The effects of head-mounted display mechanical properties and field of view on distance judgments in virtual environments

ABSTRACT

Research has shown that people are able to judge distances accurately in full-cue, real-world environments using visually directed actions. However, in virtual environments viewed with head-mounted display (HMD) systems, there is evidence that people act as though the virtual space is smaller than intended. This is a surprising result given how well people act in real environments. The behavior in the virtual setting may be linked to distortions in the available visual cues or to a person's ability to locomote without vision. Either could result from issues related to added mass, moments of inertia, and restricted field of view in HMDs. This article describes an experiment in which distance judgments based on normal real-world and HMD viewing are compared with judgments based on real-world viewing while wearing two specialized devices. One is a mock HMD, which replicated the mass, moments of inertia, and field of view of the HMD and the other an inertial headband designed to replicate the mass and moments of inertia of the HMD, but constructed to not restrict the field of view of the observer or otherwise feel like wearing a helmet. Distance judgments using the mock HMD showed a statistically significant underestimation relative to the no restriction condition but not of a magnitude sufficient to account for all the distance compression seen in the HMD. Indicated distances with the inertial headband were not significantly smaller than those made with no restrictions.

REFERENCES

• 1: Beall, A. C., Loomis, J. M., Philbeck, J. W., and Fikes, T. G. 1995. Absolute motion parallax weakly determines visual scale in real and virtual environments. In Proceedings of the International Society for Optical Engineering (SPIE). Vol. 2411. 288--297.
• 2: 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 environments. Perception 34, 2, 191--204.
• 3: Cutting, J. E. and Vishton, P. M. 1995. Perceiving layout and knowing distance: The integration, relative potency and contextual use of different information about depth. In Perception of Space and Motion, W. Epstein and S. Rogers, Eds. Academic Press, New York, 69--117.
• 4: Ellis, S. R. and Menges, B. M. 1997. Judgments of the distance to nearby virtual objects: Interaction of viewing conditions and accommodative demand. Presence: Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 6, 4, 452--460.
• 5: Fukusima, S. S., Loomis, J. M., and Silva, J. A. D. 1997. Visual perception of egocentric distance as assessed by triangulation. J. Exper. Psych.. Hum. Percep. Perform. 23, 1, 86--100.
• 6: Eric Klein , Oliver G. Staadt , J. Edward Swan, II , Greg Schmidt , Mark A. Livingston, Egocentric medium-field distance perception in projection environments, Proceedings of the 3rd symposium on Applied perception in graphics and visualization, July 28-29, 2006, Boston, Massachusetts [doi>10.1145/1140491.1140524]
• 7: Joshua M. Knapp , Jack M. Loomis, Limited field of view of head-mounted displays is not the cause of distance underestimation in virtual environments, Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, v.13 n.5, p.572-577, October 2004 [doi>10.1162/1054746042545238]
• 8: Loomis, J. M. and Knapp, J. 2003. Visual perception of egocentric distance in real and virtual environments. In Virtual and Adaptive Environments, L. J. Hettinger and M. W. Haas, Eds. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahway, NJ.
• 9: Loomis, J. M., Silva, J. A. D., Fujita, N., and Fukusima, S. S. 1992. Visual space perception and visually directed action. J. Exper. Psych. Hum. Percep. Perform. 18, 4, 906--921.
• 10: Ooi, T. L., Wu, B., and He, Z. J. 2001. Distance determination by the angular declination below the horizon. Nature 414, 197--200.
• 11: Philbeck, J. W., Loomis, J. M., and Beall, A. C. 1997. Visually perceived location is an invariant in the control of action. Percep. Psychophys. 59, 4, 601--612.
• 12: Jodie M. Plumert , Joseph K. Kearney , James F. Cremer , Kara Recker, Distance perception in real and virtual environments, ACM Transactions on Applied Perception (TAP), v.2 n.3, p.216-233, July 05 [doi>10.1145/1077399.1077402]
• 13: Richardson, A. R. and Waller, D. 2007. Interaction with an immersive virtual environment corrects users' distance estimates. Hum. Factors 49, 3, 507--517.
• 14: Rieser, J. J., Ashmead, D. H., Tayor, C. R., and Youngquist, G. A. 1990. Visual perception and the guidance of locomotion without vision to previously seen targets. Perception 19, 675--689.
• 15: Jaeho Ryu , Naoki Hashimoto , Makoto Sato, Influence of Resolution Degradation on Distance Estimation in Virtual Space Displaying Static and Dynamic Image, Proceedings of the 2005 International Conference on Cyberworlds, p.43-50, November 23-25, 2005 [doi>10.1109/CW.2005.54]
• 16: 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]
• 17: Sedgwick, H. A. 1986. Space perception. In Handbook of Perception and Performance, K. R. Boff, L. Kaufman, and J. P. Thomas, Eds. Wiley-Interscience, Malden, MA, 21-1--21-57.
• 18: Surdick, R. T., Davis, E. T., King, R. A., and Hodges, L. F. 1997. The perception of distance in simulated visual displays -- A comparison of the effectiveness and accuracy of multiple depth cues across viewing distances. Presence: Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 6, 513--531.
• 19: William B. Thompson , Peter Willemsen , Amy A. Gooch , Sarah H. Creem-Regehr , Jack M. Loomis , Andrew C. Beall, Does the quality of the computer graphics matter when judging distances in visually immersive environments, Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, v.13 n.5, p.560-571, October 2004 [doi>10.1162/1054746042545292]
• 20: Thomson, J. A. 1983. Is continuous visual monitoring necessary in visually guided locomotion? J. Exper. Psych. Hum. Percep. Perform. 9, 3, 427--443.
• 21: Peter Willemsen , Amy A. Gooch , William B. Thompson , Sarah H. Creem-Regehr, Effects of stereo viewing conditions on distance perception in virtual environments, Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, v.17 n.1, p.91-101, February 2008 [doi>10.1162/pres.17.1.91]
• 22: Bob G. Witmer , Paul B. Kline, Judging Perceived and Traversed Distance in Virtual Environments, Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, v.7 n.2, p.144-167, April 1998 [doi>10.1162/105474698565640]
• 23: Witmer, B. G. and Sadowski Jr., W. J. 1998. Nonvisually guided locomotion to a previously viewed target in real and virtual environments. Hum. Factors 40, 3, 478--488.
• 24: 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

General Terms:
Human Factors

Keywords:
Perception, distance judgments, head-mounted displays