Calibrating Visual Path Integration in VEs

Bakker, Niels H.; Werkhoven, Peter; Passenier, P.O.

doi:10.1162/105474601750216812

Cited by 20 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This argues against the usage of HMDs and any display with rather limited FOV for applications involving simulated movements of the observer. This supports results from other studies that found similar drawbacks and considerable systematic errors when using HMDs for executing simulated self-rotations [Bakker et al 1999[Bakker et al , 2001Riecke et al 2005] as well as for simple navigation tasks [Kearns et al 2002]. This might also explain the small performance differences observed between the real-world and HMD condition of the main experiment.…”

Section: Control Experimentssupporting

confidence: 90%

“…Further drawbacks associated with HMDs include distortions of the perceived space, as well as impaired spatial orientation performance [Arthur 2000;Bakker et al 1999Bakker et al , 2001Creem-Regehr et al 2003;Hettinger et al 1996;Kearns et al 2002;Nelson et al 1998;Riecke et al 2005]. The whole projection setup is mounted on top of the motion platform [see Figure 7(d)] in order to allow for optimal viewing conditions and immersion.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Visual cues can be sufficient for triggering automatic, reflexlike spatial updating

Riecke

Heyde

Bülthoff

2005

ACM Trans. Appl. Percept.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

"Spatial updating" refers to the process that automatically updates our egocentric mental representation of our immediate surround during self-motions, which is essential for quick and robust spatial orientation. To investigate the relative contribution of visual and vestibular cues to spatial updating, two experiments were performed in a high-end Virtual Reality system. Participants were seated on a motion platform and saw either the surrounding room or a photorealistic virtual model presented via headmounted display or projection screen. After upright rotations, participants had to point "as accurately and quickly as possible" to previously learned targets that were outside of the current field of view (FOV). Spatial updating performance, quantified as response time, configuration error, and pointing error, was comparable in the real and virtual reality conditions when the FOV was matched. Two further results challenge the prevailing basic assumptions about spatial updating: First, automatic, reflexlike spatial updating occurred without any physical motion, i.e., visual information from a known scene alone can, indeed, be sufficient, especially for large FOVs. Second, continuous-motion information is not, in fact, mandatory for spatial updatingmerely presenting static images of new orientations proved sufficient, which motivated our distinction between continuous and instant-based spatial updating.

show abstract

Section: Control Experimentssupporting

confidence: 90%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Visual cues can be sufficient for triggering automatic, reflexlike spatial updating

Riecke

Heyde

Bülthoff

2005

ACM Trans. Appl. Percept.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Participants were asked to reproduce distances traveled and to execute ego-rotations for given angles in a simple virtual environment without any landmarks * . The experiment was similar to the translation experiments by Bremmer and Lappe (1999) 11 and the rotation experiments by Bakker et al (1999Bakker et al ( , 2001), 1, 2 respectively, but a different VR setup involving a half-cylindrical 180 • projection screen with three projectors was used instead of a flat projection screen (90 • ×90 • ) and HMD, respectively.…”

Section: Experiments 1 -Turn Execution and Distance Reproduction Usingmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…[1][2][3][4][5][6]13 Rather, presenting optic flow on a half-cylindrical projection screen allowed participants to perform simulated ego-rotation with amazing accuracy and precision. Both systematic errors and turning variability were typically less than 5%, without any feedback training.…”

Section: Turn Executionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceiving simulated ego-motions in virtual reality: comparing large screen displays with HMDs

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Virtual Reality, considerable systematic spatial orientation problems frequently occur that do not happen in comparable real-world situations. This study investigated possible origins of these problems by examining the influence of visual field of view (FOV) and type of display device (head-mounted display (HMD) vs. projection screens) on basic human spatial orientation behavior. In Experiment 1, participants had to reproduce traveled distances and to turn specified target angles in a simple virtual environment without any landmarks that was projected onto a 180 • half-cylindrical projection screen. As expected, distance reproduction performance showed only small systematic errors. Turning performance, however, was unexpectedly almost perfect (gain=0.97), with negligible systematic errors and minimal variability, which is unprecedented in the literature. In Experiment 2, turning performance was compared between a projection screen (FOV 84 • ×63 • ), an HMD (40 • ×30 • ), and blinders (40 • ×30 • ) that restricted the FOV on the screen. Performance was best with the screen (gain 0.77) and worst with the HMD (gain 0.57). We found a significant difference between blinders (gain 0.73) and HMD, which indicates that different display devices can influence ego-motion perception differentially, even if the physical FOVs are equal. We conclude that the type of display device (HMD vs. curved projection screen) seems to be more critical than the FOV for the perception of ego-rotations. Furthermore, large, curved projection screens yielded better performance than HMDs.

show abstract

“…Virtual environments can be more complex than natural environments with respect to their scale [4,2], structural complexity and dimensionality [5]. Furthermore, virtual environments often differ from natural environments with respect to the sensory modalities involved, depending on the use of visual, auditory and vestibular displays [6,7,8,9,10,11] and interaction methods [8]. Thus, an optimal support of human spatial navigation in virtual environments relies on knowing the effects of involving multiple sensory modalities.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Navigating virtual mazes: The benefits of audiovisual landmarks

Werkhoven

Erp²,

Philippi

2014

Displays

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It has been shown that multisensory presentation can improve perception, attention, and object memory compared with unisensory presentation. Consequently, we expect that multisensory presentation of landmarks can improve spatial memory and navigation. In this study we tested the effect of visual, auditory and combined landmark presentations in virtual mazes on spatial memory and spatial navigation. Nineteen participants explored four different virtual mazes consisting of nodes with landmarks and corridors connecting them. Each maze was explored for 90 seconds. After each exploration, participants performed the following tasks in fixed order: 1) draw a map of the maze, 2) recall adjacent landmarks for three given landmarks, 3) place all landmarks on the map of the maze, and 4) find their way through the maze to locate five given landmarks in fixed order. Our study shows significant effects of multisensory versus unisensory landmarks for the maze drawing task, the adjacency task, and the wayfinding task. Our results suggest that audiovisual landmark presentations improve spatial memory and spatial navigation performance in virtual environments.

show abstract

Calibrating Visual Path Integration in VEs

Cited by 20 publications

References 8 publications

Visual cues can be sufficient for triggering automatic, reflexlike spatial updating

Visual cues can be sufficient for triggering automatic, reflexlike spatial updating

Perceiving simulated ego-motions in virtual reality: comparing large screen displays with HMDs

Navigating virtual mazes: The benefits of audiovisual landmarks

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About