Can people not tell left from right in VR? Point-to-origin studies revealed qualitative errors in visual path integration

Proceedings - IEEE Virtual Reality

Volumn , Issue , 2007, Pages 3-10

  Riecke, Bernhard E ^a   Wiener, Jan M ^a  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR BIOLOGICAL CYBERNETICS   (Germany)

Author keywords

Ego motion simulation; Human factors; Navigation; Point to origin; Psychophysics; Spatial orientation; Spatial updating; Triangle completion; Virtual Reality

Indexed keywords

COGNITIVE SYSTEMS; COMPUTER AIDED SOFTWARE ENGINEERING; ERROR ANALYSIS; FEEDBACK; OPTIMIZATION;

EGO-MOTION SIMULATION; POINT-TO-ORIGIN; PSYCHOPHYSICS; SPATIAL ORIENTATION; SPATIAL UPDATING; TRIANGLE COMPLETION;

VIRTUAL REALITY;

EID: 34547692952     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1109/VR.2007.352457     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (37)

1. K. W. Arthur, Effects of Field of View on Performance with Head-Mounted Displays. PhD thesis. Department of Computer Science. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 2000.
2. M. N. Avraamides, R. L. Klatzky, J. M. Loomis, and R. G. Golledge. Use of cognitive versus perceptual heading during imagined locomotion depends on the response mode. Psychological Science, 15(6):403-408, June 2004.
3. E. Batschelet, Circular statistics in biology. Acad. Pr., London, 1981.
4. S. S. Chance, F. Gaunet, A. C. Beall, and J. M. Loomis. 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): 168-178, Apr. 1998.
5. R. P. Darken and B. Peterson. Spatial orientation, wayfinding and representation. In K. M. Stanney, editor, Handbook of Virtual Environments, chapter 24, pages 493-518. Lawrence Erlbaum. 2002.
6. M. J. Farrell and I. H. Robertson. Mental rotation and the automatic updating of body-centered spatial relationships. J. Exp. Psychol.-Learn. Mem. Cogn., 24(1):227-233, Jan. 1998.
7. K. Gramann, H. J. Muller. E. M. Eick, and B. Schonebeck. Evidence of separable spatial representations in a virtual navigation task. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance. 31(6):1199-1223, Dec. 2005.
8. S. C. Grant and L. E. Magee. Contributions of proprioception to navigation in virtual environments. Human Factors, 40(3):489-497, 1998.
9. M. J. Kearns, W. H. Warren, A. P. Duchon, and M. J. Tarr. Path integration from optic flow and body senses in a homing task. Perception, 31(3):349-374, 2002.
10. R. L. Klatzky, J. M. Loomis, A. C. Beall, S. S. Chance, and R. G. Golledge. Spatial updating of self-position and orientation during real, imagined, and virtual locomotion. Psychol. Sci., 9(4):293-298, 1998.
11. R. L. Klatzky, J. M. Loomis, and R. G. Golledge. Encoding spatial reresentations through nonvisually guided locomotion: Test of human path integration. In D. Medin. editor, The psychology of learning and motivation, volume 37, pages 41-84. Acad. Press, 1997.
12. C. A. Lawton and K. A. Morrin. Gender differences in pointing accuracy in computer-simulated 3D mazes. Sex Roles, 40(1-2):73-92, 1999.
13. J. M. Loomis, R. L. Klatzky, R. G. Golledge, and J. W. Philbeck. Human navigation by path integration. In R. G. Golledge, editor, Wayfinding Behavior: Cognitive mapping and other spatial processes, pages 125-151. Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, 1999.
14. M. May. Cognitive and embodied modes of spatial imagery. Psychologische Beitrüge, 38(3/4):418-434, 1996.
15. M. May. Imaginai perspective switches in remembered environments: Transformation versus interference accounts. Cognitive Psychology, 48(2): 163-206, Mar. 2004.
16. M. May and R. L. Klatzky. Path integration while ignoring irrelevant movement J. Exp. Psychol.-Learn. Mem. Cogn., 26(1): 169-186. 2000.
