Spatial updating in virtual reality: the sufficiency of visual information
- 423 Downloads
Robust and effortless spatial orientation critically relies on “automatic and obligatory spatial updating”, a largely automatized and reflex-like process that transforms our mental egocentric representation of the immediate surroundings during ego-motions. A rapid pointing paradigm was used to assess automatic/obligatory spatial updating after visually displayed upright rotations with or without concomitant physical rotations using a motion platform. Visual stimuli displaying a natural, subject-known scene proved sufficient for enabling automatic and obligatory spatial updating, irrespective of concurrent physical motions. This challenges the prevailing notion that visual cues alone are insufficient for enabling such spatial updating of rotations, and that vestibular/proprioceptive cues are both required and sufficient. Displaying optic flow devoid of landmarks during the motion and pointing phase was insufficient for enabling automatic spatial updating, but could not be entirely ignored either. Interestingly, additional physical motion cues hardly improved performance, and were insufficient for affording automatic spatial updating. The results are discussed in the context of the mental transformation hypothesis and the sensorimotor interference hypothesis, which associates difficulties in imagined perspective switches to interference between the sensorimotor and cognitive (to-be-imagined) perspective.
This research was funded by the Max Planck Society and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG SFB 550 B2). We would like to thank two reviewers for helpful comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript. Furthermore, we would like to thank Markus von der Heyde for helpful discussions and technical assistance.
- Avraamides, M. N., & Ioannidou, L. M. (2005). Locating targets from imagined perspectives: Labeling vs. pointing. In Proceedings of the XXVII Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Stresa, Italy (pp. 175–180). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Batschelet, E. (1981). Circular statistics in biology. London: Academic.Google Scholar
- Chance, S. S., Gaunet, F., Beall, A. C., & Loomis, J. M. (1998). Locomotion mode affects the updating of objects encountered during travel: The contribution of vestibular and proprioceptive inputs to path integration. Presence Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 7(2), 168–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Christou, C., & Bülthoff, H. (1999). The perception of spatial layout in a virtual world (Tech. Rep. No. 75). Max-Planck-Institut für biologische Kybernetik. (Available: http://www.kyb.mpg.de/publication.html?publ=1540).
- Christou, C., Tjan, B., & Bülthoff, H. (1999). Viewpoint information provided by familiar environment facilitates object identification (Tech. Rep. No. 68). Max-Planck-Institut für biologische Kybernetik. (Available: http://www.kyb.mpg.de/publication.html?publ=1536).
- Cooper, L. A., & Shepard, R. N. (1973). Time required to prepare for a rotated stimulus. Memory & Cognition, 1(3), 246–250.Google Scholar
- de Vega, M., & Rodrigo, M. J. (2001). Updating spatial layouts mediated by pointing and labelling under physical and imaginary rotation. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 13(3), 369–393.Google Scholar
- Dichgans, J., & Brandt, T. (1978). Visual vestibular interaction: Effects on self-motion perception and postural control. In R. Held, H. W. Leibowitz, & H.L. Teuber (Eds.), Perception (vol. VIII, pp. 756–804). Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer.Google Scholar
- Farrell, M. J., & Thomson, J. A. (1998). Automatic spatial updating during locomotion without vision. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A Human Experimental Psychology, 51(3), 637–654.Google Scholar
- Hettinger, L. J. (2002). Illusory self-motion in virtual environments. In K. M. Stanney (Ed.), Handbook of virtual environments (pp. 471–492). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Hirtle, S. C., & Jonides, J. (1985). Evidence of hierarchies in cognitive maps. Memory & Cognition, 13(3), 208–217.Google Scholar
- May, M. (1996). Cognitive and embodied modes of spatial imagery. Psychologische Beiträge, 38(3/4), 418–434.Google Scholar
- May, M. (2000). Kognition im Umraum [cognition in spatial surroundings]. Wiesbaden: DUV: Kognitionswissenschaft.Google Scholar
- May, M. (2001). Mechanismen räumlicher Perspektivwechsel [mechanisms of spatial perspective switches]. In R. K. Silbereisen & M. Reitzle (Eds.), Psychologie 2000 (pp. 627–634). Lengerich: Pabst.Google Scholar
- Riecke, B. E., & von der Heyde, M. (2002). Qualitative modeling of spatial orientation processes using logical propositions: Interconnecting spatial presence, spatial updating, piloting, and spatial cognition (Tech. Rep. No. 100). MPI for Biological Cybernetics (Avaliable: http://www.kyb.mpg.de/publication.html?publ=2021).
- Riecke, B. E., von der Heyde, M., & Bülthoff, H. H. (2001). How real is virtual reality really? Comparing spatial updating using pointing tasks in real and virtual environments. Journal of Vision, 1(3), 321a (http://www.journalofvision.org/1/3/321/).
- Riecke, B. E., von der Heyde, M., & Bülthoff, H. H. (2004). Spatial updating in real and virtual environments contribution and interaction of visual and vestibular cues. In ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium on Applied Perception in Graphics and Visualization (APGV) (pp. 9–17). Los Angeles, USA. (Available: http://www.kyb.mpg.de/publication.html?publ=2764).
- Riecke, B. E., Schulte-Pelkum, J., & Bülthoff, H. H. (2005a). Perceiving simulated ego-motions in virtual reality comparing large screen displays with HMDs. In B. E. Rogowitz, T. N. Pappas, & S. J. Daly (Eds.), SPIE invited paper on VALVE: Vision, action, and locomotion in virtual (and real) environments (pp. 344–355). San Jose, CA, USA.Google Scholar
- Riecke, B. E., Schulte-Pelkum, J., Caniard, F., & Bülthoff, H. H. (2005b). Towards lean and elegant self-motion simulation in virtual reality. In Proceedings of IEEE VR2005 (pp. 131–138). Bonn, Germany.Google Scholar
- Riecke, B. E., Västfjäll, D., Larsson, P., & Schulte-Pelkum, J. (2005c). Topdown and multimodal influences on self-motion perception in virtual reality. In Proceedings of HCI International 2005. Las Vegas, NV, USA.Google Scholar
- Riecke, B. E., Schulte-Pelkum, J., & Caniard, F. (2006). Using the perceptually oriented approach to optimize spatial presence & egomotion simulation. In Handbook of Presence. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum (submitted).Google Scholar
- Schulte-Pelkum, J., Riecke, B. E., Caniard, F., & Bülthoff, H. H. (2006). Influence of brief physical accelerations and vibrations on visually induced linear vection (manuscript in preparation).Google Scholar
- Simons, D. J., Wang, R. X. F., & Roddenberry, D. (2002). Object recognition is mediated by extra-retinal information. Perception & Psychophysics, 64(4), 521–530.Google Scholar
- Wang, R. F. (2005). Beyond imagination: Perspective change problems revisited. Psicologica, 26(1), 25–38.Google Scholar
- Warren, R., & Wertheim, A. H. (Eds.) (1990). Perception & control of self-motion. New Jersey, London: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Wong, S. C. P., & Frost, B. J. (1981). The effect of visual-vestibular conflict on the latency of steadystate visually induced subjective rotation. Perception & Psychophysics, 30(3), 228–236.Google Scholar
- Wraga, M., Creem-Regehr, S. H., & Proffitt, D. R. (2004). Spatial updating of virtual displays during self and display rotation. Memory & Cognition, 32(3), 399–415.Google Scholar
- Yardley, L., & Higgins, M. (1998). Spatial updating during rotation: The role of vestibular information and mental activity. Journal of Vestibular Research. Equilibrium and Orientation, 8(6), 435–442.Google Scholar