Minication affects action-based distance judgments in oculus rift HMDs

Distance perception is a crucial component for many virtual reality applications, and numerous studies have shown that egocentric distances are judged to be compressed in head-mounted display (HMD) systems. Geometric minification, a technique where the graphics are rendered with a field of view that larger than the HMD's field of view, is one known method of eliminating the distance compression [Kuhl et al. 2009; Zhang et al. 2012]. This study uses direct blind walking to determine how minification might impact distance judgments in the Oculus Rift HMD which has a significantly larger FOV than previous minification studies. Our results show that people were able to make accurate distance judgments in a calibrated condition and that geometric minification causes people to overestimate distances. Since this study shows that minification can impact wide FOV displays such as the Oculus, we discuss how it may be necessary to use calibration techniques which are more thorough than those described in this paper.

[1]  J. Andre,et al.  Using verbal and blind-walking distance estimates to investigate the two visual systems hypothesis , 2006, Perception & psychophysics.

[2]  J. Loomis,et al.  Visual space perception and visually directed action. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[3]  Peter Willemsen,et al.  Effects of Stereo Viewing Conditions on Distance Perception in Virtual Environments , 2008, PRESENCE: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments.

[4]  Scott A. Kuhl,et al.  Minification affects verbal- and action-based distance judgments differently in head-mounted displays , 2012, TAP.

[5]  William B. Thompson,et al.  HMD calibration and its effects on distance judgments , 2008, APGV '08.

[6]  Jack M. Loomis,et al.  Visual perception of egocentric distance in real and virtual environments. , 2003 .

[7]  J. Edward Swan,et al.  Peripheral Stimulation and its Effect on Perceived Spatial Scale in Virtual Environments , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[8]  Peter Willemsen,et al.  Does the Quality of the Computer Graphics Matter when Judging Distances in Visually Immersive Environments? , 2004, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[9]  Peter Willemsen,et al.  Throwing versus walking as indicators of distance perception in similar real and virtual environments , 2005, TAP.

[10]  Wallace J. Sadowski,et al.  Nonvisually Guided Locomotion to a Previously Viewed Target in Real and Virtual Environments , 1998, Hum. Factors.

[11]  Peter Willemsen,et al.  Throwing vs. walking as indicators of distance perception in real and virtual environments , 2004, APGV '04.

[12]  Frank H. Durgin,et al.  Distance Perception and the Visual Horizon in Head-Mounted Displays , 2005, TAP.

[13]  Jack M. Loomis,et al.  Limited Field of View of Head-Mounted Displays Is Not the Cause of Distance Underestimation in Virtual Environments , 2004, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[14]  Bob G. Witmer,et al.  Judging Perceived and Traversed Distance in Virtual Environments , 1998, Presence.

[15]  Mark T. Bolas,et al.  Comparability of narrow and wide field-of-view head-mounted displays for medium-field distance judgments , 2012, SAP.

[16]  J. Rieser,et al.  Visual Perception and the Guidance of Locomotion without Vision to Previously Seen Targets , 1990, Perception.

[17]  Victoria Interrante,et al.  Elucidating Factors that can Facilitate Veridical Spatial Perception in Immersive Virtual Environments , 2007, VR.

[18]  William B. Thompson,et al.  Revisiting the effect of quality of graphics on distance judgments in virtual environments: A comparison of verbal reports and blind walking , 2009, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[19]  Peter Willemsen,et al.  The effects of head-mounted display mechanical properties and field of view on distance judgments in virtual environments , 2009, TAP.