Quantifying fidelity for virtual environment simulations employing memory schema assumptions

In a virtual environment (VE), efficient techniques are often needed to economize on rendering computation without compromising the information transmitted. The reported experiments devise a functional fidelity metric by exploiting research on memory schemata. According to the proposed measure, similar information would be transmitted across synthetic and real-world scenes depicting a specific schema. This would ultimately indicate which areas in a VE could be rendered in lower quality without affecting information uptake. We examine whether computationally more expensive scenes of greater visual fidelity affect memory performance after exposure to immersive VEs, or whether they are merely more aesthetically pleasing than their diminished visual quality counterparts. Results indicate that memory schemata function in VEs similar to real-world environments. “High-level” visual cognition related to late visual processing is unaffected by ubiquitous graphics manipulations such as polygon count and depth of shadow rendering; “normal” cognition operates as long as the scenes look acceptably realistic. However, when the overall realism of the scene is greatly reduced, such as in wireframe, then visual cognition becomes abnormal. Effects that distinguish schema-consistent from schema-inconsistent objects change because the whole scene now looks incongruent. We have shown that this effect is not due to a failure of basic recognition.

[1]  Hans-Peter Seidel,et al.  Perceptually Guided Corrective Splatting , 2001, Comput. Graph. Forum.

[2]  Benjamin Watson,et al.  An Evaluation of Level of Detail Degradation in Head-Mounted Display Peripheries , 1997, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[3]  Katerina Mania,et al.  The Effect of Memory Schemas on Object Recognition in Virtual Environments , 2005, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[4]  ManiaKaterina,et al.  Quantifying fidelity for virtual environment simulations employing memory schema assumptions , 2010, TAP 2010.

[5]  Kathy Pezdek,et al.  Memory for Real-World Scenes: The Role of Consistency With Schema Expectation , 1989 .

[6]  Aikaterini Mania,et al.  Fidelity Metrics for Virtual Environment Simulations based on Human Judgements of Spatial Memory Awareness States , 2001 .

[7]  A. Friedman Framing pictures: the role of knowledge in automatized encoding and memory for gist. , 1979, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[8]  Stephen R. Ellis,et al.  Simulation Fidelity of a Virtual Environment Display , 1994 .

[9]  Rena Walles,et al.  How Does Schema Theory Apply to Real versus Virtual Memories? , 2003, Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw..

[10]  Katerina Mania,et al.  Perceptual sensitivity to head tracking latency in virtual environments with varying degrees of scene complexity , 2004, APGV '04.

[11]  Zoanne Saab,et al.  Memory for Places: Role of Schemata-Related Expectancy and Saliency in Recall and Recognition , 1984 .

[12]  N. Mackworth,et al.  Cognitive determinants of fixation location during picture viewing. , 1978, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[13]  T. Wickens Elementary Signal Detection Theory , 2001 .

[14]  ManiaKaterina,et al.  The effect of memory schemas on object recognition in virtual environments , 2005 .

[15]  Benjamin Kuipers,et al.  A FRAME FOR FRAMES: Representing Knowledge for Recognition , 1975 .

[16]  G. Goodman Picture memory: How the action schema affects retention , 1980, Cognitive Psychology.

[17]  James T Enns,et al.  Multiple-object tracking is based on scene, not retinal, coordinates. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[18]  Gerd Marmitt,et al.  Modeling Visual Attention in VR: Measuring the Accuracy of Predicted Scanpaths , 2002, Eurographics.

[19]  James A. Ferwerda,et al.  Three varieties of realism in computer graphics , 2003, IS&T/SPIE Electronic Imaging.

[20]  Benjamin Watson,et al.  Measuring and predicting visual fidelity , 2001, SIGGRAPH.

[21]  Leonard Wanger,et al.  The effect of shadow quality on the perception of spatial relationships in computer generated imagery , 1992, I3D '92.

[22]  Earl Hunt,et al.  The Transfer of Spatial Knowledge in Virtual Environment Training , 1998, Presence.

[23]  T. Pettigrew,et al.  Memory for schema-relevant information: a meta-analytic resolution. , 1992, The British journal of social psychology.

[24]  Alan Chalmers,et al.  Detail to Attention: Exploiting Visual Tasks for Selective Rendering , 2003, Rendering Techniques.

[25]  W. Brewer,et al.  Role of schemata in memory for places , 1981, Cognitive Psychology.

[26]  Roger A. Browse,et al.  Choosing Rendering Parameters for Effective Communication of 3D Shape , 2000, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications.

[27]  Howard S. Hock,et al.  Real-world schemata and scene recognition in adults and children , 1978 .

[28]  Katerina Mania,et al.  Fidelity Metrics for Virtual Environment Simulations Based on Spatial Memory Awareness States , 2003, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[29]  M. Land Motion and vision: why animals move their eyes , 1999, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.