| Abstract: |
The depth perception in real, virtual, and augmented environments, considering factors like field of view limitation (FoVL), is still the subject of research because of its importance to augmented and virtual reality (AR and VR) interfaces. We aimed to resolve the discrepancy between the findings presented in [1] and [2] regarding the impact of FoVL on distance estimation ability. First study suggests that FoVL leads to depth perception disorders resulting from limited visual cues, while the latter indicates that FoVL is of little significance. These discrepancies may be due to the different methodologies used in both experiments, such as the use of devices with different parameters, different experimental conditions, different scenes (static or dynamic environments, indoors and outdoors), and, above all, the method of depth assessment (blind walking vs. verbal assessment).
In a very straightforward experiment, we tested how FoVL affects depth perception and, consequently, the ability to judge the distance to objects. To simplify it, we got rid of the virtual environment by conducting the ex-periment in an 8.3x6 m room using physical stimuli placed in various distances and using the goggles without electronics, but only with shutters leaving circular holes with a diameter of 5.5 cm, 4.10 cm, 2.75 cm, and 1.4 cm, without imitation of AR helmet inertia [1]. Thus, although the research question stems from issues related to AR, the experiment finally focused on human perception rather than technology.
The results obtained are fundamentally different from those from [1] and are closer to those from [2]. In [1] distances, measured by walking, were most underestimated by about 10.4% compared to actual distances, and in the case of triangulated walking by 19.3%. It is significantly more than in the current experiment, in which the average relative error calculated verbally was 5.5% and by walking was 5.2%. In the [2], the indicated distance was 94.4% (walking) and 98.8% (verbal) of the actual distance, which are similar to values obtained in the current article, i.e., respectively 94.8% and 94.5%. We also compare the results with those obtained in our laboratory using AR goggles [3].
1. Willemsen P., Colton M., Creem-Regehr S., & Thomson W. The effects of head-mounted display mechanical properties and field-of-view on distance judgments in virtual environments. ACM Transactions on Applied Perception. 6(2). 1-15. (2009)
2. Knapp, J. M., & Loomis, J. M. Limited field of view of head-mounted displays is not the cause of distance underestimation in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 13(5), 572-577. (2004)
3. Łukasik A., Matulewski J., Karkowska K., Grzankowska I., Joachimiak M., Pietrykow-ski D., & Sztramski M. (2024). Do we need to squeeze large tele-AR scenes to fit them into a small room?. Procedia Computer Science, 246, 3371-3380. |