Virtual reality system effects on size-distance judgements in a virtual environment

Eggleston, Robert G.; Janson, William P.; Aldrich, Kenneth A.

doi:10.1109/vrais.1996.490521

Cited by 31 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Perceptual matching tasks were also applied. Some authors asked their participants to match the distance or the size of a target object as compared to a reference object, respectively [e.g., Eggleston et al 1996;Kenyon et al 2007b;Li et al 2011;Sinai et al 1999]. Others instructed them to indicate the midpoint of a distance [e.g., Bodenheimer et al 2007] or to indicate which of two objects was closer [e.g., Bruder et al 2012;Surdick and Davis 1997].…”

Section: The Variety Of Measurement Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The perception of egocentric distances in virtual environments - A review

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the last 20 years research has been done on the question of how egocentric distances, i.e., the subjectively reported distance from a human observer to an object, are perceived in virtual environments. This review surveys the existing literature on empirical user studies on this topic. In summary, there is a mean estimation of egocentric distances in virtual environments of about 74% of the modeled distances. Many factors possibly influencing distance estimates were reported in the literature. We arranged these factors into four groups, namely measurement methods, technical factors, compositional factors, and human factors. The research on these factors is summarized, conclusions are drawn, and promising areas for future research are outlined.

show abstract

Section: The Variety Of Measurement Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The perception of egocentric distances in virtual environments - A review

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1,6 This effect may be attributed to a variety of factors including hardware errors, software errors, and perception errors. Recently, Kenyon et al 12 have shown size-constancy in a VE (CAVE) and that monocular cues to depth play a major role in sizeconstancy performance.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accommodation and Size-Constancy of Virtual Objects

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Accommodation has been suspected as a contributor to size illusions in virtual environments (VE) due to the lack of appropriate accommodative stimuli in a VE for the objects displayed. Previous experiments examining size-constancy in VE have shown that monocular cues to depth that accompany the object are a major contributor to correct size perception. When these accompanying cues are removed perceived size varied with the object's distance from the subject, i.e., visual angle. If accommodation were the dominant mechanism contributing to a visual angle response [due to its action to keep physical objects clear] in this condition, an open-loop accommodation viewing condition might restore size-constancy to this condition. Pinhole apertures were used to open-loop accommodation and examine if size-constancy might be restored when few accompanying monocular cues to depth were present. Visual angle performance when viewing a low cue environment was found with and without the use of the pinhole apertures. Thus, these results signify that accommodation does not play a dominate role in the loss of size-constancy in sparse visual environments often used in VE. These results suggest that size-constancy is driven by the inclusion of the remaining monocular cues to depth in VE as it is in the physical world.

show abstract

“…Many studies have shown that spatial perception is affected by several parameters, and this is also likely to affect exocentric judgement. Significant parameters for the perception of spatial perception are navigational interface (Witmer and Kline 1998), display type (Eggleston, Janson, and Aldrich 1996;Henry and Furness 1993;Yeh and Silverstein 1992), quality of the computer graphics (Thompson et al 2002) and scene contrast (Eggleston, Janson, and Aldrich 1996). The effect of shadow sharpness and shadow shape on the relation of spatial size, position and shape has been investigated by Wanger (1992).…”

Section: Implications With Virtual Assessmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%