Name ___________________________________________
Address ___________________________________________
___________________________________________
City __________________ State ___________________
Zip Code _____________ Country __________________
email _____________________________________________
phone __________________ fax ____________________
Thanks to Dr. Diane Kester and her students, the Virtual Reality and Education
Laboratory (VREL) now has a home page. Visit us at
http://150.216.8.1/vr/vrel.htm. Although we are still, as they say,
"under construction", we believe you will find a number of
interesting items as well as some useful links. Please advise us of other
links that you think we should consider adding.
This issue of _VR in the Schools_ features two major articles, "Using Virtual
Environments in Special Education," by John Cromby, Penny Standen, and David
Brown, and "Increasing Research and Development of Virtual Reality in Education
and Special Education: What About Mental Retardation?" by Melissa Salem Darrow.
Andreas Schaefer and Gonzalo Velez Jahn raise many thought-provoking questions.
If you respond, we can begin a letters to the editor column.
Co-editors
Dr. Lawrence Auld
email:
Dr. Veronica S. Pantelidis
email: lspantel@ecuvm.cis.ecu.edu
Our virtual worlds are built by a psychologist working closely with a
programmer at all stages of the construction process, so that important
decisions about the finished virtual environment are taken jointly. These
decisions involve striking an acceptable balance between detail or
verisimilitude and speed or smoothness of interaction, and at the same time
taking account of educational issues such as:
When educational VE are intended for use by students with severe learning
disabilities, additional considerations arise because of the specific deficits
associated with this condition. Issues such as redundancy of information,
speed of presentation, and the relative dominance of different sensory channels
must all be considered. So, just as decisions involving educational content
have programming implications, what may appear to be purely design decisions
may also have significant educational effects. A programmer and a psychologist
working together are able to address these issues synergistically and to
produce virtual environments tailored closely to the educational needs of their
intended users.
Self-directed activity: VE encourage self-directed activity because they give a large amount of control over what happens to the student. Self-directed activity is important in the developmental- psychological theories of Piaget, Vygotsky, and Bruner. It has also been shown to play an important part in the development of perceptual abilities. Students with learning disabilities typically have very little control over the circumstances of their daily lives; not surprisingly, then, they are often described as passive and lacking in curiosity and motivation. Properly used, VE give these students a rare chance to initiate actions for themselves and to take control over aspects of their own learning.
Play: VE make it possible for students with learning disabilities to learn by making mistakes without suffering the real consequences of their errors. For non-learning disabled children, play fulfils this function, but a combination of protective parenting, prejudice, and discrimination, plus the effects of physical and sensory impairments, means that learning disabled students' access to play is usually limited. In VE, by contrast, students with learning disabilities can have the freedom to take risks, to do something unusual or new, simply to see what happens, literally to find out for themselves what lies around the next corner.
Abstract thinking: In VE, rules, concepts, and relationships can be conveyed without the need to use any abstract symbols. Objects in VE have what William Bricken called "natural semantics" -- their qualities can be discovered by direct interaction and experience, just like in the real world. We all struggle to think in abstract or conceptual terms, but students with learning disabilities seem to have a particular problem in this area. These students are often described as "concrete thinkers", largely unable to comprehend abstract ideas or to move beyond the immediate context of learning. By making it possible to learn through practical activity, VE might diminish the need for a mode of thinking which students with learning disabilities find especially difficult.
Physical impairments: Provided they are accessed through a carefully designed interface and use an appropriate input device, VE can minimise the effects of many physical disabilities. Despite any physical impairments or mobility problems, students can travel and navigate at will in a virtual environment, with no need to use potentially stigmatising mobility aids such as wheelchairs. VE might allow physically impaired people with learning disabilities literally to adopt new perspectives and new roles: to see how the world looks from a standing perspective rather than from a wheelchair, or to take part in activities or visit places which in real life are inaccessible to them.
Consistent feedback: In common with other computer-based teaching tools VE do not tire of students attempting the same task over and over again, nor get impatient because students get engrossed in particular details. VE respond to students in predictable ways and always give consistent feedback. This is especially important for students with learning disabilities, who often receive ambiguous or dishonest feedback from others.
Empowerment: These features of VE combine to make them a uniquely empowering educational tool. This is a vital point, since there is much evidence that students and adults with learning disabilities are a uniquely disadvantaged group whose disempowerment extends to every area of their lives. By giving control to the learner, facilitating playful activity, avoiding abstract language, negating or minimising the effects of physical impairments, and ensuring that feedback is consistent and appropriate, VE can be an empowering medium for students with learning disabilities, allowing them to practise and acquire new skills.
The ability of VE to empower students with learning disabilities is illustrated by an incident which occurred during our research. Teachers reported how a group of students exploring an experiential virtual environment called "House World" had been unable to make water flow from the taps in the kitchen. With no prompting from staff, the students decided to go back to a room they had visited earlier which contained a phone, and call for a plumber. When they later returned to the virtual kitchen and found that they were now able to make the taps work, they decided that their "phone call" was responsible. A random misplacement of the cursor on the screen, which caused them to fail to work the virtual tap correctly in the first instance, led to the spontaneous joint construction and playing out of a narrative in which these severely learning disabled students assumed the relatively powerful role of responsible housekeepers, able to use the telephone to make complex household arrangements.
On this basis 23 students were included in the study. They were taken to a real supermarket and asked to carry out a shopping task which involved selecting four items from the shelves (matching them against a "shopping list" which contained pictures of the items) and taking them to the checkout. We recorded both the time it took them to do this and the number of items they got correct. For each student, teachers then completed the "Vineland Adaptive Behaviour Scale", a measure of ability, and on the basis of these questionnaires two groups of equal average ability were formed.
The experimental group then had twice weekly sessions using the virtual supermarket, whilst the control group were permitted to use other experiential VE (house, city, ski slope) but not the supermarket. Whilst using the virtual supermarket, the performance of the experimental group was closely monitored. As well as recording the time taken for each successive trial, their searcher also recorded the amount of time each student spent not looking at the screen as a quantitative measure of engagement with the task.
The virtual supermarket consisted of a two-aisle store, and its shelves were filled with a representative selection of goods found in the local supermarket. After an average of six successive trials, the experimental group ceased to improve their performance with one layout of goods on the shelves. At this point we introduced four more layouts, using the same goods but in different places. This was to prevent the students from simply learning the order of items as they went around the supermarket, forcing them, instead, to recognise items by their appearance and packaging. In the last two days before the return visit to the real supermarket, students in the control group played a game with the shopping lists to ensure that they were not disadvantaged in familiarity with the shopping lists when they returned to the real supermarket for the second real shopping trip.
