The influence of feedback on egocentric distance judgments in real and virtual environments

ABSTRACT

A number of investigators have reported that distance judgments in virtual environments (VEs) are systematically smaller than distance judgments made in comparably-sized real environments. Many variables that may contribute to this difference have been investigated but none of them fully explain the distance compression. One approach to this problem that has implications for both VE applications and the study of perceptual mechanisms is to examine the influence of the feedback available to the user. Most generally, we asked whether feedback within a virtual environment would lead to more accurate estimations of distance. Next, given the prediction that some change in behavior would be observed, we asked whether specific adaptation effects would generalize to other indications of distance. Finally, we asked whether these effects would transfer from the VE to the real world. All distance judgments in the head-mounted display (HMD) became near accurate after three different forms of feedback were given within the HMD. However, not all feedback sessions within the HMD altered real world distance judgments. These results are discussed with respect to the perceptual and cognitive mechanisms that may be involved in the observed adaptation effects as well as the benefits of feedback for VE applications.

REFERENCES

• 1: Bingham, G., and Pagano, C. 1998. The necessity of a perception/action approach to definite distance perception: monocular distance perception to guide reaching. Journla of Experimental Psychology: Human Perceptin and Performance 24, 145--168.
• 2: Bingham, G. P., Crowell, J. A., and Todd, J. T. 2004. Distortions of distance and shapre are not produced by a signle continuous transformation of reach space. Percpetion & Psychophysics 66, 1, 152--169.
• 3: Creem-Regehr, S. H., Willemsen, P., Gooch, A. A., and Thompson, W. B. 2005. The influence of restricted viewing conditions on egocentric distance perception: Implications for real and virtual indoor environments. Perception 34, 2, 191--204.
• 4: Durgin, F. H., Fox, L. F., Lewis, J., and Walley, K. A. 2002. Perceptuomotor adaptation: More than meets the eye. In Abstracts of the Psychonomic Society, vol. 7, 103--104.
• 5: Durgin, F. H., Pelah, A., Fox, L. F., Lewis, J. Y., Kane, R., and Walley, K. A. 2005. Self-motion perception during locomotor recalibration: More than meets the eye. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 31, 398--419.
• 6: Ellard, C. G., and Shaughnessy, S. C. 2002. A comparison of visual and nonvisual sensory inputs to walked distance in a blind-walking task. Perception 32, 5, 567--578.
• 7: Foley, D. J. 2004. personal communication. "University of California, Santa Barbara" (March).
• 8: Hutchison, J. J., and Loomis, J. M. 2006. Does energy expenditure affect the perception of egocentric distance? a failure to replicate experiment 1 of proffitt, stefanucci, banton, and epstein (2003). Vision Sciences Society Conference.
• 9: Keyson, D. V. 2000. Estimation of virtually perceived length. Presence 9, 4 (August), 394--398.
• 10: Knapp, J. M., and Loomis, J. M. 1999. Limited field of view of headmounted displays is not the cause of distance underestimation of distance in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 13, 5 (Oct.), 572--577.
• 11: Loomis, J. M., Da Silva, J. A., Fujita, N., and Fukusima, S. S. 1992. Visual space perception and visually directed action. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 18, 906--921.
• 12: Magne, P., and Coello, Y. 2002. Retinal and extra-retinal contributions to position coding. Experimental Brain Research 136, 277--287.
• 13: Mohler, B. J., Thompson, W. B., Creem-Regehr, S. H., Peter Willemsen Herbert L. Pick, J., and Rieser, J. J. (in press). Calibration of locomotion due to visual motion in a treadmill-based virtual environment. ACM Transactions in Applied Perception.
• 14: Proffitt, D. R., Stefanucci, J., Banton, T., and Epstein, W. 2003. The role of effort in perceiving distance. Psychological Science 14, 2 (March).
• 15: Richardson, A. R., and Waller, D. 2005. The effect of feedback training on distance estimation in virtual environments. Applied Cognitive Psychology 19, 1089--1108.
• 16: Rieser, J. J., Ashmead, D. H., Talor, C. R., and Youngquist, G. A. 1990. Visual perception and the guidance of locomotion without vision to previously seen targets. Perception 19, 675--689.
• 17: Rieser, J. J., Pick, Jr., H. L., Ashmead, D., and Garing, A. 1995. Calibration of human locomotion and models of perceptual-motor organization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 21, 480--497.
• 18: Cynthia S. Sahm , Sarah H. Creem-Regehr , William B. Thompson , Peter Willemsen, Throwing versus walking as indicators of distance perception in similar real and virtual environments, ACM Transactions on Applied Perception (TAP), v.2 n.1, p.35-45, January 2005 [doi>10.1145/1048687.1048690]
• 19: Schmidt, R. A., and Wrisberg, C. A. 2000. Providing feedback during the learning experience. In Motor Learning and Performance: A Problem-Based Learning Approach. ch. 10.
• 20: Thompson, W. B., Willemsen, P., Gooch, A. A., Creem-Regehr, S. H., Loomis, J. M., and Beall, A. C. 2004. Does the quality of computer graphics matter when judging distance in visually immersive environments? Presence 13, 5 (Oct.), 560--571.
• 21: Peter Willemsen , Mark B. Colton , Sarah H. Creem-Regehr , William B. Thompson, The effects of head-mounted display mechanics on distance judgments in virtual environments, Proceedings of the 1st Symposium on Applied perception in graphics and visualization, August 07-08, 2004, Los Angeles, California [doi>10.1145/1012551.1012558]
• 22: Witmer, B., and W. J. Sadowski, J. 1998. Nonvisually guided locomotion to a previously viewed target in real and virtual environments. Human Factors 40, 478--488.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  I. Computing Methodologies
  I.3 COMPUTER GRAPHICS
      I.3.7 Three-Dimensional Graphics and Realism
          Subjects: Virtual reality

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

Keywords:
adaptation, feedback, space perception, virtual environments