Correcting distance estimates by interacting with immersive virtual environments: Effects of task and available sensory information.

Abstract

The tendency to underestimate egocentric distances in immersive virtual environments (VEs) is not well understood. However, previous research (A. R. Richardson & D. Waller, 2007) has demonstrated that a brief period of interaction with the VE prior to making distance judgments can effectively eliminate subsequent underestimation. Here the authors examine the mechanism underlying the effect of VE interaction and the conditions that may give rise to it. In Experiment 1, after interacting with an immersive VE, participants tended to overestimate distances in the physical world, indicating that the interaction involved a recalibration of the perceptual-motor system. Experiment 2 demonstrates that visual information is not necessary (and that body-based information is necessary) during the interaction period for it to have a positive effect on subsequent distance estimation accuracy. Experiment 3 illustrates that the interaction task does not need to be goal directed in order to be effective.

Assessing the Impact of Automatic vs. Controlled Rotations on Spatial Transfer with a Joystick and a Walking Interface in VR

“…Concerning the Egocentric Distance Estimation Task (which consisted in evaluating the total distance travelled during the learning path phase), the results showed a significant difference for Input Devices, in favor of the Treadmill (vestibular information present) compared to the Joystick (i.e., no vestibular information because no head movements). These results are in accordance with different authors [11][12] who demonstrated that vestibular information is important to correctly estimate distances. An effect Rotation was also found, showing a distance overestimation for the conditions with Controlled Rotation compared to the conditions with Automatic Rotation.…”

“…However, most of the studies agree that the extent of body-based information provided by a treadmill locomotion interface (compared to a joystick) was considered largely favorable for spatial learning in a VE [11][13] [14], due to the improvement in egocentric [11] and allocentric spatial representation [14], as well as navigational measurements [19]. Recently, Ruddle et al [14] assessed the role of both translational and rotational vestibular information on survey knowledge, using different locomotion interfaces (translational displacements with walking or treadmill Vs. no translational displacements with joystick), sometimes with the possibility of really turning the head (i.e., rotational vestibular condition or not) during rotational movement.…”

“…Performances revealed an improvement of survey knowledge with a walking activity, but little effect about rotational vestibular information was observed. For Waller et al [11], the low level of body-based information provided by the design of the locomotion interfaces of the desktop VEs (i.e., keyboards, mouse or joysticks) do not allow the increase of spatial knowledge acquisition. For some authors [16], the manipulation of translational and rotational movements with a joystick demands a strong motor and cognitive attentional levels, which could interfere on spatial learning acquisition.…”

“…always in relation with body position, 2) the vestibular system provides translational (acceleration/deceleration of the head and body) as well as rotational information (rotation of the head and body), and 3) the kinesthetic information, which informs about the perception of our members according to our body. In real environments, different authors admitted that vestibular information is important to the creation of egocentric representations (perception of distances, angles or route knowledge) or to store a direction linked to an egocentric point of view [11] [12], while allocentric representations would be more sensible to visual information.…”

Frontal extents in virtual environments are not immune to underperception

“…However, one major hindrance to the usefulness of VEs is the tendency for viewers to underperceive depth extents, sometimes by as much as 50 % of the intended depth (e.g., Waller & Richardson, 2008). Underperception of depth characterizes judgments from oneself to an object (egocentric distance judgments; Loomis & Knapp, 2003) and also judgments of the distance between two objects separated in depth (exocentric distance judgments in the depth plane; Geuss, Stefanucci, Creem-Regehr, & Thompson, 2012).…”