The second visit to the real supermarket involved simply repeating the original shopping task. Before the results were analysed the performance of individual students in the experimental group was examined. Two students, who had spent large amounts of time not engaged with the task, had failed to show any significant performance gain in the virtual supermarket. If no learning had taken place, there would obviously be nothing to generalise, so these two students were excluded from the analysis. The analysis showed that the students who had used the virtual supermarket were significantly faster and significantly more accurate on the return visit to the real supermarket than the control group. On average, the experimental group were five minutes quicker on the return visit. They also averaged more items correct than the control group, a result which cannot be explained by them simply placing more goods in their trolleys since they also got significantly closer to the target value of four items on arrival at the checkout.
One of the more important claims made for VE in education is that they promote self-directed activity by students. To examine this question we used videotape to record interactions between staff and students with severe learning disabilities whilst using VE. Eighteen teacher-student pairs had between 4 and 10 twice-weekly sessions using a series of VE to assist in the teaching of Makaton sign language. The order in which the students proceeded through the programmes, the number of sections that they explored, the number of times each section was explored, and the length of the sessions were all left entirely to the teacher or student.
Analysis of the videotapes showed significant decreases in time over repeated sessions for all of the teachers' activities, with the more didactic categories (such as instruction and physical guidance) decreasing at a faster rate than more open-ended assistance, such as suggestion or pointing. For the students, a significant increase in learning speed was found for each of the categories into which their self-directed activities were coded. By the end of the study, the students also showed a significant increase in the number of Makaton symbols that they knew.
Research in progress: We have now developed a bigger virtual supermarket with more aisles and a much wider selection of goods, which we are using to investigate which of the many abilities involved in successful shopping are most improved by using a virtual environment. Using the result of this research, we hope to further refine and optimise the supermarket program for educational use by learning- disabled students.
We are also in the final stages of constructing a virtual model of the school where our research takes place. One purpose of this is to allow mobility- impaired, learning-disabled students to practice using an electric wheelchair in the virtual school before they do so in real life. Usually, students take about two weeks to learn to drive their new electric wheelchairs effectively, and for them this is a frustrating and disappointing experience, since it comes just when they expect to become independent. It also puts pressure on the school staff, since the students need continual supervision whilst they are learning if they are not to get trapped in doorways or at the ends of corridors.
So that students can practice wheelchair driving, the virtual school has a viewpoint programmed into it with the same dimensions and properties as a wheelchair, and the chair suppliers have provided us with a joystick controller from one of their chairs which is being patched into the computer, to mimic better the physical feedback of a real wheelchair.
This virtual environment will also enable a wide range of research. Further studies of generalisation can be conducted easily, and the use of the virtual school to assist in the teaching of a variety of specific skills and competencies can be assessed relatively easily.
Our research so far has shown that desktop VE can be used successfully to teach important life skills to students with severe learning disabilities. Also, we have demonstrated one of the more important claims made for VE, that they promote self-directed activity by students. In addition, we have begun to develop a firm theoretical base for our work, enabling us to integrate both our research methodology and the design of our VE with concepts and approaches common in special education and developmental psychology.
Dr. Penny Standen is Director of Research and Deputy Head of the Department of Learning Disabilities at the University of Nottingham. Telephone: 0115-970-9247
Dr. David Brown is Director of Educational Applications and is a member of VIRART (Virtual Reality Applications and Research Team) in the Department of Occupational Ergonomics at the University of Nottingham. Telephone: 0115-951-4040
Drs. Cromby, Standen, and Brown may be addressed in their respective departments at The University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD, England.
Exploration of the use of VR technology for persons with a variety of disabilities has continued, and many applications have been put into practice. While a great deal of discussion continues regarding the promising future of using this technology with persons with mental retardation and other cognitive impairments (Vanderheiden & Mendenhall,1993; Middleton, 1992), research on actual VR applications for this population has been disappointingly limited. The following section summarizes some recent developments in research on virtual reality, cognitive disabilities and learning that point to a need for development of new applications based on developer/educator collaboration in addressing unique learning characteristics.
A. Physical Disabilities ACCESSIBILITY: The Movement Analysis System (Greenleaf, 1992); the Electromyogram for Man-Machine Interface for musical performance (1993); and the Dart Target System (Tivona & Young, 1993).
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL: The Gesture Control System (Greenleaf, 1992).
MEDICAL CARE ENHANCEMENT: BioMuse (Knapp & Lusted, 1992; Knapp, 1993)
B. Hearing Impairments IMPROVED COMMUNICATION: GloveTalker (Greenleaf, 1992); and the Sign Language Recognition System (SLARTI) (Vamplew & Adams, 1992).
C. Vision Impairments MOBILITY: Personal Guidance Systems (Loomis, Bolledge, & Klatzky, 1993). IMPROVED COMMUNICATION: The Tactile Braille Keyboard Cursor-Control Interface (Johnson, 1993).
D. Dual Sensory-Impairments COMMUNICATION: Dexter (Gilden & Smallridge, 1993).
E. Severe Emotional Disturbance BEHAVIOR: Conflict Resolution Games (Oliver & Rothman, 1993).
F. Cognitive Impairments CAVE: Automatic Virtual Environment (Browning, 1993);
CRIS-MAN (Cabanyes,1992) (Both are generally suggested for use with all disability categories, but there has been no specific research on cognitive impairment application.)
Some of the most commonly encountered learning needs of persons with cognitive impairments include: control over environment; self-pacing; repetition; ability to see or feel items or processes in concrete terms (difficulty with abstract concepts); safe training scenarios for potentially dangerous or humiliating work, social or daily living tasks; motivation; and repeated successes. Some selected findings that particularly address these learning needs are summarized below. The list should be perused keeping in mind that the focus in developing teaching applications ought to remain not on the technology, but on the needs of learners.
Bricken (1993) points out that the ability of VR to provide perceptual expansion, creative construction and unique social interactivity makes it fulfill teaching functions suggested by theorists as best teaching practices for over thirty years. Flexibility, ability to support a feeling of presence, the control the user has over virtual environments, and the physical feedback a user can experience are particularly important for persons with disabilities. Work, social, and daily living skills training might be carried out in controlled, virtual settings, that neither humiliate, nor are dangerous to the user to practice, as the same training scenarios might be in real life. A"scaffolding" training process has even been suggested so that persons may experience high levels of success in a safe environment, and then have assistance with transfer of the information to more realistic settings (Pantelidis, 1995; Middleton, 1992). Rose's (1995) research also suggests potential for VR applications for supporting problem solving techniques such as concept mapping, various metacognitive strategies, cooperative learning, interviewing, and reciprocal teaching. Potential problems cited for using this technology for training with this population include difficulty with transfer and generalization of knowledge, the possibility of preference of virtual environments over real ones, inability to discriminate between real and unreal rules or terms, and potential fostering and teaching of negative values (Osberg, 1992). Research is currently underway to assess the strengths and weaknesses of VR as a teaching tool, as it relates to what has been learned in the past about learning and cognition (Rose, 1995).
