← All work

Tufts IDEA Lab · Owl HeadOngoing

VR Point-of-View Research

Running an IRB-approved user study on a VR system that expands effective field of view by 50–60%, to learn whether real people can adapt to a view that no longer matches their head.

Role
UI/UX Researcher
Team
OwlHead team at the Tufts IDEA Lab, led by Prof. James Intriligator: engineers + me as UI/UX researcher
Timeline
Jan 2026 – Present
Methods
IRB-approved user study: pre/post surveys, randomized timed trials, in-game performance logging
Focus
VR, cognitive adaptability, spatial compression, immersive tech
Tools
Unity VR simulation, VR headset + controllers, Qualtrics, Google Sheets
Status
Ongoing: testing resumes this semester; more trials before conclusions
A VR headset with two handheld controllers floating on either side

The problem

In a normal VR headset, the world on screen moves exactly as fast as your head. Owl Head breaks that rule. It remaps point of view (POV) so the view moves at a different speed than your head, letting you see further than your eyes normally could. The goal is faster awareness in situations where quick reactions matter.

Diagram of a head seen from above: a narrower teal wedge shows the normal head-synced view, and a wider ochre wedge shows the remapped point of view, labeled +50–60% effective field of view
Head-synced view vs. remapped POV

The engineers had already built a vision expansion system that boosts effective field of view by 50–60%, plus a simulation to test it. The open question was the human one.

The research question

A wider view sounds like a pure win. It only helps if people can stay oriented, accurate, and comfortable while using it.

Study design

Participants play a fast number game in VR: spot numbers in the scene and press the left trigger for even, the right trigger for odd. That gives us a measurable task (speed and accuracy) instead of just asking how the view “feels.”

  1. Consent: IRB consent form, then a short briefing
  2. Pre-survey
  3. Tutorial in normal field of view
  4. Three 2-minute trials in expanded vision, in a randomized order
  5. 3-minute breaks with a motion-sickness check
  6. Post-survey

Decision: randomize the trial order

Each participant gets their own trial sequence, so learning the game over time doesn’t get mistaken for an effect of the view.

Decision: comfort comes first

Expanded vision can cause nausea. We check in during every break, and anyone who feels sick skips straight to the post-survey. That’s also data.

Every session produces two kinds of data: in-game performance logs for each trial, and survey responses from before and after.

Analysis so far

I designed and ran 3+ early-stage sessions and analyzed 10+ participant trials, looking across them for three things:

  1. Usability patterns
  2. Motion-perception challenges
  3. Interaction trade-offs

What I delivered

5+ early UX recommendations on spatial awareness, comfort, and field-of-view expansion, used to shape the team’s iteration priorities while testing continues.

Outcome & impact

effective field of view from the system we’re testing
+50–60%
user-testing sessions designed and run
3+
participant trials analyzed
10+
early UX recommendations
5+

Still in progress. Testing paused over the summer and resumes this semester, and we’re running more trials before drawing conclusions. After that, the lab plans to build a version that works in real life, outside the headset.