When the display matters: A multifaceted perspective on 3D geovisualizations

Abstract

This study explores the influence of stereoscopic (real) 3D and monoscopic (pseudo) 3D visualization on the human ability to reckon altitude information in noninteractive and interactive 3D geovisualizations. A two phased experiment was carried out to compare the performance of two groups of participants, one of them using the real 3D and the other one pseudo 3D visualization of geographical data. A homogeneous group of 61 psychology students, inexperienced in processing of geographical data, were tested with respect to their efficiency at identifying altitudes of the displayed landscape. The first phase of the experiment was designed as non-interactive, where static 3D visual displays were presented; the second phase was designed as interactive and the participants were allowed to explore the scene by adjusting the position of the virtual camera. The investigated variables included accuracy at altitude identification, time demands and the amount of the participant's motor activity performed during interaction with geovisualization. The interface was created using a Motion Capture system, Wii Remote Controller, widescreen projection and the passive Dolby 3D technology (for real 3D vision). The real 3D visual display was shown to significantly increase the accuracy of the landscape altitude identification in non-interactive tasks. As expected, in the interactive phase there were differences in accuracy flattened out between groups due to the possibility of interaction, with no other statistically significant differences in completion times or motor activity. The increased number of omitted objects in real 3D condition was further subjected to an exploratory analysis.

Evaluation of User Performance in Interactive and Static 3D Maps

“…Some studies have been conducted comprising two successive parts using interactive stimuli in one part and static stimuli in the other, for example, Juřík et al [34]. A direct comparison of static versus interactive visualizations was conducted by Bleisch, Dykes, and Nebiker [35], Herbert and Chen [36] or Kubíček et al [37].…”

“…By contrast, some studies supported the claim that some forms of 3D visualization may increase the time required to solve tasks and create visual discomfort during their use [21,45]. For experts experienced in map reading, 3D visualization may lower the clarity of depicted content and increase the chance of making an error [34].…”

“…Hypothesis H1, H2, and H3 were based on Kubíček et al [37] and Herman and Stachoň [38]. Hypothesis H4 and H5 were based on Špriňarová et al [30] and Juřík et al [34]. Hypothesis H6 and H7 were based on Bowman et al [54] and Herman et al [55].…”

“…From a technological point of view, it is now possible to perform user testing directly with interactive 3D maps, which may be more appropriate regarding the transferability of results into practice in the design and implementation of 3D geovisualizations (see Juřík et al [60]). Technologies that permit testing in controlled [38] and non-controlled conditions [56] can be connected to eye-tracking devices [33] and various interfaces, such as a touch screens [43,44] or the Wii Remote Controller [30], and other technologies for stereoscopic (real-3D) visualization with different immersion levels [34,37,57].…”

Cheap and Immersive Virtual Reality: Application in Cartography

“…These headsets, and VR in general, are currently used for many different purposes and in various applications, including archaeology (Chmelík and Jurda, 2017;Liarokapis et al, 2017), architecture (Portman et al, 2015), medicine (Li et al, 2017), engineering and design (Coburn et al, 2017), education (Kovalčík et al, 2012;Juřík et al, 2016;Moskal and Choate, 2017), the game industry (Shepherd and Bleasdale-Shepherd, 2009;Chądzyńska and Gotlib, 2015), etc. The use of VR has also increased in geosciences, for example in spatial and urban planning (Herbert and Chen, 2015;Portman et al, 2015), crisis management (Kubíček et al, 2011;Bandrova et al, 2012;Herman et al, 2017), noise mapping (Herman and Řezník, 2015), teaching geography (Stojšić et al, 2016;Carbonell and Saorín, 2017), cartography (Juřík et al, 2017;Kubíček et al, 2017) and geoinformatics (Řezník, 2013;Li et al, 2015).…”