Some of the history of the disability rights movements might help to explain this trend. There have been a number of movements within the disability community in which persons with cognitive impairments have come last in receiving attention. For example, although Section 504 of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1973 allowed Vocational Rehabilitation efforts to assist persons with disabilities who were non-veterans in obtaining employment, until just a few years ago, persons with mental retardation did not receive services from Vocational Rehabilitation unless they could first prove their employability. More recent Amendments call for assisting persons with the most severe disabilities, whatever supports that may entail (Vocational Rehabilitation Amendments of 1986; 1992). Even the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 calls for concrete ways to create access for other areas of disability, while little concern is given to access for persons with cognitive impairments. Even the assistive technology movement of the last 20 years has been slow to develop both hardware and software that specifically addresses the needs of persons with cognitive disabilities (Church & Glennen, 1992).
This slowness to include persons with cognitive impairments has also been seen in the Independent Living movement. Since the 1960's the Independent Living movement has continued to facilitate movement of most people with physical or sensory disabling conditions into normal housing situations within communities that are either independent, or interdependent. Unfortunately, a majority of the population with mental retardation is still living in mostly dependent environments. These tend to be segregated (from nondisabled persons), and highly regulated settings (as with group homes) or hospital type environments (like institutions or intermediate care facilities). Waiting lists continue to grow for placements in these "home-like" environments, and ironically, most people, were they given a choice, would prefer to live in a real home.
Finally, in the category of recreation and leisure, communities have made great strides in assisting persons with most types of disabling conditions in participating in normal community events. Unfortunately, most persons with mental retardation are relegated primarily to participation in "special" leisure and recreation programs and activities, "safely" segregated from the rest of the community.
It can be speculated that some of this lack of attention is due to discrimination based upon stereotypical ideas concerning persons with mental retardation or brain injury, dating back to the Eugenics movement of the early 20th century or to medieval myths and early superstitions from long before. Ideas of separating the "bad stock", and protecting families from evil spirits seem to die hard. A number of the beliefs about persons with cognitive impairments that keep them from being served appear to be due to ignorance of the needs of this population. The core of this problem probably stems from the lack of self advocacy that comes from this very vulnerable population. Historically, this population has had great difficulty making its needs and rights known in a powerful and visible way. School and adult placement practices continue to fuel negative stereotypes, which also affect funding patterns and practices. Attitudes of even caregivers and parents may become beaten down after years of abuses from schools and other service agencies that appear to be acceptable to the rest of the community.
The cognitively impaired population is only recently beginning to make gains in the area of public attitude. The community concerned with virtual reality and persons who have disabilities have an opportunity to break this chain of stereotypes and resulting discrimination. To do so, developers of applications and service providers for this population must educate each other, and then take the initiative to work together to develop and test appropriate applications of this exciting technology.
Anderson, A. (1991). Video-tunneling to school. _Science_, v. 263, p. 1090.
Bricken, M., & Byrne, C. (1993). Students in virtual reality: A pilot study. In Alen Wexelblat (Ed.), _Virtual Reality: Applications and Explorations_ (pp.199-217). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Browning, D., Cruz-Neira, Sandin, D., & DeFanti, T. (1993). CAVE Automatic Virtual Environment: Projection- based virtual environments and disability. In H. J. Murphy (Ed.), _Proceedings of the First Annual International Conference "Virtual Reality and Disabilities"_ (pp. 17-22). Northridge, CA: California State Center on Disabilities.
Burd, S.(1994, September 14). Into a computer landscape: Carnegie Mellon researcher invites you on a trip to "virtual reality". _The Chronicle of Higher Education_, p. A48.
Cabanyes, C. (1993). CRIS-man: An intuitive, ergonomical and natural virtual reality interface. In H. J. Murphy (Ed.), _Proceedings of the First Annual International Conference "Virtual Reality and Disabilities"_ (pp.27- 41). Northridge, CA: California State Center on Disabilities.
Church, G., & Glennen, S. (1992). _The Handbook of Assistive Technology_. San Diego, CA: Singular Publishing. Darrow, M. & Powers, D. (1993). A promising future for applications of virtual reality to special education best practices. In H. J. Murphy (Ed.), _Proceedings of the First Annual International Conference "Virtual Reality and Disabilities"_ (pp. 42-46). Northridge, CA: California State Center on Disabilities.
Gilden, D. & Smallridge, B. (1993). Touching reality: A robotic fingerspelling hand for deaf-blind persons. In H. J. Murphy (Ed.), _Proceedings of the First Annual International Conference "Virtual Reality and Disabilities"_ (pp. 50-54). Northridge, CA: California State Center on Disabilities.
Greenleaf, W. (1992). DataGlove, DataSuit and virtual reality: Advanced technology for people with disabilities. In H. J. Murphy (Ed.), _Proceedings of Virtual Reality and Disabilities_ (pp. 21-24). Northridge, CA: California State Center on Disabilities.
Knapp, R. (1993). Biosignal processing in virtual reality applications. In H. J. Murphy (Ed.), _Proceedings of the First Annual International Conference "Virtual Reality and Disabilities"_ (p. 58). Northridge, CA: California State Center on Disabilities.
Knapp, R. & Lusted, H. (1992). Biocontrollers for the physically disabled: A direct link from nervous system to computer. In H. J. Murphy (Ed.), _Proceedings of Virtual Reality and Disabilities_ (pp. 25-30). Northridge, CA: California State Center on Disabilities.
Loomis, J., Golledge, R., & Klatzky, R. (1993). Personal guidance system for the visually impaired using GPS, GIS, and VR technologies. In H. J.Murphy (Ed.), _Proceedings of the First Annual International Conference "Virtual Reality and Disabilities"_ (pp. 71-74). Northridge, CA: California State Center on Disabilities.
Middleton, T. (1992). Applications of virtual reality to learning. _Interactive Learning International_, v. 8, pp. 253-257.
Oliver, D. & Rothman, P. (1993). Virtual reality games for teaching conflict management with seriously emotionally disturbed and learning disabled children. In H. J. Murphy (Ed.), _Proceedings of the First Annual International Conference "Virtual Reality and Disabilities"_ (pp. 99-102). Northridge, CA: California State Center on Disabilities.
Osberg, K. (1992). Virtual reality and education: A look at both sides of the sword. _Human Interface Technology Laboratory, University of Washington_, Dec. 14, 1992, Online: http://www/publications/tech-reports/tr-93-7-osberg.html.
Pantelidis, V. (1995, June). Reasons to use virtual reality in education. _VR in the Schools_, v. 1, p. 9.
Powers, D. & Darrow, M. (1994). Special education and virtual reality: Challenges and possibilities. _Journal of Research on Computing in Education_, v. 27, pp. 111- 121.
Rose, A. (1992). Access for persons with disabilities through hypermedia and virtual reality. In H. J. Murphy (Ed.), _Proceedings of Virtual Reality and Disabilities_ (pp. 47-54). Northridge, CA: California State Center on Disabilities.
