Display size does not affect egocentric distance perception of naturalistic stimuli

Proceedings - APGV 2009: Symposium on Applied Perception in Graphics and Visualization

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages 15-18

  Riecke, Bernhard E ^a   Behbahani, Pooya Amini ^a   Shaw, Chris D ^a  

^a SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Display size; Distance perception; HMD; Indirect walking; Misperception; Virtual reality

Indexed keywords

DISPLAY SIZE; DISTANCE PERCEPTION; FIELD OF VIEWS; FIELDS OF VIEWS; HEAD MOUNTED DISPLAYS; REAL ENVIRONMENTS; REAL-WORLD; UNDERLYING FACTORS; VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENTS; WALKING TASKS;

DEPTH PERCEPTION; PHOTOGRAPHY; TARGETS; VIRTUAL REALITY; VISUALIZATION;

HELMET MOUNTED DISPLAYS;

EID: 70450177651     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/1620993.1620997     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (13)

1. 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.
2. INTERRANTE, V., RIES, B., LINDQUIST, J., KAEDING, M., AND ANDERSON, L. 2008. Elucidating factors that can facilitate veridical spatial perception in immersive virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments 17, 2, 176-198.
3. LOOMIS, J., AND KNAPP, J. 2003. Visual perception of egocentric distance in real and virtual environments. Virtual and Adaptive Environments: Applications, Implications, and Human Performance Issues.
4. MESSING, R., AND DURGIN, F. H. 2005. Distance perception and the visual horizon in head-mounted displays. ACM Transactions on Applied Perception (TAP) 2, 3, 234-250.
5. OOI, T. L., WU, B., AND HE, Z. J. 2001. Distance determined by the angular declination below the horizon. Nature 414, 6860 (Nov), 197-200.
6. 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-Human Perception and Performance 23, 1, 72-85.
7. PHILBECK, J. W., LOOMIS, J. M., AND BEALL, A. C. 1997. Visually perceived location is an invariant in the control of action. Percept. Psychophys. 59, 4 (May), 601-612.
8. PLUMERT, J. M., KEARNEY, J. K., CREMER, J. F., AND RECKER, K. 2005. Distance perception in real and virtual environments. ACM Transactions on Applied Perception (TAP) 2, 3, 216-233.
9. TAN, D. S., GERGLE, D., SCUPELLI, P., AND PAUSCH, R. 2006. Physically large displays improve performance on spatial tasks. ACM Transactions on Computer- Human Interaction (TOCHI) 13, 1, 71-99.
10. 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 & Virtual Environments 13, 5, 560-571.
11. WILLEMSEN, P., COLTON, M. B., CREEM-REGEHR, S. H., AND THOMPSON, W. B. 2004. The effects of head-mounted display mechanics on distance judgments in virtual environments. In Proceedings of the 1st Symposium on Applied perception in graphics and visualization, ACM New York, NY, USA, 35-38.
12. WITMER, B. G., AND SADOWSKI, W. J. 1998. Nonvisually guided locomotion to a previously viewed target in real and virtual environments. Human Factors 40, 3, 478-479.
13. ZIEMER, C. J., PLUMERT, J. M., CREMER, J. F., AND KEARNEY, J. K. 2009. Estimating distance in real and virtual environments: Does order make a difference? Attention, Perception & Psychophysics 71, 5, 1095-1106.