Spatial updating in real and virtual environments: contribution and interaction of visual and vestibular cues

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: When we move through the environment, the self-to-surround relations constantly change. Nevertheless, we perceive the world as stable. A process that is critical to this perceived stability is "spatial updating", which automatically updates our egocentric mental spatial representation of the surround according to our current self-motion. According to the prevailing opinion, vestibular and proprioceptive cues are absolutely required for spatial updating. Here, we challenge this notion by varying visual and vestibular contributions independently in a high-fidelity VR setup. METHODS: In a learning phase, participants learned the positions of twelve targets attached to the walls of a 5x5m room. In the testing phase, participants saw either the real room or a photo-realistic copy presented via a head-mounted display (HMD). Vestibular cues were applied using a motion platform. Participants' task was to point "as accurately and quickly as possible" to four targets announced consecutively via headphones after rotations around the vertical axis into different positions. RESULTS: Automatic spatial updating was observed whenever useful visual information was available: Paticipants had no problem mentally updating their orientation in space, irrespective of turning angle. Performance, quantified as response time, configuration error, and pointing error, was best in the real world condition. However, when the field of view was limited via cardboard blinders to match that of the HMD (40 × 30°), performance decreased and was comparable to the HMD condition. Presenting turning information only visually (through the HMD) hardly altered those results. In both the real world and HMD conditions, spatial updating was obligatory in the sense that it was significantly more difficult to ignore ego-turns (i.e., "point as if not having turned") than to update them as usual. CONCLUSION: The rapid pointing paradigm proved to be a useful tool for quantifying spatial updating. We conclude that, at least for the limited turning angles used (<60°), the Virtual Reality simulation of ego-rotation was as effective and convincing (i.e., hard to ignore) as its real world counterpart, even when only visual information was presented. This has relevant implications for the design of motion simulators for, e.g., architecture walkthroughs.

REFERENCES

• 1: BAKKER, N. H., WERKHOVEN, P. J., AND PASSENIER, P.O. 1999. The effects of proprioceptive and visual feedback on geographical orientation in virtual environments. Presence - Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 8, 1 (Feb.), 36--53.
• 2: BATSCHELET, E. 1981. Circular statistics in biology. Acad. Pr., London.
• 3: CHANCE, S. S., GAUNET, F., BEALL, A. C., AND LOOMIS, J. M. 1998. Locomotion mode affects the updating of objects encountered during travel: The contribution of vestibular and proprioceptive inputs to path integration. Presence - Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 7, 2 (Apr.), 168--178.
• 4: CREEM, S. H., AND PROFFITT, D. R., 2000. Egocentric measures of spatial updating: Is there an advantage for action? Poster presented at the 41 st Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, New Orleans, LA.
• 5: EASTON, R. D., AND SHOLL, M. J. 1995. Object-array structure, frames of reference, and retrieval of spatial knowledge. J. Exp. Psychol.-Learn. Mem. Cogn. 21, 2 (Mar.), 483--500.
• 6: FARRELL, M. J., AND ROBERTSON, I. H. 1998. Mental rotation and the automatic updating of body-centered spatial relationships. J. Exp. Psychol.-Learn. Mem. Cogn. 24, 1 (Jan.), 227--233.
• 7: FARRELL, M. J., AND THOMSON, J. A. 1998. Automatic spatial updating during locomotion without vision. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. Sect A-Hum. Exp. Psychol. 51, 3 (Aug.), 637--654.
• 8: KLATZKY, R. L., LOOMIS, J. M., BEALL, A. C., CHANCE, S. S., AND GOLLEDGE, R. G. 1998. Spatial updating of self-position and orientation during real, imagined, and virtual locomotion. Psychol. Sci. 9, 4 (July), 293--298.
• 9: MAY, M., AND KLATZKY, R. L. 2000. Path integration while ignoring irrelevant movement. J. Exp. Psychol.-Learn. Mem. Cogn. 26, 1 (Jan.), 169--186.
• 10: MAY, M. 1996. Cognitive and embodied modes of spatial imagery. Psychologische Beiträge 38, 418--434.
• 11: MAY, M. 2000. Kognition im Umraum. Studien zur Kognitionswissenschaft. DUV: Kognitionswissenschaft, Wiesbaden.
• 12: PÉRUCH, P., AND GAUNET, F. 1998. Virtual environments as a promising tool for investigating human spatial cognition. Cah. Psychol. Cogn.-Curr. Psychol. Cogn. 17, 4--5 (aug-oct), 881--899.
• 13: PRESSON, C. C., AND MONTELLO, D. R. 1994. Updating after rotational and translational body movements: Coordinate structure of perspective space. Perception 23, 12, 1447--1455.
• 14: Bernhard E. Riecke , Henricus A. H. C. van Veen , Heinrich H. Bülthoff, Visual homing is possible without landmarks: a path integration study in virtual reality, Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, v.11 n.5, p.443-473, October 2002 [doi>10.1162/105474602320935810]
• 15: RIECKE, B. E., VONDER HEYDE, M., AND BÜLTHOFF, H. H. 2002. Spatial updating in virtual environments: What are vestibular cues good for? Journal of Vision 2, 7 (May), 421a. http://journalofvision.org/2/7/421/ Available: www.kyb.tuebingen.mpg.de/publication.html?publ=628.
• 16: RIESER, JOHN, J., GUTH, DAVID, A., AND HILL, EVERETT, W. 1982. Mental processes mediating independent travel: Implications for orientation and mobility. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness 76, 6 (jun.), 213--218.
• 17: RIESER, J. J. 1989. Access to knowledge of spatial structure at novel points of observation. J. Exp. Psychol.-Learn. Mem. Cogn. 15, 6 (Nov.), 1157--1165.
• 18: SHOLL, M. J. 1989. The relation between horizontality and rod-and-frame and vestibular navigational performance. J. Exp. Psychol.-Learn. Mem. Cogn. 15, 1 (Jan.), 110--125.
• 19: SIMONS, D. J., AND WANG, R. F. 1998. Perceiving real-world viewpoint changes. Psychol. Sci. 9, 4 (July), 315--320.
• 20: VONDER HEYDE, M. 2000. The Motion-Lab - A Virtual Reality Laboratory for Spatial Updating Experiments. Tech. Rep. 86, Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Tübingen, Germany, Dec. Available: www.kyb.tuebingen.mpg.de/publication.html?publ=633.
• 21: WANG, R. X. F., AND SIMONS, D. J. 1999. Active and passive scene recognition across views. Cognition 70, 2 (Mar.), 191--210.
• 22: WANG, R. X. F., AND SPELKE, E. S. 2000. Updating egocentric representation in human navigation. Cognition 77, 3 (DEC 15), 215--250.
• 23: WRAGA, M., CREEM, S. H., AND PROFFITT, D. R., 2004. Spatial updating of virtual displays during self- and display rotation. (under review).

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.1 MODELS AND PRINCIPLES
      H.1.2 User/Machine Systems

Additional Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.5 INFORMATION INTERFACES AND PRESENTATION (I.7)
      H.5.1 Multimedia Information Systems
          Subjects: Artificial, augmented, and virtual realities
      H.5.2 User Interfaces (D.2.2, H.1.2, I.3.6)

  J. Computer Applications
  J.4 SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Keywords:
human factors, motion simulation, psychophysics, spatial orientation, spatial updating, virtual reality