Rose, H. (1995). Assessing Learning in VR: Towards developing a paradigm Virtual Reality Roving Vehicles (VRRV) Project. _Human Interface Technology Laboratory_, University of Washington, Feb. 16, TR-95-1.
Carolyn Stephenson v. Honda Motors Ltd. of America, No. 81067 (Cal. Sup. Ct. Placer County, June 25, 1992). Honda offered the video into evidence, represented by McKenroth, Seley & Ryan of Sacramento, Ca.
Tivona, E. & Young, D. (1993). The Dart Target System, virtual reality for the physically challenged. In H. J. Murphy (Ed.), _Proceedings of the First Annual International Conference "Virtual Reality and Disabilities"_ (pp. 118-119). Northridge, CA: California State Center on Disabilities.
Vamplew, P. & Adams, A. (1992). The SLARTI system: Applying artificial neural networks to sign language recognition. In H. J. Murphy (Ed.), _Proceedings of Virtual Reality and Disabilities_ (pp. 71-80). Northridge,CA: California State Center on Disabilities.
Vanderheiden, G. & Mendenhall, J. (1993). Analyzing virtual reality applications as they relate to disability access. In H. J. Murphy (Ed.), _Proceedings of the First Annual International Conference "Virtual Reality and Disabilities"_ (pp. 126-131). Northridge, CA: California State Center on Disabilities.
Waller, D. (1995, March 20). Spies in cyberspace. _Time_, pp. 63-64.
Whole Life Update (1995). Phobias: Virtual Therapy, _Psychology Today_, v. 28, p.8.
Wilson, D. (1992, April 22). Researchers hope to lead students into "virtual reality". _The Chronicle of Higher Education_, pp. A23-A25.
Winn, W. (1993). A discussion of the Human Interface Technology Laboratory (HIT) and its educational projects. Paper presented at the Virtual Reality Expo, '93: New York.
Dr. Melissa Salem Darrow is in the Department of Special Education, School of Education, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina 27858-4353, USA
Telephone: (919) 328-6400; (919) 758-6499
Fax: (919) 328-4219
by Lynn Norris
email: l_norris@ncsu.edu
Every other Saturday, eight eighth-graders and one seventh grader from the Hertford County Middle School, representing six Hertford County communities, meet to help formulate the goals and designs for the Jefcoat Museum in Murfreesboro, North Carolina. The goals of the project are to help youth develop a knowledge and appreciation of their community, and, through learning the variety of skills of the museum builder, practice critical thinking and visual learning skills as they provide a service to their community.
Over the past four months, students have conducted and compiled audience research and worked alongside architects, exhibit designers, and graphic artists to develop exhibit and architectural plans. They have conducted research in university libraries and helped prototype future exhibits for Exploris: The Children's Museum About the World. In the coming months they will begin to explore electronic tools such as virtual reality to help turn their exhibit and architectural ideas into concrete exhibit and architectural plans. This project was begun by Lynn Norris, a graduate student at North Carolina State University in Library Studies under the direction of Dr. James Clark of the Humanities Extension Service and receives support and funding from the Hertford County Cooperative Extension Service in cooperation with the Murfreesboro Historical Association.
Lynn Norris may be reached at Exploris, Children's Museum About the World, 615 Willard Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 USA. Telephone: 919-834-4040 Fax: 919-834-3516
Hi Everyone, I just came back from a wonderful virtual visit to Alaska. Check out Ryan Miller's school district's home page: http://www.nsbsd.k12.ak.us/. It's really wonderful! Or, visit Finland at Kaisa's school home page: http://www.ttl.fi/pmk. Thus far, I've been to visit Finland and Alaska. They were virtual visits, but they felt like the real thing. Great trips!
I was really surprised by seeing the different places and watching the strides they've made in distance education. I sit in my apartment, connected to the system, giving tutorials and lessons to teachers from all over the globe. Remarkable! It makes the hours spent on improving the system worthwhile. This is a viable educational medium, and it can help a wide variety of students.
The nature of the computer is that you can learn at your own pace. If students can master logging in, working the help system, and understanding the basics of communication, then they can develop at their own pace. I think the trick is teaching them how to find the information, which, of course, has to be available. I find the first major hurdle with this system is the editor, while the second is understanding objects and that they can be manipulated and examined. Then there's "heritage," how one object has parents, and that it is made up of the traits of those parents. If we can get that far in tutorials, and then that gets passed along, we will accomplish a lot. Some will go on to program their own objects, but that may be just for those that have the calling. With these basic skills, simulations can be formed. Honing the quality of the simulations will lead to advancements in writing as well as in science, mathematics, history, languages, and art. Maybe not physical education, but there could be rooms devoted to sports statistics and such. I think the trick to making this MOO succeed will be to pool our resources.
I'm the computer expert. I can't tell you how to plan a science exhibit, but if you come to me with one, I can tell you what tools we have to help you make it come to life. The basic tool we have that has been used successfully in simulations like Five Forks, is the robot. Learn how to use a robot, and you will have interaction.
Enough about my thoughts on distance ed. I just wanted to tell everyone that I enjoyed visiting the web pages and would like to know of others. I know our MOO page has a ton of schools, but it means something more to me to know I work with the people involved with a particular page. Hope all is well with everyone.
MOO (MUD Object Oriented) is a virtual environment created with text rather than with graphics. MOO is derived from MUD (Multi-User Dungeon). Both MOOs and MUDS support almost real-time interactive use among multiple users.
John Leone is Gardener (i.e., System Administrator) of GrassRoots MOO, in which he assumes the character role of John.
MOO address: GRASSROOTS@SJUVM.STJOHNS.EDU
by Andreas Schaefer
email: A.Schaefer@intervr.ruhr.de
I would like to invite you to a world-wide discussion about the use of VR in the schools, especially kindergarten through twelfth grade.
Do you believe that there is a need to put little children into a virtual world? How about the status of VR? Should it be a class on its own, or should it be implemented into mathematics, physics, and so on in order to visualize things better? To my mind, I see the danger of reducing the abilities and capabilities of VR to the level of just a better visualization technique. Right now (in Europe) pedagogics has a fair chance to create a new class: the VR-class. This can only be realized if the educators do not point with the lifted forefinger and talk about the dangers all the time as they did for such a long time about new media and computers in general. For sure, there are dangers, but these evil things do NOT lie in the use of VR in the schools; rather, they lie in the home-entertainment market and cafes, where the people are not under control and the applications are just for entertainment. But I see another problem (here in Germany). VR is a new term and most work with VR is being done in research institutes and universities.
Educators as teachers are not well-trained concerning VR in general nor its use, particularly low-cost-VR in the classroom. The general German character of being sceptical of anything new is another brake in developing things to be learned in the schools. I believe that there is a need here to create a new consciousness in the teachers' minds if we to make them really interested in what's going on. Teachers must have a chance to update and renew their teaching skills, schools must have a chance to integrate new (and important) themes into instruction, and students must have a chance to be informed about new and actual themes such as VR, because they are growing up, surrounded by new media and technologies.
