Use of Virtual Environments for Acquiring Configurational Knowledge about Specific Real-World Spaces: I. Preliminary Experiment

Abstract

A relatively simple architectural space was modeled and used to compare the effects of spatial training in simulations versus training in the real world. Thirty-five subjects were trained in one of the following conditions: real world (RW), virtual environment (VE), nonimmersive virtual environment (NVE), and model (Mod). The VE condition made use of a head-mounted display to view the simulated environment, while the NVE condition used a desktop monitor. In the Mod condition, the subject viewed and could manipulate a 3-D model of the space, viewed from a desktop display. The training-transfer tasks, performed after brief unstructured exposure to the actual space or to one of the simulations, consisted of estimating the bearing and range to various targets in the real space from various spatially distributed stations, each such pair of estimates constituting a subtask of the overall transfer task. Results obtained from each of the four training conditions proved to be roughly the same. Training in any one of the simulations was comparable to training in the real world. Independent of training condition, there was a strong tendency among subjects to underestimate range. Variability in range errors was dominated by differences among subjects, whereas variability in bearing errors was dominated by differences among subtasks. These results are discussed in the context of plans for future work. IntroductionAs evidenced both in this special issue of Presence and in a recent past special issue (Vol. 7, No. 2), considerable attention is being given to the use of virtual environment technology for training spatial behavior.In our research program, we are primarily concerned with the use of VE technology to train individuals' spatial behavior in the real world. We are interested in spatial behavior in virtual worlds only to the extent that it relates to behavior in the real world. More specifically, our focus is on transfer from experiences in the virtual world to behavior in the real world. Furthermore, within this general domain, we are concerned with two distinct but related sets of objectives. The first set focuses on the use of VE technology for familiarizing individuals with specific spaces. The second set focuses on the use of VE technology to improve an individual's spatial behavior in general. In this paper, attention is confined entirely to the first set.

Exploring the Suitability of Virtual Environments for Safety Training: Signals, Norms and Ambiguity in a Simulated Emergency Escape

“…Instead of confronting people with fixed, controlled, prearranged conditions, VE compel them to move in order to discover the affordances latent in the environment (Mantovani 1996b). Recent research provides evidence of the fact that experience in a VE can stimulate acquisition of configurational knowledge about specific real-world spaces (Koch et al 1999). This scientific result encouraged us to develop a virtual library (VL) as a tool to study the suitability of VE for safety training in large public spaces.…”

Training Wayfinding: Natural Movement in Mixed Reality

“…They attributed these inconsistencies to differences in the VE systems, environments, and training methods used. Likewise, as reviewed by Koh, Wiegand, Garnett, Durlach, and Shinn-Cunningham (1999), comparisons of map and VE training have produced mixed results in terms of real-world performance, with map training better in some experiments, and VE training better than others.…”

Virtual Learning Environments to Enhance Spatial Orientation

“…The activities to be carried out in the present workshop are based on previous research on spatial orientation with navigation in immersive virtual environments (Witmer et al, 1995;Waller et al, 1998;Koh et al, 2000;Darken and Peterson, 2001). …”

“…Waller (1999) states that the estimation of the distance during a process of immersion in a virtual world is similar to that obtained in a real-world environment. Moreover, Witmer et al (1995), Bliss et al (1997), and Koh et al (2000) concluded that, for the acquisition of spatial knowledge, immersive VE environments are as effective as real-world environments. Spatial knowledge acquisition depends on the fidelity of the environments, the interfaces to these systems and the methods of training.…”