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

ABSTRACT

“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 head-mounted display or projection screen. After upright rotations, participants had to point “as accurately and quickly as possibl ” 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 updating---merely presenting static images of new orientations proved sufficient, which motivated our distinction between continuous and instant-based spatial updating.

REFERENCES

• 1: Amorim, M. A. and Stucchi, N. 1997. Viewer- and object-centered mental explorations of an imagined environment are not equivalent. Cognit. Brain Res. 5, 3 (Mar.), 229--239.
• 2: Kevin Wayne Arthur , Frederick P. Brooks, Jr., Effects of field of view on performance with head-mounted displays, 2000
• 3: 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.
• 4: Bakker, N. H., Werkhoven, P. J., and Passenier, P. O. 2001. Calibrating Visual Path Integration in VEs. Presence---Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 10, 2 (Apr.), 216--224.
• 5: Batschelet, E. 1981. Circular statistics in biology. Academic Press, London.
• 6: Carpenter, M. and Proffit, D. R. 2001. Comparing viewer and array mental rotations in different planes. Memory & Cognition 29, 3 (Apr.), 441--448.
• 7: 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.
• 8: Christou, C., Tjan, B., and Bülthoff, H. 1999. Viewpoint information provided by familiar environment facilitates object identification. Tech. Rep. 68, Max-Planck Institut für biologische Kybernetik. Available: www.kyb.mpg.de /publication.html?publ=1536.
• 9: Cobb, S. V. G., Nichols, S., Ramsey, A., and Wilson, J. R. 1999. Virtual reality-induced symptoms and effects (VRISE). Presence---Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 8, 2 (Apr.), 169--186.
• 10: Creem, S. H. and Proffitt, D. R. 2000. Egocentric measures of spatial updating: Is there an advantage for action? Poster presented at the 41st Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, New Orleans, LA.
• 11: Creem, S. H., Wraga, M., and Proffitt, D. R. 2001. Imagining physically impossible self-rotations: Geometry is more important than gravity. Cognition 81, 1 (Aug.), 41--64.
• 12: Creem-Regehr, S. H., Willemsen, P., Gooch, A. A., and Thompson, W. B. 2003. The influence of restricted viewing conditions on egocentric distance perception: Implications for real and virtual environments. Tech. Rep. UUCS-03-016, School of Computing, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, USA. Available: www.cs.utahtechrep2003UUCS-03-016.pdf.
• 13: 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.
• 14: 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.
• 15: 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.
• 16: Farrell, M. J. and Robertson, I. H. 2000. The automatic updating of egocentric spatial relationships and its impairment due to right posterior cortical lesions. Neuropsychologia 38, 5, 585--595.
• 17: Hettinger, L. J., Nelson, W. T., and Haas, M. W. 1996. Target detection performance in helmet-mounted and conventional dome displays. International Journal of Aviation Psychology 6, 4, 321--334.
• 18: Hollins, M. and Kelley, E. K. 1988. Spatial updating in blind and sighted people. Percept. Psychophys. 43, 4 (Apr.), 380--388.
• 19: Howarth, P. A. and Costello, P. J. 1997. The occurrence of virtual simulation sickness symptoms when an HMD was used as a personal viewing system. Displays 18, 2 (Dec.), 107--116.
• 20: Kearns, M. J., Warren, W. H., Duchon, A. P., and Tarr, M. J. 2002. Path integration from optic flow and body senses in a homing task. Perception 31, 3, 349--374.
• 21: 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, 293--298.
• 22: Stephen M. Kosslyn, Image and brain: the resolution of the imagery debate, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1994
• 23: 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, 3 (Jan.), 72--77.
• 24: May, M. 1996. Cognitive and embodied modes of spatial imagery. Psychologische Beiträge 38, 418--434.
• 25: May, M. 2000. Kognition im Umraum. Studien zur Kognitionswissenschaft. DUV: Kognitionswissenschaft, Wiesbaden.
• 26: May, M. 2004. Imaginal perspective switches in remembered environments: Transformation versus interference accounts. Cognitive Psychology 48, 2 (Mar.), 163--206.