With VR, there is fine opportunity to create cooperative ventures between schools and universities. I see a big advantage in this cooperation idea, because theory and practice could be combined so that all involved could learn from each other. University faculty and students will not lose the practical side of teaching, will see the actual discussions about schools from another point of view, and will have a closer relationship to the pupils. School teachers using virtual reality will get more insight into lesson topics, they will be better able to stay in touch with evolving technologies, and they will have a closer connection to new educational and pedagogical ideas, interests, and theories. Finally, the school children will be better informed and are more able to be critical consumers, because factual information about new media technologies will be learned in the classroom, not just from advertisements from industry. And, maybe, students can see job possibilities while finding themselves with their individual interests in the wide-field of VR.
This might be my goal, to help develop a theory of Educational Virtual Reality. I'm not on my own in this endeavor. I have a close relationship to the University of Dortmund, and I have done research in virtual reality the last three years with a close friend, Mr. Karsten Wassermann, who is as enthusiastic as I am. I think that we just need time to build up a good team.
If this endeavor is to succeed, we need access to information, e.g., papers, films, and other things, on current projects. All of those people who want to participate in developing such a concept are welcome. (VREL at East Carolina University is already a primary participant.) Beside the fundamental exchange of knowledge, we can give you materials about tests of low-cost-VR we did and a course syllabus of the VR-course we taught at an adult education evening college. The latter provides (in German) a detailed survey of VR and low-cost VR equipment and software in clear and easy language.
If you are interested in participating, providing support, or exchanging knowledge, send fax, E-Mail, or papers to the address below.
Andreas Schaefer is a graduate student at the University of Dortmund. He says, "In the part of Germany where I live, where I grew up, where I went to school, where I do my studies (the so-called "Ruhrgebiet") live about 17 million people, although the area is not large. Lots of the Germans call this area the largest city of our country because there are no frontiers. When I drive to the University of Dortmund, I pass two other universities (Essen and Bochum) although I travel only about 30 kilometers. Some of the cities of the Ruhrgebiet are Duesseldorf, Duisburg, Essen, Bochum, and Dortmund." He may be reached at Max-Reger Strasse 9, 45128 Essen, Germany.
Telephone: 49-201-200264 Fax: 49-201-468041 or 606038
by John P. Costella
email: jpc@physics.unimelb.edu.au
The University of Melbourne is currently considering the establishment of a Virtual Reality Centre, which would both provide centralised facilities for virtual worlds technology for the various research and teaching departments throughout the University, as well as coordinating the evaluation and purchasing of dedicated technology that may be required by individual departments and research groups.
To assist in the planning of the Centre, we are seeking input and information both from commerical virtual worlds hardware and software suppliers, as well as from other institutions throughout the world currently implementing virtual reality in fields of research and teaching common to those at the University of Melbourne.
The University of Melbourne is a large institution by Australian standards; of moderate size by international standards (30,700 students, 1,900 academic and 2,200 non-academic staff; 91 academic departments).
1. Commerical virtual worlds technology suppliers: We are using the many sources of information about virtual worlds software and hardware products already available on-line and in print, but would welcome further input from suppliers or distributors. We aim to start the centre with a small number of low-end, PC- based products, with a view to ramping up to higher- performance and higher-volume installations as the various departments assess their needs. Of particular importance are answers to the following questions:
Contact information is listed at the end of this posting.
2. Existing Virtual Reality applications in research: We are aware of the large number of high-quality installations of virtual worlds technology in diverse fields of research, and are keen to prevent individual departments or research groups from unnecessarily "reinventing the wheel". Again, we are making use of the numerous excellent lists of information about these projects, but we would also welcome direct contact from groups with current VR research applications who may be open to proposals for collaboration, or the sharing, licensing or selling of developed applications to the University of Melbourne. The key questions are:
As a guide to the research and teaching interests of the University, I include here an abbreviated list of the academic departments and research centres in the University that may be interested in virtual worlds technology:
| Accounting & Finance | Forestry |
| Adv. Minerals Products | Genetics |
| Agriculture | Geographic Info. Systems |
| Anatomy | Geography |
| Anthropology | Geology |
| Archaeology | Glaciology |
| Architecture | Health Sciences |
| Behavioural Science | History |
| Biochemistry | Horticulture |
| Biology | Industrial Plant Polymers |
| Botany | Information Technology |
| Building & Planning | Interactive Multimedia |
| Catchment Hydrology | Library Services |
| Cell Biology | Manufacturing Engineering |
| Chemical Engineering | Mathematics |
| Chemistry | Mathematics Education |
| Civil Engineering | Mechanical Engineering |
| Clinical Sciences | Medicine |
| Computer Engineering | Metallurgy |
| Computer Science | Meteorology |
| Conservatorium of Music | Microbiology |
| Creative Arts | Molecular Biology |
| Criminology | Music |
| Dental Science | Optometry |
| Earth Sciences | Pathology |
| Economics & Commerce | Pharmacology |
| Education Faculty | Photonics |
| Electrical Engineering | Physics |
| Electronic Engineering | Physiology |
| Epidemiology | Physiotherapy |
| Environmental Hydrology | Signal Processing |
| Extractive Metallurgy | Statistics |
| Farm Planning | Transport Research |
| Fine Arts | Veterinary Science |
| Food Science & Engr. | Zoology |
Dr. John P. Costella is a physicist at the University of Melbourne.
Editors' note: Professor Velez Jahn is trained as an architect, and he also does consulting on computer applications in health, housing, and public building. The questions he raises here are presented as a stimulus to discussion.
Introduction: Gradually, Virtual Reality is evolving, conceptually, technologically, and commercially. Like the great sequoias of the Californian forests, the process of growing up, of maturing, in such a long- living, far-reaching technology will take time. But the results, even at this early stage, have already begun to show. There is a popular appeal (and sometimes a love- hate relationship) in its very name that transcends traditional, technological barriers and generates in the common citizen an emotional reaction out of a mixture of curiosity and empathy, unheard of in other parallel computer technologies. As the popularity of VR increases, competition will lower acquisition costs, and nascent concepts will turn into blossoming applications.
And, in due time, education, of all society's driving forces, will be facing the most important technological challenge it has ever met: the proper use of VR, an all- powerful but ambiguous instrument, the likes of which have no historical precedent.
For what is really the essence of Virtual Reality? What is its subtler meaning? What will come out of the imminent marriage of the Internet and VR as they travel over the Information Superhighway? As VR evolves from a private experience to a collective, shared one, how will values, ethics, and communication patterns be affected?
