Skip to main content
Up and Coming
August 26, 2014

Why ODT’s Do Not Support Natural Locomotion

A linear treadmill provides an excellent simulation of running or walking at a constant velocity, i.e., when no acceleration is taking place. The problem comes when a person tries to accelerate (/decelerate).

To accelerate along a straight line in the real world, one must apply force to overcome the body’s physical inertia (Newton’s laws of motion). All of your reflexes are tuned to apply just the right amount of force to attain the desired change in velocity. Your inner ear senses accelerations, and your proprioceptive system senses the applied and reactive forces your body experiences.

On a treadmill, however, you’re not really going anywhere (or at least not very far). That means you do not have to apply horizontal forces to overcome your body’s inertia to accelerate (with respect to the treadmill’s surface). An ODT simulates what it would be like to remain under the influence of gravity, and retain angular inertia, but eliminate linear inertia. This unusual condition is at odds with a person’s natural reflexes for directing their body’s motion, rendering their natural responses ineffective, i.e., making it difficult to stop, accelerate, or redirect one’s motion quickly on a treadmill.

ODTs are challenging to build because of the demands of their mechanical and control systems. I suspect that a lot of people believe that it is just a matter of perfecting ODTs to keep the user nearly centered of the treadmill in order to provide a realistic simulator for natural human locomotion. That is not the case.

There is a way to simulate linear inertia: Strap the user to an active mechanical tether that pulls and pushes on them to apply the forces necessary to substitute for the (simulated) absence of inertia. The Sarcos Treadport system did just that, albeit it is a linear treadmill:
http://www.cs.utah.edu/research/areas/ve/LocomotionDisplay.html
I have yet to see such a harness built to apply omnidirectional (horizontal) forces for simulating inertia on an ODT.

There may be another alternative. People can learn a wide variety of motion skills. They can learn to skate and ride a surfboard. With enough practice people may be able to master virtually accelerating and decelerating on a well-designed ODT. But they will not be performing natural locomotion and there is no reason to believe that their performance (speed & accuracy) at varied motion tasks will match their real world performance.

-JimT

    25 replies

    JimTAuthor
    Up and Coming
    August 28, 2014
    I think I can explain the inertial issue better, so here goes:

    Imagine running fast in the real world. You’re a body in motion that will continue to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by an external force –so long as you keep moving your legs to keep from falling. Then you decide to stop as fast as you can. Now you need to apply a backward force to decelerate. To do so you kind of lean back and push back on the ground with your lead leg(s). That imparts the necessary force to brake your forward motion.

    Now imagine running fast on a linear treadmill while wearing an HMD conveying the right optic flow. This creates a nearly perfect illusion of actually running. But the treadmill keeps turning to keep you in place. Therefore you are a body at rest that will remain at rest unless acted upon by an external force –so long as you keep moving your legs to keep from falling. Then you decide to stop as fast as you can.

    (That means quickly bringing the treadmill to a standstill, otherwise if you stopped walking on the treadmill it would convey you to the end of its surface. To stop moving on an actively controlled treadmill all you need to do is ‘simply’ stop moving, while maintaining support with your legs.)

    But your nervous system is convinced that you are actually running forwards and it is going to apply a backward force to decelerate. To do so you kind of lean back and push back on the ground with your lead leg(s). That imparts the necessary force to throw you off your feet, because you don’t really have any forward momentum to arrest.

    Breaking abruptly on a treadmill is very similar to running off a treadmill onto stationary ground, because the treadmill must quickly come to rest. I’m sure that with enough practice the more athletic among us could learn to avoid the meat-grinder effect, but its still going to be disruptive. - Please do not try this at home!

    I hope this explanation helps.

    -JimT
    JimTAuthor
    Up and Coming
    August 28, 2014
    "brantlew" wrote:
    During my free-range travels I've had scenarios where I've bounced along an edge hitting it frequently but I've also gone as long as 25 minutes without hitting an edge - (though about 8-10 times per hour was average). But here's the thing - the periods between boundaries are simply amazing.

    I prefer having a tracking range that encompasses the entire scenario, but that either limits the scenario or is unavailable (except maybe on an outdoor playing field using inside-out tracking).

    Personally, with redirected walking I find it hard to commit to movements that I know might be disrupted.

    I’ve had my best immersive locomotion experience with Gaiter (stepping-in-place with a good HMD & turning harness). I was free to roam anywhere I wanted to go, for as long as I wanted (say 45 minutes), and after I got out I was left with the impression of having visited the virtual site.

    Gaiter would be useless for training Aikido, even for simply going through the motions. For that, actual walking seems the only 'real' alternative.

    Today the best virtual locomotion technique to use is clearly task dependent.

    "brantlew" wrote:
    This is something that you can actually create right now!

    Exactly!

    -JimT
    Participant
    August 28, 2014
    Redirected walking sounds like it must be really great, you cant get more real obviously, but it doesnt solve the
    problem for walking in VR at all if we are talking about mass adaption(a few million, doesnt have to be necessarily a billion).
    It is like being a small boy who wants to play football everyday but he cant get it everyday because most of the time
    the field is occupied or noone of his friends can go with him.
    It is propbably a seduction if you have once tried it and i would love to test it one day but for mainstream/everyday usage that wouldnt be a solution unfortunately.
    And i think sooner or later VR is going to need a mass consumer ODT.
    Or VR stays for 30 years a half baked solution and someone makes someday a documentary that is called 'Who killed the omnidirectional treadmill?'. :lol:
    In principle OVR needs to investigate in making an active ODT mass affordable. That is basically the missing input device although it might sound hard to do.
    http://vrdisplay.blogspot.de/
    Participant
    August 28, 2014
    "JimT" wrote:
    I’ve had my best immersive locomotion experience with Gaiter (stepping-in-place with a good HMD & turning harness). I was free to roam anywhere I wanted to go, for as long as I wanted (say 45 minutes), and after I got out I was left with the impression of having visited the virtual site.


    Don't get me wrong - there are plenty of times where a stationary system is simply more convenient. And I'm with you that stepping-in-place designs are probably the best compromise of function/price/freedom. Not sure about the harness thing though. I think my preference would be something like Kinect + step-in-place with some sort of tactile boundary on the floor to avoid drifting too far.
    JimTAuthor
    Up and Coming
    August 28, 2014
    "brantlew" wrote:
    Not sure about the harness thing though. I think my preference would be something like Kinect + step-in-place with some sort of tactile boundary on the floor to avoid drifting too far.

    That's worthy of a separate thread. Perhaps next week?

    -JimT