Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013 Sep 18:7:580.
doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00580. eCollection 2013.

Psychological influences on distance estimation in a virtual reality environment

Affiliations
Free PMC article

Psychological influences on distance estimation in a virtual reality environment

Kohske Takahashi et al. Front Hum Neurosci. .
Free PMC article

Abstract

Studies of embodied perception have revealed that social, psychological, and physiological factors influence space perception. While many of these influences were observed with real or highly realistic stimuli, the present work showed that even the orientation of abstract geometric objects in a non-realistic virtual environment could influence distance perception. Observers wore a head mounted display and watched virtual cones moving within an invisible cube for 5 s with their head movement recorded. Subsequently, the observers estimated the distance to the cones or evaluated their friendliness. The cones either faced the observer, a target behind the cones, or were oriented randomly. The average viewing distance to the cones varied between 1.2 and 2.0 m. At a viewing distance of 1.6 m, the observers perceived the cones facing them as closer than the cones facing a target in the opposite direction, or those oriented randomly. Furthermore, irrespective of the viewing distance, observers moved their head away from the cones more strongly and evaluated the cones as less friendly when the cones faced the observers. Similar distance estimation results were obtained with a 3-dimensional projection onto a large screen, although the effective viewing distances were farther away. These results suggest that factors other than physical distance influenced distance perception even with non-realistic geometric objects in a virtual environment. Furthermore, the distance perception modulation was accompanied by changes in subjective impression and avoidance movement. We propose that cones facing an observer are perceived as socially discomforting or threatening, and potentially violate an observer's personal space, which might influence the perceived distance of cones.

Keywords: distance perception; object geometry; personal space; spatial perception; virtual reality environment.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
(A) A schematic illustration of the experiment. The participants viewed virtual cones moving inside an imaginary cube for 5 s, after which they indicated the center of the imaginary cube. (B) Example snapshots of a visual image of the ME (all cones are facing the observer), TAR (all cones are facing an invisible target located behind the cones), and RND (the cone orientations are random) conditions.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Results of Experiment 1. (A) The average estimated distance as a function of viewing distance and cone direction. (B) The average head acceleration along the depth axis during the stimulus observation period. Positive values indicate accelerations toward the cones. The error bars indicate the standard error of the mean.
Figure 3
Figure 3
The results of Experiment 2. Larger values indicate that the cones were evaluated as being friendlier and less hostile. The error bars indicate the standard error of the mean.
Figure 4
Figure 4
The results of Experiment 3. (A) The average estimated distances as a function of viewing distance and cone direction. (B) The average rating scores. The error bars indicate standard error of the mean.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Alter A. L., Balcetis E. (2011). Fondness makes the distance grow shorter: desired locations seem closer because they seem more vivid. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 47, 16–21 10.1016/j.jesp.2010.07.018 - DOI
    1. Bailenson J. N., Blascovich J., Beall A. C., Loomis J. M. (2003). Interpersonal distance in immersive virtual environments. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 29, 819–833 10.1177/0146167203029007002 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Balcetis E., Dunning D. (2010). Wishful seeing: more desired objects are seen as closer. Psychol. Sci. 21, 147–152 10.1177/0956797609356283 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Brainard D. H. (1997). The psychophysics toolbox. Spat. Vis. 10, 433–436 10.1163/156856897X00357 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cole S., Balcetis E., Dunning D. (2012). Affective signals of threat increase perceived proximity. Psychol. Sci. 24, 34–40 10.1177/0956797612446953 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources