Behav. 27(6), 2186–2191 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vinson, N.G.: Design guidelines for landmarks to support navigation in virtual environments. In: Proceedings of CHI 1999, pp. 278–285 (1999)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    LaViola Jr., J.J.: A discussion of cybersickness in virtual environments. SIGCHI Bulletin 32, 47–56 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    ISO/IEC Joint Technical Committee (JTC) 1, Information technology, Subcommittee (SC) 7, Software and systems engineering. Systems and software engineering — Software product Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE) — Common Industry Format (CIF) for usability: User needs report. ISO/IEC-25064:2013(E), International Organization for Standardization/ International Electrotechnical Commission (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brooke, J.: SUS: a “quick and dirty” usability scale. In: Jordan, P.W., Thomas, B., Weerdmeester, B.A., McClelland, A.L. (Eds.) Usability Evaluation in Industry. London: Taylor & Francis, London, UK, pp. 189–194 (1996)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sauro, J., Lewis, J.R.: Quantifying the user experience - practical statistics for user research, 2nd edn. Morgan Kaufmann publishers (2016)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brooke, J.: SUS: a retrospective. J. Usability Stud. 8(2), 29–40 (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jean-François Lapointe
    • 1
    Email author
  • Norman G. Vinson
    • 1
  • Bruno Emond
    • 1
  1. 1.National Research Council of Canada, Digital Technologies, Human-Computer InteractionOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations