Gender Differences in Cue Preference During Path Integration in Virtual Environments

ACM Transactions on Applied Perception

Volumn 4, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 6-

  Fortenbaugh, Francesca C ^a   Chaudhury, Sidhartha ^a   Hicks, John C ^a   Hao, Lei ^a   Turano, Kathleen A ^a  

^a Lions Vision Center   (United States)

Author keywords

cue preference; egocentric reference frame; Experimentation; Gender differences; Human Factors; path integration

Indexed keywords

EID: 77950654240     PISSN: 15443558     EISSN: 15443965     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1145/1227134.1227140     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Chaudhury, S., Eisinger, J. M., Hao, L., Hicks, J., Chivukula, R., and Turano, K. A. 2004. Visual illusion in virtual world alters womens' target-directed walking. Experimental Brain Research 159, 360-369.
2. Cutmore, T. R., Hine, T. J., Maberly, K. J., Langford, N. M., and Hawgood, G. 2000. Cognitive and gender factors influencing navigation in a virtual environment. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 53, 223-249.
3. Dabbs, J. M., Chang, E.-L., Strong, R. A., and Milun, R. 1998. Spatial ability, navigation strategy, and geographic knowledge among men and women. Evolution & Human Behavior 19, 89-98.
4. Dassonville, P. and Bala, J. K. 2004a. Are the original Roelofs effect and the induced Roelofs effect confounded by the same expansion of remembered space? Vision Research 44, 1025-1029.
5. Dassonville, P. and Bala, J. K. 2004b. Perception, action, and roelofs effect: A mere illusion of dissociation. PLoS Biology 2, 11, 1936-1945.
6. Dassonville, P., Bridgeman, B., Bala, J. K., and Thiem, P. 2004. The induced Roelofs effect: Two visual systems or the shift of a single reference frame? Vision Research 44, 603-611.
7. Ellard, C. G. and Shaughnessy, S. C. 2003. A comparison of visual and non-visual sensory inputs to distance estimation in a blind walking task. Perception 32, 5, 567-578.
8. Gron, G., Wunderlich, A. P., Spitzer, M., Tomczak, R., and Riepe, M. W. 2000. Brain activation during human navigation: Gender-different neural networks as substrate of performance. Nature Neuroscience 3, 4, 404-408.
9. Ismail, A. R. and Asfour, S. S. 1999. Discrete wavelet transform: A tool in smoothing kinematic data. Journal of Biomechanics 32, 317-321.
10. Lackner, J. R. and DiZio, P. 2005. Vestibular, proprioceptive, and haptic contributions to spatial orientation. Annual Review of Psychology 56, 115-147.
11. Linn, M. C. and Peterson, A. C. 1985. Emergence and characterization of sex differences in spatial ability: A meta-analysis. Child Development 56, 1479-1498.
12. Loomis, J. M. and Knapp, J. M. 2003. Visual perception of egocentric distance in real and virtual environments. Virtual and Adaptive Environments, L. J. H. Hettinger, Ed. Lawrence crlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. 21-46.
13. Loomis, J. M., Klatzky, R. L., Golledge, R. G., Cicinelli, J. G., Pellegrino, J. W., and Fry, P. A. 1993. Nonvisual navigation by blind and sighted: Assessment of path integration ability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 122, 1, 73-91.
14. Loomis, J. M., Klatzky, R. L., Golledge, R. G., and Philbeck, J. W. 1999. Human navigation by path integration. Wayfinding Behavior: Cognitive Mapping and Other Spatial Processes. R. G. Golledge, Ed. Baltimore, MD. 125-151.
15. Loomis, J. M., Lippa, Y., Golledge, R. G., and Klatzky, R. L. 2002. Spatial updating of locations specified by 3-d sound and spatial language. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 28, 2, 335-345.
16. MacKenzie, I. S. and Ware, C. 1993. Lag as a determinant of human performance in interactive systems. INTERCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 488-493.
17. Maguire, E. A., Burgess, N., and O'Keefe, J. 1999. Human spatial navigation: Cognitive maps, sexual dimorphism, and neural substrates. Current Opinion in Neurobiology 9, 171-177.
18. Messing, R. and Durgin, F. H. 2005. Distance perception and the visual horizon in head-mounted displays. ACM Transactions on Applied Perception 2, 3, 234-250.
19. Mittelstaedt, M. L. and Mittelstaedt, H. 2001. Idiothetic navigation in humans: Estimation of path length. Experimental Brain Research 139, 318-332.
20. Philbeck, J. W. and Loomis, J. M. 1997. A comparison of two indicators of perceived egocentric distance under full-cue and reduced cue conditions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 23, 72-85.
21. Rieser, J. J., Ashmead, D. H., Taylor, C. R., and Youngquist, G. A. 1990. Visual perception and the guidance of locomotion without vision to previously seen targets. Perception 19, 675-689.
22. Sandstrom, N. J., Kaufman, J., and Huettel, S. A. 1998. Males and females use different distal cues in a virtual environment navigation task. Cognitive Brain Research 6, 351-360.
23. Stanney, K. M., Mourant, R. R., and Kennedy, R. S. 1998. Human factors issues in virtual environments: A review of the literature. Presence 7, 4, 327-351.
24. 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 13, 5, 560-571.
25. Turano, K. A. and Chaudhury, S. 2005. Spatial awareness in immersive virtual reality environments revealed in open-loop walking. SPIE-IS&TElectronic Imaging, SPIE, San Jose, CA. 416-423.
26. Viaud-Delmon, I., Ivanenko, Y. P., Berthoz, A., and Jouvent, R. 1998. Sex, lies and virtual reality. Nature Neuroscience 1, 1, 15-16.
27. Voyer, D., Voyer, S., and Bryden, M. P. 1995. Magnitude of sex differences in spatial abilities: A meta-analysis and consideration of critical variables. Psychological Bulletin 117, 2, 250-270.
28. Wloka, M. M. 1995. Lag in multiprocessor virtual reality. Presence 4, 1, 50-63.