Throwing versus walking as indicators of distance perception in similar real and virtual environments

ABSTRACT

For humans to effectively interact with their environment, it is important for the visual system to determine the absolute size and distance of objects. Previous experiments performed in full-cue, real-world environments have demonstrated that blind walking to targets serves as an accurate indication of distance perception, up to about 25 m. In contrast, the same task performed in virtual environments (VEs) using head-mounted displays shows significant underestimation in walking. To date, blind walking is the only visually directed action task that has been used to evaluate distance perception in VEs beyond reaching distances. The possible influence of the response measure itself on absolute distance perception in virtual environments is currently an open question. Blind walking involves locomotion and the egocentric updating of the environment with one's own movement. We compared this measure to blind throwing, a task that involves the initiation of a movement directed by vision, but no further interaction within the environment. Both throwing and walking were compressed in the VE but accurate in the real world. We suggest that distance compression found in VEs may be a result of a general perceptual origin rather than specific to the response measure.

REFERENCES

• 1: Kevin Wayne Arthur , Frederick P. Brooks, Jr., Effects of field of view on performance with head-mounted displays, 2000
• 2: Creem, S. H. and Proffit, D. R. 1998. Two memories for geographical slant: Separation and interdependence of action and awareness. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 5, 1, 22--36.
• 3: Creem-Regehr, S. H., Willemsen P., Gooch A. A., and Thompson W. B. 2003. The effects of restricted viewing conditions on egocentric distance judgments. Journal of Vision 3, 9, 16a.
• 4: Durgin, F. H., Fox, L. F., Lewis, J., and Walley, K. A. 2002. Perceptuomotor adaptation: More than meets the eye. Poster presented at the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society (Kansas City, MO).
• 5: Eby, D. W. and Loomis, J. M. 1987. A study of visually directed throwing in the presence of multiple distance cues. Perception and Psychophysics 41, 308--312.
• 6: Fukusima, S. S., Loomis, J. M., and Da Silva, J. A. 1997. Visual perception of egocentric distance as assessed by triangulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 23, 86--100.
• 7: Gogel, W. C. and Da Silva, J. A. 1987. Familiar size and the theory of off-sized perceptions. Perception and Psychophysics 41, 220--238.
• 8: Knapp, J. M. 1999. Visual Perception of Egocentric Distance in Virtual Environments. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Psychology, University of California, Santa Barbara.
• 9: Knapp, J. M. and Loomis, J. M. 2004. Limited field of view of head-mounted displays is not the cause of distance underestimation in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 13, 5, 572--577.
• 10: Loomis, J. M., Blacovich, J. J., and Beall, A. C. 1999. Immersive virtual environment technology as a basic research tool in psychology. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments and Computers 31, 557--564.
• 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 18, 906--921.
• 12: Loomis, J. M., Da Silva, J. A., Philbeck, J. W., and Fukusima, S. S. 1996. Visual perception of location and distance. Current Directions in Psychological Science 5, 72--77.
• 13: Loomis, J. M., Klatsky, R. L., Philbeck, J. W., and Gollege, R. G. 1998. Assessing auditory distance perception using perceptually directed action. Perception & Psychophysics 60, 966--980.
• 14: Loomis, J. M. and Knapp, J. M. 2003. Visual perception of egocentric distance in real and virtual environments. In Virtual and Adaptive Environments, L. J. Hettiger and M. W. Haas, Eds. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 21--46.
• 15: Messing, R. B. and Durgin, F. H. 2004. Compression of distance perception in a live-video-fed head mounted display. Journal of Vision, 4, 8, 382a.
• 16: Philbeck, J. W. and Loomis, J. M. 1997. Comparison of two indicators of perceived egocentric distance under full-cue and reduced-cue conditions. Journal of Experimental Psychology 23, 72--85.
• 17: 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]
• 18: Rieser, J. J. 1999. Dynamic spatial orientation and the coupling of representation and action. In Wayfinding Behavior: Cognitive Mapping and Other Spatial Processes, R. G. Golledge, Eds. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD, 168--190.
• 19: Rieser, J. J., Ashmead, D. H., Taylor, C. R., and Youngqust, G. A. 1990. Visual perception and the guidance of locomotion without vision to previously seen targets. Perception 19, 675--689.
• 20: Sinai, M. J., Krebs, W. K., Darken, R. P., Rowland, J. H., and McCarley, J. S. 1999. Egocentric distance perception in a virtual environment using a perceptual matching task. In Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 43, 1256--1260.
• 21: Smith, P. C. and Smith, O. W. 1961. Ball throwing responses to photographically portrayed targets. Journal of Experimental Psychology 62, 223--233.
• 22: Stanney, K. and Salvendy, G. 1998. After effects and sense of presence in virtual environments: Formulation of a research and development agenda. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 10, 135--187.
• 23: Thompson, W. B., Willemsen, P., Gooch, A. A., Creem-Regehr, S. H., Loomis, J. M., and Beall, A. C. 2004. Does the quality of the computer graphics matter when judging distances in visually immersive environments? Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 13, 5, 560--571.
• 24: Thomson, J. A. 1983. Is continuous visual monitoring necessary in visually guided locomotion? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 9, 427--443.
• 25: 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]
• 26: Peter Willemsen , Amy A. Gooch, Perceived Egocentric Distances in Real, Image-Based, and Traditional Virtual Environments, Proceedings of the IEEE Virtual Reality Conference 2002, p.275, March 24-28, 2002
• 27: Witmer, B. G. and Kline, P. B. 1998. Judging perceived and traversed distance in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 7, 144--167.
• 28: Witmer, B. G. and Sadowski, W. J. J. 1998. Nonvisually guided locomotion to a previously viewed target in real and virtual environments. Human Factors 40, 478--488.
• 29: Wright, R. H. 1995. Virtual reality psychophysics: Forward and lateral distance, height and speed perceptions with a wide-angle helmet display (ARI Technical Report) Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
• 30: Wu, B., Ooi, T. L., and He, Z. J. 2004. Perceiving distance accurately by a directional process of integrating ground information. Nature 428, 73--77.

INDEX TERMS

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

Additional Classification:
  J. Computer Applications
  J.4 SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

General Terms:
Experimentation, Measurement, Performance

Keywords:
Virtual environments, blind walking, distance perception, head-mounted displays