AUTHOR=Maruhn Philipp TITLE=VR Pedestrian Simulator Studies at Home: Comparing Google Cardboards to Simulators in the Lab and Reality JOURNAL=Frontiers in Virtual Reality VOLUME=2 YEAR=2021 URL=https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/virtual-reality/articles/10.3389/frvir.2021.746971 DOI=10.3389/frvir.2021.746971 ISSN=2673-4192 ABSTRACT=

Virtual Reality is commonly applied as a tool for analyzing pedestrian behavior in a safe and controllable environment. Most such studies use high-end hardware such as Cave Automatic Virtual Environments (CAVEs), although, more recently, consumer-grade head-mounted displays have also been used to present these virtual environments. The aim of this study is first of all to evaluate the suitability of a Google Cardboard as low-cost alternative, and then to test subjects in their home environment. Testing in a remote setting would ultimately allow more diverse subject samples to be recruited, while also facilitating experiments in different regions, for example, investigations of cultural differences. A total of 60 subjects (30 female and 30 male) were provided with a Google Cardboard. Half of the sample performed the experiment in a laboratory at the university, the other half at home without an experimenter present. The participants were instructed to install a mobile application to their smartphones, which guided them through the experiment, contained all the necessary questionnaires, and presented the virtual environment in conjunction with the Cardboard. In the virtual environment, the participants stood at the edge of a straight road, on which two vehicles approached with gaps of 1–5 s and at speeds of either 30 or 50 km/h. Participants were asked to press a button to indicate whether they considered the gap large enough to be able to cross safely. Gap acceptance and the time between the first vehicle passing and the button being pressed were recorded and compared with data taken from other simulators and from a real-world setting on a test track. A Bayesian approach was used to analyze the data. Overall, the results were similar to those obtained with the other simulators. The differences between the two Cardboard test conditions were marginal, but equivalence could not be demonstrated with the evaluation method used. It is worth mentioning, however, that in the home setting with no experimenter present, significantly more data points had to be treated or excluded from the analysis.