• 27: May, M. and Klatzky, R. L. 2000. Path integration while ignoring irrelevant movement. J. Exp. Psychol.-Learn. Mem. Cogn. 26, 1 (Jan.), 169--186.
• 28: Mon-Williams, M. and Wann, J. P. 1998. Binocular virtual reality displays: When problems do and don't occur. Human Factors 40, 1 (Mar.), 42--49.
• 29: Nelson, W. T., Hettinger, L. J., Cunningham, J. A., Brickman, B. J., Haas, M. W., and McKinley, R. L. 1998. Effects of localized auditory information on visual target detection performance using a helmet-mounted display. Human Factors 40, 3 (Sept.), 452--460.
• 30: 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.
• 31: 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.
• 32: Riecke, B. E. and von der Heyde, M. 2002. Qualitative modeling of spatial orientation processes using logical propositions: Interconnecting spatial presence, spatial updating, piloting, and spatial cognition. Tech. Rep. 100, MPI for Biological Cybernetics. Avaliable: www.kyb.mppublication.html?publ=2021.
• 33: 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]
• 34: Riecke, B. E., von der Heyde, M., and Bülthoff, H. H. 2002b. 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.mpg.de /publication.html?publ=628.
• 35: Riecke, B. E., Schulte-Pelkum, J., and Bülthoff, H. H. 2005. Perceiving simulated ego-motions in virtual reality---comparing large screen displays with HMDs. In SPIE---Invited paper on VALVE: Vision, Action, and Locomotion in Virtual (and Real) Environments (San Jose CA). Available: www.kyb.mppublication.html?publ=3233.
• 36: 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.
• 37: 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.
• 38: Shelton, A. L. and McNamara, T. P. 2001. Systems of spatial reference in human memory. Cognitive Psychology 43, 4 (Dec.), 274--310.
• 39: 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.
• 40: Simons, D. J. and Wang, R. F. 1998. Perceiving real-world viewpoint changes. Psychol. Sci. 9, 4 (Jul.), 315--320.
• 41: Simons, D. J., Wang, R. X. F., and Roddenberry, D. 2002. Object recognition is mediated by extraretinal information. Perception & Psychophysics 64, 4 (May), 521--530.
• 42: Stanney, K. M., Mourant, R. R., and Kennedy, R. S. 1998. Human factors issues in virtual environments: A review of the literature. Presence---Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 7, 4 (Aug.), 327--351.
• 43: von der 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.mppublication.html?publ=633.
• 44: Wang, R. X. F. and Simons, D. J. 1999. Active and passive scene recognition across views. Cognition 70, 2 (Mar.), 191--210.
• 45: Wang, R. X. F. and Spelke, E. S. 2000. Updating egocentric representations in human navigation. Cognition 77, 3 (Dec.), 215--250.
• 46: Wraga, M., Creem, S. H., and Proffitt, D. R. 1999a. The influence of spatial reference frames on imagined object- and viewer rotations. Acta Psychol. 102, 2--3 (Sept.), 247--264.
• 47: Wraga, M., Creem, S. H., and Proffitt, D. R. 1999b. Spatial updating of an irregularly shaped virtual array during self- and display rotations. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 40, 4 (Mar.), 1.
• 48: Wraga, M., Creem, S. H., and Proffitt, D. R. 2000. Updating displays after imagined object and viewer rotations. J. Exp. Psychol.-Learn. Mem. Cogn. 26, 1 (Jan.), 151--168.
• 49: Wraga, M., Creem-Regehr, S. H., and Proffitt, D. R. 2004. Spatial updating of virtual displays during self- and display rotation. Memory & Cognition 32, 3 (Apr.), 399--415.
• 50: Yardley, L. and Higgins, M. 1998. Spatial updating during rotation: The role of vestibular information and mental activity. J. Vestib. Res.-Equilib. Orientat. 8, 6 (Nov.-Dec.), 435--442.

INDEX TERMS

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

Additional Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.1 MODELS AND PRINCIPLES
      H.1.2 User/Machine Systems
          Subjects: Human information processing
  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)
          Subjects: Input devices and strategies (e.g., mouse, touchscreen); Interaction styles (e.g., commands, menus, forms, direct manipulation)

  J. Computer Applications
  J.4 SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

General Terms:
Experimentation, Human Factors

Keywords:
Spatial updating, ego-motion simulation, human factors, multimodal, psychophysics, spatial orientation, virtual reality, visuovestibular cue integration