Let us take a closer look, through a number of questions (by no means complete), at what the impact of VR on education may be:
Scope: The door to fantasy and imagination is truly swinging wide open on magic hinges!: to visit foreign lands and to observe their habits and cultures; to travel into past and future sceneries, to witness brilliant (or horrid) pages of history; to conduct teamwork thousands of miles apart, building models, carrying on experiments, competing in sports or indulging in creative discussions; or to avidly watch the world's greatest performers inside a virtual auditorium; or to descend into fathomless maelstroms to rescue forlorn damsels in distress. To walk through fire walls or to lift mountains or to re- create life conditions in dead planets. To become ghosts or beasts or misty shores in nonexistent lands. To be part of an atom or to encompass the universe... The list grows and grows to truly staggering proportions.
But, on the other side: are we doing enough to recondition the sluggish gears of educational mechanisms to cope with the incoming challenge? Have we THOUGHT enough about it? Meditation should prevail before action, or at least keep abreast with it.
Environment: How will the learning environment be transformed? Will VR simulations provide smooth meadows and gentle brooks and great oaks underneath which class activities will take place? Or will bucolic settings be superseded by a hyperactive time-traveler's observation command module or by the grandeur of soft-treading galleries at great museums? Or, instead, will extreme conditions prevail while young explorers find their way in arctic regions and steamy jungles or dry-bone deserts? Or will underwater exploration vehicles cruise the innards of wayward planets? And how shall we interlace different settings and experiences in order to attain the best results from a learning point of view? And should these future environments be produced ready-to-order, or should they be the result of personal, interactive, customizing processes?
Process: Being what it is, Virtual Reality holds the promise of incorporating itself gradually into the overall educational pattern as a powerful tool that may deeply alter our current perception and practice of the learning process.
Approaches: What general orientation should be given to VR applications in education? To what extent should educators rely on an intuitive progress on the part of students? When will be the proper time for wise and massive acquisitions in the area ?
What new methods and instruments shall we use in order to make the most out of this new technology? What type of abilities and attitudes should be honed keenly in the younger groups? How shall the new resources be used in order to guarantee continuity and order within diversity in experiencing and learning? When will it be appropriate to invest heavily on VR infrastructure.
Communication: And how about the language, gestural or spoken, that seems to be the domineering factor in this coming age of VR? How will it alter the communication patterns we have been using to interact with computers? Already, it seems that, at this primitive initial stage of telecommunications in the classroom, spelling and writing and the learning of foreign languages are benefitting greatly from the new ways of collective participation. But what will happen when the tsunami of the full potentialities of network VR falls upon us?
When free-wheeling 3-D animated graphics take command, will the rekindled interest in reading and writing recede into oblivion? Should we allow that to happen? Will VR turn into a blessing or just a crutch for illiterate participants?
Above all, who will be doing the teaching chores? What should be their projected profile? How much time and effort will be delegated to activities at home which are oriented toward completing the initial induction and training that is to be given at school? Can school training successfully compete and keep abreast of the growing trend of do-it-yourself education that is beginning to blossom via emerging technologies and the Internet. What will be the strategy to counteract these trends, and is it desirable to proceed thus? What types of exercises should be fostered in order to obtain maximum benefits of the new VR tools? Who will massively re-train the educators, and how?
Human factor: What provisions should be made to cope with the early symptoms of discomfort and so-called cybersickness in young trainees (and trainers!)? How should proper feedback be established with health agencies and institutions? How should exceptional behaviors be dealt with?
Product: What sort of new citizens could begin to take shape out of all that potential volley of experiences? How could their values and ethics be affected individually and collectively? Could their new awareness of reality establish permanent changes in their behavior?
Could extreme escapism be one of the outcomes? How early should children be introduced to Virtual Reality and its effects?
Final Reflections: Were it not for the fact of the enormous and unique future importance of Virtual Reality on human society, many of the above questions could be left unanswered. But we are heading toward new and hitherto unpredictable transformations, and the sooner we can rely on proper beacons to light the way ahead, the better for all. And Virtual Reality is one of these paramount beacons, perhaps the greatest.
To obtain data in our research on the use of low-cost VR systems in the schools, we decided to do a presentation to an adult-education night class. But that was not our only purpose, because we are the first teachers to work with VR at an adult college in Germany. We also wanted to bring the idea of VR, with its pros and cons, to a broad public group, and we wanted to check out the general interests of the public concerning low-cost-VR and to test some systems loaned to us by Pearl Agency.
With our studies at the University of Dortmund, our interests are of a scientific nature. The students recognized the global structure and problems of virtual reality very quickly, so we were able to obtain good empirical data. Never-the-less, there were many things we had to give to our audience before we could start with the practical exhibition, because we found by testing that there was no knowledge about VR in general. For example, only 20 percent knew what VR is, and only 10 percent knew about a HMD (head-mounted display).
The following steps had to be done beforehand:
These steps, which provided basic knowledge, were illustrated with films, photographs, prints, and computer graphics. Now the students, who had no previous experience with VR, were well prepared. The next step was to explain what cheap-VR is, what its pros and cons are, and how it operates. We took some devices into the classroom and explained their functions without a computer-generated world. They had some days off to think about cheap-VR in the whole VR context and to prepare themselves for their first experiences in a virtual world. We prepared five different systems to show them:
First of all, we introduced these systems to the group and explained the differences they could expect in experiencing them. The first two systems would show two different solutions in the output of a virtual environment, whereas the systems 3 and 4 would give an insight into different low-cost-input devices. The fifth system was installed to show a combination of in- and output, because the user should not only look at a three-dimensional computer generated world but should operate inside this world, using its three- dimensionality (i.e., hand-to-eye coordination training). In the process, we unintentionally demonstrated some practical problems: the monitors were incompatible with the ShutterGlasses, and the ultrasonic field produced by the PowerGlove was so strong that a RingMouse wouldn't work at the same time. Even so, the students felt that they had a positive experience even though we spoke critically of the systems.
In our study of cheap-VR which could be used in the schools, we learned the following: We believe that we have to do another presentation in a school to find exactly which system should be used in K-12. Our personal preference is to use the fish-tank-system, because it provides both high-resolution and full, true color. This is a big advantage, whereas the fully-immersive system has to use much lower resolution and fewer colors. There seems to be a health risk in using the headset and, in contrast to the ShutterGlasses, it seems to be too expensive. The problems of the 3D-Max lie in the development of a virtual environment, for right now there are just some demonstration programs or C-routines for importing animations from other professional development tools into the 3D-Max environments. These limitations seem to be too great for children to overcome on their own, and it would be too expensive to buy new, high-cost software such as 3D-Studio.
Maybe it is better to use red/blue anaglyphic glasses. There is no real 3D-effect as in the use of the ShutterGlasses, nor is there the same degree of immersion as when using the VFX-1 headset. But we can create a more comfortable world which can easily be manipulated and designed by children. The advantage in working with children is their ability to fantasize so that (possibly) the worlds they create do not have to be photorealistic.