17. P. Péruch and E Gaunet. Virtual environments as a promising tool for investigating human spatial cognition. Cah. Psychol. Cogn.-C.urr. Psychol. Cogn., 17(4-5):881-899, aug-oct 1998.
18. P. Péruch, M. May, and F. Wartenberg. Homing in virtual environments: Effects of field of view and path layout. Perception, 26(3):301-311, 1997.
19. C. C. Presson and D. R. Montello. Updating after rotational and translational body movements: Coordinate structure of perspective space. Perception, 23(12): 1447-1455, 1994.
20. J. D. Prothero, The Role of Rest Frames in Vection, Presence and Motion Sickness. PhD thesis, University of Washington, 1998. Available: www.hitl.washington.edu/publications/r-98-11/.
21. S. Razzaque, Z. Kohn, and M. C. Whitton. Redirected walking. In Proceedings of Eurographics 2001. pages 289-294. Eurographics Association, 2001.
22. B. E. Riecke, D. W. Cunningham, and H. H. Bülthoff. Spatial updating in virtual reality: The sufficiency of visual information. Psychological Research. 2007. (in press).
23. B. E. Riecke, J. Schulte-Pelkum, and H. H. Bülthoff. Perceiving simulated ego-motions in virtual reality - comparing large screen displays with HMDs. In Proceedings of the SPIE, volume 5666. pages 344-355, San Jose, CA, USA, 2005.
24. B. E. Riecke, H. A. H. C. van Veen, and H. H. Bülthoff. Visual Homing Is Possible Without Landmarks: A Path Integration Study in Virtual Reality. Presence - Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 11(5):443-473, 2002.
25. B. E. Riecke, M. von der Heyde, and H. H. Bülthoff. Visual cues can be sufficient for triggering automatic, reflex-like spatial updating. ACM Transactions on Applied Perception (TAP), 2(3): 183-215. 2005.
26. J.J. Rieser. Access to knowledge of spatial structure at novel points of observation. J. Exp. Psychol.-Learn. Mem. Cogn., 15(6):1157-1165, Nov. 1989.
27. R. A. Ruddle and D. M. Jones. Movement in cluttered virtual environments. Presence ?Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 10(5):511-524, Oct. 2001.
28. E. K. Sadalla and D. R. Montello. Remembering changes in direction. Environ. Behav., 21 (3):346-363, May 1989.
29. J. Schulte-Pelkum, B. E. Riecke, M. von der Heyde, and H. H. Bülthoff. Influence of display device and screen curvature on perceiving and controlling simulated ego-rotations from optic flow. Technical Report 122, MPI for Biological Cybernetics, 2004.
30. M. J. Sholl, The relation between horizontality and rod-and-frame and vestibular navigational performance. J. Exp. Psychol.-Learn. Mem. Cogn., 15(1): 110-125, Jan. 1989.
31. H. Stumpf and E. Fay. Schlauchfiguren - Ein Test zur Beurteilung des räumlichen Vorstellungsvermögens. Hogrefe, Göttingen, 1983.
32. D. S. Tan, D. Gergle, P. Scupelli, and R. Pausch. Physically large displays improve performance on spatial tasks. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact., 13(1):71-99, March 2006.
33. R. F. Wang. Beyond imagination: Perspective change problems revisited. Psicologica, 26(1):25-38, 2005.
34. R. X. F. Wang and D. J. Simons. Active and passive scene recognition across views. Cognition, 70(2): 191-210, Mar. 1999.
35. J. M. Wiener and H. A. Mallot. Path complexity does not impair visual path integration. Spatial Cognition and Computation, 6(4):333-346, 2006.
36. M. Wraga, Thinking outside the body: An advantage for spatial updating during imagined versus physical self-rotation. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 29(5):993-1005. Sept. 2003.
37. M. Wraga, S. H. Creem-Regehr, and D. R. Proffitt. Spatial updating of virtual displays during self- and display rotation. Memory & Cognition, 32(3):399-415, Apr. 2004.