Depth Perception in Virtual Reality: Distance Estimations in Peri- and Extrapersonal Space

Abstract

The present study investigated depth perception in virtual environments. Twenty-three participants verbally estimated ten distances between 40 cm and 500 cm in three different virtual environments in two conditions: (1) only one target was presented or (2) ten targets were presented at the same time. Additionally, the presence of a metric aid was varied. A questionnaire assessed subjective ratings about physical complaints (e.g., headache), the experience in the virtual world (e.g., presence), and the experiment itself (self-evaluation of the estimations). Results show that participants underestimate the virtual distances but are able to perceive the distances in the right metric order even when only very simple virtual environments are presented. Furthermore, interindividual differences and intraindividual stabilities can be found among participants, and neither the three different virtual environments nor the metric aid improved depth estimations. Estimation performance is better in peripersonal than in extrapersonal space. In contrast, subjective ratings provide a preferred space: a closed room with visible floor, ceiling, and walls.

Distance estimation with mixed real and virtual targets in stereoscopic displays

“…Accuracy will be higher when targets are displayed closer to the observer. This is with the assumption that egocentric and exocentric distance affect each other and in majority of the studies, in physical and virtual reality, accuracy was higher in near field visual space [28].…”

“…Each participant made 48 (4 Â 3 Â 4) trials of which, based on the classified values, on average, 36 (SD = 9.03) underestimations, 9.2 (SD = 6.41) accurate and 2.8 (SD = 3.05) overestimations were observed. The judgment was considered accurate if the signed error is between À0.01 and +0.01, because, even in real world some small error was evident [28]. It can generally be observed that exocentric distance was underestimated in all tested conditions where the accuracy of judgment was only 83.6% (SD = 0.145).…”

Quality of Grasping and the Role of Haptics in a 3-D Immersive Virtual Reality Environment in Individuals With Stroke

“…Similarly, movements were slower in both groups of subjects when reaching in a 3D VE viewed through an HMD compared to an equivalent PE [11]. Movement parameters can be influenced by object-based visual cues [25] and the size and quality of the viewing environment [26]. Slowing of movement may have been due to viewing the VE through the HMD which reportedly decreases depth perception for distant objects [27].…”

Predicting real-world ergonomic measurements by simulation in a virtual environment

“…In RE, the processing unit can quickly select the optimal response way based on practical experience. However, it is more difficult to accurately estimate the position of a virtual object in low-fidelity VE (Arthur et al, 1997;Witmer and Kline, 1998;Keyson, 2000;Armbrüster et al, 2008). Without practical experience, the cognitive cycle from the visual module to the processing unit to the manual module must be repeated many times (trials) while subjects are performing their tasks.…”