Changes between Version 59 and Version 60 of NIAID2022

Timestamp:

Mar 16, 2023, 1:51:57 PM (3 years ago)

Author:

Elaine Meng

Comment:

--

NIAID2022

@@ -59 +59 @@
 = Meeting Minutes =
 
+== 3/16/2023 ==
+
+Phil, Meghan; Eric, Elaine, Greg, Zach, TomG
+
+guest: Andreas "Andi" Bueckle from engineering department at Indiana U, data visualization and human studies(?) expert
+
+HRA Organ Gallery: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.02.13.528002
+
+A. Bueckle, K. Buehling, P. C. Shih, and K. Börner, “Optimizing Performance and Satisfaction in Matching and Movement Tasks in Virtual Reality with Interventions Using the Data Visualization Literacy Framework,” Frontiers in Virtual Reality, vol. 2, 2022. doi: 10.3389/frvir.2021.727344.
+
+A. Bueckle, K. Buehling, P. C. Shih, and K. Börner, “3D Virtual Reality vs. 2D Desktop Registration User Interface Comparison,” PLOS One, vol. 16, no. 10, 2021. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258103.
+
+Phil: contract not yet finalized so we are not officially having an NIAID meeting now, just talking as friendly collaborators
+
+Meghan: mentions possible study of VR for molecular visualization, unfortunately Scooter not here to weigh in today.  Maybe Andi can say what kind of data he collected in his previous studies.  Also defining the target population will be important.
+
+Andi: Frontiers paper compared completion time of tasks, half of people pre- and post- viewing a representation of themselves performing the task in VR. Navigation within different floors of a building, with walking, flying, "teleporting" or a combination of those.  Being able to view oneself externally (out-of-body-view) allowed for faster task completion.
+
+...also put in chat something about rotation controls in VR
+Using custom transformation axes for mid-air manipulation of 3D virtual objects: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3139131.3139157
+ 
+TomG: did you track gaze? Andi: No but it would be a useful thing to track in a study about molecular visualization. 
+
+Andi: one idea is to time various tasks in VR vs. 2D, e.g. to find a pocket.  What kinds of questions or tasks do you envision?
+
+TomG: usually the issue is not how fast a task is performed but whether something is possible at all, or whether one can understand a complex situation.
+
+Greg: there are lots of published papers on how stereo is better than 2D graphics.  Phil: can you look up some of those references and send them to us?
+
+TomG: head tracking is probably more valuable than stereo per se. People are trying to get "insights" but it is difficult to break down into tasks.
+
+Phil: fitting two proteins together as an initial position for docking is much better in VR than using a desktop environment.  Elaine: trypsin/BPTI is an easy one but most are harder.
+
+Elaine: or even small molecule ligand in a protein binding site.  Also quantifiable in both time to get to a certain closeness, and/or closeness (best RMSD) from known complex within a certain amount of time.  Maybe another is rotating bonds within a peptide to match the conformation of another peptide or to fit within a blob of density.
+
+Meghan: could also try only allowing people to move their own body position, vs. only allowing them to manipulate the scene position with the controllers.  Other questions: saw something I wouldn't have seen otherwise, or wanted to spend more time in the scene vs. desktop viz.  Elaine: more subjective/qualitative questions to possibly include in a study.
+
+TomG: sometimes users want to switch between VR and desktop, and currently this is inconvenient and not a smooth workflow.
+
 == 3/2/2023 ==