Participants explored either a real multistory building or a to-scale computer simulation of the same building. Following exploration, we assessed their knowledge of the spatial properties of the environment. Participants in a control group were asked to complete the same assessment tasks without the opportunity to explore either the real building or the computer simulation. Spatial knowledge was assessed using four measures: pointing to objects not directly visible from the test site, Euclidean distance estimates, route distance estimates, and drawings of the building. Transfer of learning from the simulation to the real environment was evident. Pointing to objects not visible from the test site proved to be the most sensitive measure; map-drawing accuracy was very similar to pointing accuracy. However, some other measures did not distinguish the estimates of control participants from the group that explored the real building.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
KalawskyR. S. (1993). The science of virtual reality and virtual environments.Wokingham, England: Addison-Wesley.
2.
KozakJ. J., HancockP. A., ArthurE. J., & ChryslerS. T. (1993). Transfer of training from virtual reality.Ergonomics, 36, 777–784.
3.
PéruchP., VersherJ. L., & GauthierG. M. (1995). Acquisition of spatial knowledge through visual exploration of simulated environments.Ecological Psychology, 7, 1–20.
4.
RegianJ. W., ShebilskeW. L., & MonkJ. M. (1992). Virtual reality: An instructional medium for visual spatial tasks.Journal of Communication, 42, 136–149.
5.
RuddleR. A., PayneS. J., & JonesD. M. (1997). Navigating buildings in “desk-top” virtual environments: Experimental investigations using extended navigational experience.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3, 143–159.
6.
SheridanT. B. (1992). Musings on telepresence and virtual presence.Presence, 1, 120–125,
7.
StantonD., WilsonP. N., & ForemanN. (1996). Using virtual reality environments to aid spatial awareness in disabled children. In SharkeyP. M. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1st European Conference on Disability, Virtual Reality and Associated Technologies (pp. 93–101). Maidenhead, England: University of Reading.
8.
ThorndykeP. W., & Hayes-RothB. (1982). Differences in spatial knowledge acquired from maps and navigation.Cognitive Psychology, 14, 560–589.
9.
TlaukaM., & WilsonP. N. (1994). The effect of landmarks on route-learning in a computer-simulated environment.Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14, 305–313.
10.
WitmerB. G., BaileyJ. H., & KnerrB. W. (1996). Virtual spaces and real world places: Transfer of route knowledge.International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 45, 413–428.
11.
PhillipsJ. R., & BerkhoutJ. (1978). Uses of feedback in computer-assisted instruction in developing psychomotor skills related to heavy machinery operation.Human Factors, 20, 415–423.
12.
SalmoniA. W., SchmidtR. A., & WalterC. B. (1984). Knowledge of results and motor learning: A review and critical reappraisal.Psychological Bulletin, 95, 355–386.
13.
SchmidtR. A. (1988). Motor control and learning: A behavioral emphasis (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
14.
SchmidtR. A. (1991). Frequent augmented feedback can degrade learning: Evidence and interpretations. In RequinJ., & StelmachG. E. (Eds.), Tutorials in motor neuroscience (pp. 59–75). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
15.
SchmidtR. A., & BjorkR. A. (1992). New conceptualizations of practice: Common principles in three paradigms suggest new concepts for training.Psychological Science, 3, 207–217.
16.
SchmidtR. A., YoungD. E., SwinnenS., & ShapiroD. E. (1989). Summary knowledge of results for skill acquisition: Support for the guidance hypothesis.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 352–359.
17.
SchneiderD. M., & SchmidtR. A. (1995). Units of action in motor control: Role of response complexity and target speed.Human Performance, 8, 27–49.
18.
SwinnenS. P., LeeT. D., VerschuerenS., & SerrienD. J. (in press). Intrinsic and extrinsic information feedback for in-terlimb coordination: Evidence against the specificity hypothesis.Human Movement Science.
19.
Van der LindenD. W., CauraughJ. H., & GreeneT. A. (1993). The effect of frequency of kinetic feedback on learning an isometric force production task in nondisabled subjects.Physical Therapy, 73, 79–87.
20.
WinsteinC. J. (1991). Knowledge of results and motor learning—Implications for physical therapy.Physical Therapy, 71, 140–149.
21.
WulfG., LeeT. D., & SchmidtR. A. (1994). Reducing knowledge of results about relative versus absolute timing: Differential effects on learning.Journal of Motor Behavior, 26, 362–369.
22.
WulfG., & SchmidtR. A. (1994). Feedback-induced variability and the learning of generalized motor programs.Journal of Motor Behavior, 26, 348–361.
23.
WulfG., & SchmidtR. A. (1997). Variability of practice and implicit motor learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 987–1006.
24.
WulfG., SchmidtR. A., & DeubelH. (1993). Reduced feedback frequency enhances generalized motor program learning but not parameterization learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 1134–1150.
25.
YoungD. E., & SchmidtR. A. (1990). Units of motor behavior: Modifications with practice and feedback. In JeannerodM. (Ed.), Attention and performance XIII (pp. 763–795). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
