Advertisement

The Effect of Translational and Rotational Body-Based Information on Navigation

Chapter

Abstract

Physical locomotion provides internal (body-based) sensory information about the translational and rotational components of movement. This chapter starts by summarizing the characteristics of model-, small- and large-scale VE applications, and attributes of ecological validity that are important for the application of navigation research. The type of navigation participants performed, the scale and spatial extent of the environment, and the richness of the visual scene are used to provide a framework for a review of research into the effect of body-based information on navigation. The review resolves contradictions between previous studies’ findings, identifies types of navigation interface that are suited to different applications, and highlights areas in which further research is needed. Applications that take place in small-scale environments, where maneuvering is the most demanding aspect of navigation, will benefit from full-walking interfaces. However, collision detection may not be needed because users avoid obstacles even when they are below eye-level. Applications that involve large-scale spaces (e.g., buildings or cities) just need to provide the translational component of body-based information, because it is only in unusual scenarios that the rotational component of body-based information produces any significant benefit. This opens up the opportunity of combining linear treadmill and walking-in-place interfaces with projection displays that provide a wide field of view.

Keywords

Translational Rotational Body-based information Navigation Cognition Spatial knowledge 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the award of an Alexander von Humboldt Foundation for Experienced Researchers to RAR, the University of Leeds, and the Max Planck Society.

References

  1. 1.
    Ruddle RA (2001) Navigation: am I really lost or virtually there? In: Harris D (ed) Engineering psychology and cognitive ergonomics. Ashgate, Burlington, pp 135–142Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Waller D, Loomis JM, Haun DBM (2004) Body-based senses enhance knowledge of directions in large-scale environments. Psychon Bull Rev 11:157–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stone RJ (2002) Applications of virtual environments: an overview. In: Stanney KM (ed) Handbook of virtual environments. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp 827–756Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bowman DA et al (2004) 3D user interfaces: theory and practice. Addison-Wesley, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Blascovich J, Bailenson JN (2011) Infinite reality. William Morrow, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Weatherford DL (1985) Representing and manipulating spatial information from different environments: models to neighborhoods. In: Cohen R (ed) The development of spatial cognition. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 41–70Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Whitton MC et al (2005) Comparing VE locomotion interfaces. In: Proceedings of IEEE virtual reality, IEEE, Los Alamitos, pp 123–130Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Templeman JN et al (2007) Pointman: a new control for simulating tactical infantry movements. In: Proceedings of IEEE virtual reality, IEEE, Los Alamitos, pp 285–286Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ruddle RA, Payne SJ, Jones DM (1997) Navigating buildings in “desk-top” virtual environments: experimental investigations using extended navigational experience. J Exp Psychol Appl 3:143–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zanbaka C et al (2005) Comparison of path visualizations and cognitive measures relative to travel techniques in a virtual environment. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graphics 11:694–705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ruddle RA, S Lessels (2009) The benefits of using a walking interface to navigate virtual environments. ACM Trans Comp-Hum Int 16:article 5Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Riecke BE et al (2010) Do we need to walk for effective virtual reality navigation? Physical rotations alone may suffice. In: Lecture notes in computer science, pp 234–247Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chance SS et al (1998) Locomotion mode affects the updating of objects encountered during travel: the contribution of vestibular and proprioceptive inputs to path integration. Presence-Teleoper Virtual 7:168–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Suma EA et al (2010) Evaluation of the cognitive effects of travel technique in complex real and virtual environments. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 16:690–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ruddle RA et al (2011) The effect of landmark and body-based sensory information on route learning. Mem Cognit 39:686–699Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ruddle RA et al (2000) The effects of hyperlinks on navigation in virtual environments. Int J Hum-Comput Stud 53:551–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ruddle RA, Volkova E, Bülthoff HH (2011) Walking improves your cognitive map in environments that are large-scale and large in extent. ACM Trans Comp-Hum Int 18(2):Article 10Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Witmer B et al (1996) Virtual spaces and real-world places: transfer of route knowledge. Int J Hum-Comput Stud 45:413–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Spiers H, Maguire E (2004) A ’landmark’ study on the neural basis of navigation. Nat Neurosci 7:572–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Burgess N, Maguire E, O’Keefe J (2002) The human hippocampus and spatial and episodic memory. Neuron 35:625–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lathrop WB, Kaiser MK (2002) Perceived orientation in physical and virtual environments: changes in perceived orientation as a function of idiothetic information available. Presence-Teleoper Virtual 11:19–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Campos JL, Byme P, Sun HJ (2010) The brain weights body-based cues higher than vision when estimating walked distances. Eur J Neurosci 31:1889–1898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Klatzky RL et al (1998) Spatial updating of self-position and orientation during real, imagined, and virtual locomotion. Psychol Sci 9:293–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kearns MJ et al (2002) Path integration from optic flow and body senses in a homing task. Perception 31:349–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Péruch P et al (2005) Direction and distance deficits in path integration after unilateral vestibular loss depend on task complexity. Cogn Brain Res 25:862–872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Grant SC, Magee LE (1998) Contributions of proprioception to navigation in virtual environments. Hum Factors 40:489–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Waller D, Greenauer N (2007) The role of body-based sensory information in the acquisition of enduring spatial representations. Psychol Res 71:322–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ruddle RA, Payne SJ, Jones DM (1999) Navigating large-scale virtual environments: what differences occur between helmet-mounted and desk-top displays? Presence-Teleoper Virtual 8:157–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ruddle RA, Péruch P (2004) Effects of proprioceptive feedback and environmental characteristics on spatial learning in virtual environments. Int J Hum-Comput Stud 60:299–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Thorndyke P, Hayes-Roth B (1982) Differences in spatial knowledge acquired from maps and navigation. Cognit Psychol 14:560–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Loomis J et al (1999) Human navigation by path integration. In: Golledge R (ed) Wayfinding: cognitive mapping and other spatial processes. John Hopkins, Baltimore, pp 125–151Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Montello DR (1991) The measurement of cognitive distance: methods and construct validity. J Environ Psychol 11:101–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Avraamides MN et al (2004) Use of cognitive versus perceptual heading during imagined locomotion depends on the response mode. Psychol Sci 15:403–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Riecke BE, van Veen HAHC, Bülthoff HH (2002) Visual homing is possible without landmarks: a path integration study in virtual reality. Presence-Teleoper Virtual 11:443–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Souman JL et al (2009) Walking straight into circles. Curr Biol 19:1538–1542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Crosbie JH et al (2007) Virtual reality in stroke rehabilitation: still more virtual than real. Disabil Rehabil 29:1139–1146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    De Luca A et al (2009) Control design and experimental evaluation of the 2D CyberWalk platform. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS 2009), IEEE, Los Alamitos, pp 5051–5058Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Feasel J, Whitton MC, Wendt JD (2008) LLCM-WIP: low-latency, continuous-motion walking-in-place. In: Proceedings of the 2008 IEEE symposium on 3D user interfaces, IEEE, Los Alamitos, pp 97–104Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Peck TC, Fuchs H, Whitton MC (2009) Evaluation of reorientation techniques and distractors for walking in large virtual environments. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 15:383–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Leeds, School of ComputingLeedsUK
  2. 2.Max Planck Institute for Biological CyberneticsTübingenGermany

Personalised recommendations