The effects of head-mounted display mechanical properties and field of view on distance judgments in virtual environments

Research has shown that people are able to judge distances accurately in full-cue, real-world environments using visually directed actions. However, in virtual environments viewed with head-mounted display (HMD) systems, there is evidence that people act as though the virtual space is smaller than intended. This is a surprising result given how well people act in real environments. The behavior in the virtual setting may be linked to distortions in the available visual cues or to a person's ability to locomote without vision. Either could result from issues related to added mass, moments of inertia, and restricted field of view in HMDs. This article describes an experiment in which distance judgments based on normal real-world and HMD viewing are compared with judgments based on real-world viewing while wearing two specialized devices. One is a mock HMD, which replicated the mass, moments of inertia, and field of view of the HMD and the other an inertial headband designed to replicate the mass and moments of inertia of the HMD, but constructed to not restrict the field of view of the observer or otherwise feel like wearing a helmet. Distance judgments using the mock HMD showed a statistically significant underestimation relative to the no restriction condition but not of a magnitude sufficient to account for all the distance compression seen in the HMD. Indicated distances with the inertial headband were not significantly smaller than those made with no restrictions.

[1]  O. Sabouraud.  [Space perception]. , 1978, Revue d'oto-neuro-ophtalmologie.

[2]  J. Thomson.  Is continuous visual monitoring necessary in visually guided locomotion? , 1983, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

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

[5]  James E. Cutting,et al.  Chapter 3 – Perceiving Layout and Knowing Distances: The Integration, Relative Potency, and Contextual Use of Different Information about Depth* , 1995 .

[6]  Jack M. Loomis,et al.  Absolute motion parallax weakly determines visual scale in real and virtual environments , 1995, Electronic Imaging.

[7]  Stephen R. Ellis,et al.  Judgments of the Distance to Nearby Virtual Objects: Interaction of Viewing Conditions and Accommodative Demand , 1997, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[8]  J M Loomis,et al.  Visually perceived location is an invariant in the control of action , 1997, Perception & psychophysics.

[9]  S S Fukusima,et al.  Visual perception of egocentric distance as assessed by triangulation. , 1997, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[10]  Larry F. Hodges,et al.  The Perception of Distance in Simulated Visual Displays:A Comparison of the Effectiveness and Accuracy of Multiple Depth Cues Across Viewing Distances , 1997, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

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

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

[13]  Zijiang J. He,et al.  Distance determined by the angular declination below the horizon , 2001, Nature.

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

[15]  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.

[16]  Jodie M. Plumert,et al.  Distance perception in real and virtual environments , 2004, APGV '04.

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

[18]  Zijiang J. He,et al.  Perceiving distance accurately by a directional process of integrating ground information , 2004, Nature.

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

[20]  Makoto Sato,et al.  Influence of resolution degradation on distance estimation in virtual space displaying static and dynamic image , 2005, 2005 International Conference on Cyberworlds (CW'05).

[21]  Peter Willemsen,et al.  The Influence of Restricted Viewing Conditions on Egocentric Distance Perception: Implications for Real and Virtual Indoor Environments , 2005, Perception.

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

[23]  J. Edward Swan,et al.  Egocentric medium-field distance perception in projection environments , 2006, APGV '06.

[24]  David Waller,et al.  Interaction With an Immersive Virtual Environment Corrects Users' Distance Estimates , 2007, Hum. Factors.

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