The PowerGlove system is too difficult, too. Because it needs physical strength as well as exact coordination from the user, it is beyond the capabilities of many children.
So, this report has to to be continued.
Andreas Schaefer and Karsten Wasserman are graduate students, working on a diploma at the University of Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany. They can be reached at:
| Andreas Schaefer | Telephone: 49-201-200264 |
| Max-Reger Str. 9 | Fax: +49-201-468041 or |
| 45128 Essen, Germany | 606038 |
| Karsten Wassermann | |
| Gerscheder Weiden 45 | |
| 45357 Essen, Germany | Telephone: 49-201-19603 |
by Veronica S. Pantelidis
email: LSPANTEL@ecuvm.cis.ecu.edu
Virtual reality is a natural for teaching about local historic sites. Here is an example of how it can be used and how several groups can work together to teach and learn about history.
East Carolina University has been excavating Fort Neoheroka, a Tuscarora (native American) archaeological site in neighboring Greene County built in 1713. This site, which is about 35 miles from Greenville, is particularly interesting as the dwellings were dug six feet into the ground, protecting the occupants from musket balls and other forms of attack. Nevertheless, six months after it was constructed, the fort was overcome and burned. The log roofs burned and fell into the dwelling holes, marking the spot for the future. Although the site has been farmed and plowed continuously for many years, the site has survived since the plow-zone is only 18 inches deep.
We at the Virtual Reality and Education Laboratory met with one of the professors involved in the excavation, Dr. John Byrd, who gave us photocopies of a map of the original site and pictures taken of the site, as well as drawings of a typical dwelling and some of the recovered artifacts.
I gave copies of the drawings, photographs, and information to our graduate and undergraduate virtual reality classes. Working in groups and using Virtus WalkThrough, they produced both Macintosh and PC walkthroughs of one of the dwellings. When Dr. Byrd, colleagues, and eight graduate students from the Department of Anthropology visited VREL and viewed the walkthroughs, they were amazed to see how realistic it felt to go through an underground dwelling using virtual reality, and they have decided to buy some virtual reality software to use to illustrate other sites.
A week later, Emily Harrison, Academically Gifted/Enrichment teacher at Greene County Middle School in Snow Hill, North Carolina, brought groups of students on two consecutive days to visit VREL and to use the walkthroughs. Many of the students were familiar with the site, because they often travel the adjoining road or live in the vicinity. Before they viewed the walkthroughs, the students were shown the drawings, photographs, and map, and were told some of the background history of the fort. Students were able to look at several different versions of the dwellings, comparing different ideas of how they may have looked originally. There was much enthusiasm, and their walkthrough produced many questions about how people could have lived there originally. Using virtual reality they were becoming familiar in a new way with an old site.
This project was especially exciting, since it brought together university professionals, students, and facilities to teach middle grade students about their heritage. Such cooperative efforts can be accomplished with no extra funding.
Telephone: (919)328-6621 Fax: (919)328-4368
http://150.216.8.1/vr/vrel.htm
The Virtual Reality Laboratory at Haywood Community College in North Carolina continues to grow. Thanks to grants awarded to the college's Regional High Technology Center, students will have an impressive array of tools available for the development of desktop and projected VR applications. Two new VR development packages, Superscape VRT and Sense8 World Up, will become the primary software platforms in the lab. SuperscapeVRT will be running under DOS on a Pentium system. Sense8 World Up will be running on a Pentium Windows NT workstation equipped with an Intergraph GLZ5 OpenGL graphics package. Along with the platforms already in the lab, students will use the new systems to develop educational and visualization applications. In the past, the lab has developed immersive desktop applications. With only one head- mounted display, however, the applications have had limited availability. A second HMD, the Virtual I/O i- glasses, will make the lab's immersive applications more accessible. To create 3D applications that an entire class of students may simultaneously view, a new VRex VR- 2000 projection system was acquired. The projector interfaces to a computer system and displays a stereoscopic view of the virtual world on a large screen. Students wear inexpensive glasses with polarizing light filters to see the 3D images. The new hardware and software will fully complement HCC's collection of desktop VR tools. The lab's existing platforms include systems running Sense8's WorldToolKit for the i860, WorldToolKit for Windows, VREAM, and the Autodesk Cyberspace Developer Kit. Students and staff use a General Reality CyberEye HMD, CyberTrack head tracker, CrystalEyes goggles, and a set of 5DT Data Gloves to create immersive applications.
Tony Gaddis is the Computer Systems Coordinator for Haywood Community College's Regional High Technology Center. Address: Regional High Technology Center, 10 Industrial Park Drive, Waynesville, North Carolina 28786 USA
Telephone: 704-452-1411 Fax: 704-452-3353
by Alan D. Evans
email: aevans@emerald.educ.kent.edu
During the fall semester, 1995, I taught a graduate level virtual reality course for the first time. Because the class was new and the number of students was small, the class was structured informally, with mini-lectures, demonstrations, student reports, and student projects. (The first time, we neared the end of the semester, project presentations were extremely interesting, so I elected to allocate extra time for this activity. Because of this, I did not have time to demonstrate a "chat" program on the Internet.
Realizing an oral exam could be a good assessment and a learning experience for all students, I asked the class to prepare for an oral exam, and I prepared to use Worlds Chat as a vehicle for the exam and as a demonstration of a format rapidly multiplying on the Internet.
On the night of the exam, I provided an overview of Worlds Chat by explaining operating procedures and by discussing the possibility of unwanted sexual or otherwise offensive interactions. The plan was for me to operate one computer and for the students to share another computer. The students selected an avatar, and I selected an avatar to represent the professor. The shared computer allowed me to "whisper" questions to one student at a time and have all students "hear" the question and the student's answer. During the process, I would sometimes provide hints, feedback about correctness of response, and additional information where appropriate.
The student response to the "chat" exam was overwhelmingly positive. It gave students an opportunity to participate in the use of the medium rather than just see a demo. Because of the nature of typed, on-line responses, answers tended to be shorter than an oral exam in a real world. On one occasion, a typed question was not delivered - perhaps operator error! Overall the experience was very positive and a contextually appropriate way to end a virtual reality course.
Worlds Chat is available at: http://www.worlds.net/
My last question on the exam was addressed to any student for bonus points: What is the origin of the term Avatar? Can you answer it?
Telephone: 216-672-2256 Fax: 216-672-3407
by Lawrence Auld
email: lsauld@ecuvm.cis.ecu.edu
Visitors to VREL have asked about the difference between 3D Computing and Virtual Reality, and Dr. Bob Jacobson says some of his WorldDesign clients have asked him the same question. (See his posting on the Sci.Virtual- Worlds listserv <scivw@HITL.WASHINGTON.EDU>, 8 December 1995.) The obvious similarities and overlap between the two terms readily lead to confusion, while the various, often conflicting definitions of virtual reality compound the confusion.
