![\"stimulus](\"http:\/\/blogs.discovery.wisc.edu\/projects\/files\/2014\/09\/stimulus-Sahm.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nIn two papers by Interrante et al (2006, 2008), no significant difference is found between distance estimations measured by blind walking in the real or virtual world. \u00a0They use a similar realistic environment that reproduces the physical environment:<\/p>\n
And in the later study, they also test an enlarged and shrunken version of the virutal environment (moving the wall in or out 10%, while leaving objects like doors the same size):<\/p>\n They find no significant difference real and same-sized virtual world estimations; they see a significant effect in the larger virtual rooms, and a marginally significant effect in the smaller. Both resized rooms cause underestimations. This suggests that\u00a0some kinds of inaccurate reproduction of (or better: deviation from?) the real world either induce distance underestimation, or prevent whatever state of sync between mental models of the virtual and physical worlds participants otherwise may have entered. Also weird that neither resized case saw distance over-estimation, only under-.<\/p>\n But of key interest for this post: why did one group\u00a0see distance under-estimation, and the other not? This may be an interesting area of investigation — are there cues present in the one environment, but not in the other? For instance, depth cues: The hallway presents a fairly strong horizon cue, while the room may not. Or, is it a “realism” cue, some technique of lighting or texture handling or any other minute rendering detail?\u00a0 Is it specific inaccuracies in the modeling\u00a0of the spaces — both were hand-made (or, in the resized case, edited), so some inaccuracies are likely inevitable. \u00a0There may be some artistry in choosing where those inaccuracies are allowed to fall (and perhaps the smaller rooms in the resized case saw a marginal effect because they chose “better” — and perhaps\u00a0implying a relationship between exocentric and egocentric distance estimation?) \u00a0Or is it some lower-level perceptual difference; the Sahm hallway has\u00a0strong black outlines separating walls from floor, where the Interrante room has a significantly darker floor. \u00a0The specifics are unclear, but their respective studies’ results suggest that\u00a0some difference\u00a0in the environments may be responsible for\u00a0the reuse (or more accurate application?) of real-world rules or models.<\/p>\n It may be worth keeping an eye out for how these sorts of environments are constructed elsewhere in the literature.<\/p>\n Two studies, both using head mounted displays and realistic environments, seem to have conflicting findings regarding distance estimation in virtual environments. Sahm et al (2005) find that distance estimations in the real and virtual worlds, measured via blind walking and … Continue reading <\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n
\nreferences:<\/h3>\n
\n