5 CONCLUSIONS
Immersion for molecular exploration brings an
interesting dimension for the study of certain
biological events. However, it also brings some
navigation issues that can be easily extended to
desktop environments. Without any specific
navigation paradigm, the exploration of abstract and
scientific data can easily lead to significant spatial
landmarks losses and then decrease the user
experience and efficiency. To tackle this problem,
navigation guides can be quickly setup. They are
based on the most common feature that most of
molecular complexes of a certain size share, a
symmetric layout geometrically connecting the
monomers between them. But beyond the simple
comfort of the user, if correctly implemented, the
constraints extracted from any centre or axis of
symmetry can also become useful helps for the
execution of daily standard tasks in structural
biology.
Next steps will be the evaluation of our paradigm
by structural biology experts. We will base our
assessments on the broadly accepted evaluation
benchmark proposed by Bowman et al (Bowman et
al., 1997). The criteria used to assess the navigation
paradigms group, in a non-exhaustive way: the task
execution speed, its accuracy, the user spatial
awareness in the virtual scene during and after the
experience, the comfort of the user, etc…
It is important to notice that our paradigms are
completely independent of the navigation technic or
the visualisation system used. Indeed, they can be
applied from immersive environments like CAVE
systems to desktop ones and with mouse/keyboard
as well as 3D mice or tracking solutions (Chen et al.,
2013). A navigation control can easily be substituted
to one other while keeping a behaviour consistency
of the camera defined in function of the scene
content.
REFERENCES
Bowman, D. A., Koller, D. & Hodges, L. F., 1997. Travel
in immersive virtual environments: An evaluation of
viewpoint motion control techniques. In Virtual
Reality Annual International Symposium, 1997., IEEE
1997. pp. 45–52.
Chen, W. et al., 2013. 6DoF navigation in virtual worlds:
comparison of joystick-based and head-controlled
paradigms. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM
Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and
Technology. VRST ’13. New York, NY, USA: ACM,
pp. 111–114.
Christie, M., Olivier, P. & Normand, J.-M., 2008. Camera
Control in Computer Graphics. Computer Graphics
Forum, 27(8), pp.2197–2218.
DeLano, W. L., 2002. The PyMOL molecular graphics
system.
Dreher, M. et al., 2013. Interactive Molecular Dynamics:
Scaling up to Large Systems. Procedia Computer
Science, 18, pp.20–29.
Goodsell, D. S. & Olson, A. J., 2000. Structural symmetry
and protein function. Annual review of biophysics and
biomolecular structure, 29(1), pp.105–153.
Férey, N. et al., 2008. User needs analysis to design a 3D
multimodal protein-docking interface. In Proceedings
of the IEEE Symposium on 3D User Interface,
3DUI'08, pp.125–132.
Hanson, A. J., Wernert, E. A. & Hughes, S. B., 1997.
Constrained navigation environments. In Scientific
Visualization Conference, 1997. pp. 95–95.
Humphrey, W., Dalke, A. & Schulten, K., 1996. VMD:
visual molecular dynamics. Journal of molecular
graphics, 14(1), pp.33–38.
Khan, A. et al., 2005. HoverCam: interactive 3D
navigation for proximal object inspection. In
Proceedings of the 2005 symposium on Interactive 3D
graphics and games. pp. 73–80.
Kim, C., Basner, J. & Lee, B., 2010. Detecting internally
symmetric protein structures. BMC bioinformatics,
11(1), p.303.
LaViola Jr, J. J., 2000. A discussion of cybersickness in
virtual environments. ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 32(1),
pp.47–56.
Van Dam, A. et al., 2000. Immersive VR for scientific
visualization: A progress report. Computer Graphics
and Applications, IEEE, 20(6), pp.26–52.
Content-guidedNavigationinMultimericMolecularComplexes
81