Three-dimensional (3D) computing results in images that represent objects along x, y, and z coordinates, whether represented on a flat screen or projected as in a hologram. While objects can be shown in perspective and often can be rotated, providing views of all sides, it is the objects that move, while the viewer appears to remain stationary.
Our work in VREL is based on the following operational definition of virtual reality: The computer simulation of an environment with which a participant can interact. The environment can be real or imaginary, it can be represented with text or with graphics, and there is an implicit element of interaction between the participant and the computer-generated environment.
This definition is limited, requiring that a virtual environment be computer-generated. At the same time it is broad enough to embrace a variety of approaches, ranging from total-immersion body suits and head-mounted display units to flat-screen window-on-the-world displays. Importantly, it also embraces text-based virtual environments.
Neither 3D computing nor virtual reality is a subset of the other as can be seen if we label 3D computing "A" and virtual reality "B." We see that there is a definitional area of intersection in which "A" and "B" overlap: much of graphics-based (but not text-based) virtual reality qualifies as 3D computing, but not all of 3D computing qualifies as virtual reality. (For a visual representation of this relationship, draw a Venn diagram with two overlapping circles, one representing 3D computing, the other, both graphics- and text-based virtual reality. The overlapping area represents the area of intersection.)
_____________
/ / \ \
[[integral]] A [[integral]] [[integral]] B [[integral]]
\____\___/____/
/ \
3D Graphics- and
Computing Text-Based VR
It is only fair to note that there are other, conflicting definitions of virtual reality. One definition would require use of a head-mounted display unit or, preferably, full immersion via a body suit, anticipating realization of the special effects shown in _Lawnmower Man_ but excluding the flight simulators used by the military and the airlines. Another definition equates reading, and the concomitant imagination/visualization, with virtual reality, but this omits a key point, that virtual reality is computer-based. Historically, computers have been the central element of VR research and development.
Still more definitions of VR appeared in the thread following Bob Jacobson's note alluded to above. A few of the key words and concepts that appear in various persons' definitions include "perception" (Schiniotakis, 11 Dec 1995), "presence" (Snow, 11 Dec 1995; Costella, 18 Dec 1995), "immersion" (Bernatchez, 13 Dec 1995), "perceptual" (Wann, 18 Dec 1995), and "real time interaction" (Isdale, 19 Dec 1995). (Readers interested in following this thread in detail can access the listserv archive.)
Although elegant, precise, and sometimes contradictory, these definitions delineate a developing area of study in which individuals are pursuing different approaches to VR and slowly comparing their ideas and different approaches. Only when much of the exciting groundwork is completed will a single, unified definition emerge. In the meantime, the different terms contribute to operational definitions that are useful, indeed necessary.
3D computing, too, is developing. As definitions for 3D computing and VR are developed, it will become possible to identify with some consensus the differences as well as the similarities between the two.
Telephone: 919-328-6621 Fax: 919-328-4368 http://150.216.8.1/vr/vrel.htm
CrystalEyes Goggles
StereoGraphics Corporation
2171 East Francisco Boulevard
San Rafael, California 94901 USA
Telephone: 415-459-4500
Fax: 415-459-3020
web: http://infolane.com/infoland/stereog/sghp.html
5DT DataGlove
CyberEye Head Mounted Display
CyberTrack head tracker
General Reality Company
124 Race Street
San Jose, California 95126 USA
Telephone: 408-289-8340
Fax: 408-289-8258
web: http://www.genreality.com/
email: sales@genreality.com
Forte VFX-1 Headgear (Head Mounted Display)
Forte Technologies Inc.
2615 West Henrietta Road
Rochester, New York 14623 USA
Telephone: 716-427-8595
Fax: 716-292-6353
web: http://www.fortevr.com/
email: support@fortevr.com
Intergraph GLZ5 OpenGL Graphics Accelerator
Intergraph Corporation
Huntsville, Alabama 35894, USA
Telephone: 800-763-0242 (US and Canada)
Europe 31-23-5666576
Other 1-205-730-5441
web: http://www.intergraph.com/ics/accel.shtml
PowerGlove
informatica
3805 Bilbao Court
Cameron Park, California 95682 USA
Telephone: 916-676-3530
email: antonio@informatica.com
RingMouse
Kantek Inc.
15 Main Street
East Rockaway, New York 11518 USA
Telephone: 516-593-3212
Fax: 516-593-3295
See information and photograph at Pegasus Technologies
Ltd. web page: http://www.netvision.net.il/~peg/
VRex VR-2000 Projector System
VRex Inc.
8 Skyline Drive
Hawthorne, New York 10532 USA
Telephone: 914-345-8877
Fax: 914-345-9558
web: http://www.vrex.com
email: info@vrex.com
Cyberspace Developer Kit (CDK)
Autodesk Inc.
2320 Marinship Way
Sausalito, California 94965 USA
Telephone: 415-332-2344
fax: 415-491-8303
REND386
available free at ftp site:
ftp://sunee.uwaterloo.ca/pub/rend386
Sense8 World Tool Kit (WTK)
Sense 8 World Up
Sense8 Corporation
4000 Bridgeway, Suite 101
Sausalito, California 94965 USA
Telephone: 415-331-6318
Fax: 415-331-9148
web: http://www.sense8.com/
email: info@sense8.com
Superscape VRT
Superscape Ltd.
Zephr One
Calleva Park
Aldermaston, Berkshire, RG7 4QZ
England
Telephone: 44-734-810077
Fax: 44-734-816940
United States address:
Superscape, Inc.
2483 East Bayshore Road, Suite 103
Palo Alto, California 94303 USA
Telephone: 415-812-9380
Fax: 415-812-9390
web: http://www.superscape.com/
email: npenning@us.superscape.com
Virtus WalkThrough
Virtus Corporation
118 MacKenan Drive, Suite 250
Cary, North Carolina 27511 USA
Telephone: 919-467-9700
Sales: 800-847-8871, ext. 21
Fax: 919-460-4530
email: sales@virtus.com
web: http://www.virtus.com
VREAM
Vream Incorporated
2568 North Clark Street, Suite 250
Chicago, Illinois 60614 USA
Telephone: 312-477-0425
Fax: 312-477-9702
web: http://www.vream.com
web: http://www.vream.com/vream/index.html
email: info@vream.com
VWorld
Skopinski Software
Gummertstr. 25
45131 Essen
Germany
For a German-documented, demo-version, contact
Karsten Wassermann
Gerscheder Weiden 45
45357 Essen, Germany
Telephone: 49-201-19603
email: K.Wassermann@viremax.ruhr.de
workSpace - Worldbuilder
Developed through the Computer Science Department,
Worcester Polytechnic Institute. Executable and source
code and 30-page manual plus tutorial (in postscript
format) are available.
web: ftp://cs.wpi.edu/pub/projects_and_papers/graphics_and_vision/vrmgp
direct questions to Bob Mason: