Twenty-four people learned three versions of a room-sized maze: a wire-frame desktop virtual environment (VE), a normal surface-rendered desktop VE, and a real-world maze. Differences among the mental representations formed from each environment were measured with pointing and distance estimation tasks in a real-world version of each maze. People were more accurate at pointing after having learned the real and wire-frame VE maze than the surface-rendered VE maze; however, this effect was small compared with the effect of individual differences. Differences in gender, spatial ability, and prior computer experience were significantly related to the ability to acquire spatial information from the desktop VE. There was a high correlation between spatial knowledge when it was measured in the VE and spatial knowledge measured in the real world. Actual or potential applications include the design of effective VE training systems
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Astur, R. S., Ortiz, M. L., & Sutherland, R. J. (1998). A characterization of performance by men and women in a virtual Morris water task: A large and reliable sex difference. Behavioural Brain Research, 93, 185–190.
2.
Bailey, J. H. (1994). Spatial knowledge acquisition in a virtual environment (Doctoral dissertation, University of Central Florida, 1994).. Dissertation Abstracts International, 55, 2421.
3.
Darken, R. P. (1996). Wayfinding in large-scale virtual worlds. (Doctoral dissertation, George Washington University, 1996).. Dissertations Abstracts International, 56, 6223.
4.
Guilford, J. P., & Zimmerman, W. S. (1981). The Guilford-Zimmerman Aptitude Survey manual of instruction and interpretation.Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
5.
Huitema, B. E. (1980). The analysis of covariance and alternatives.New York: Wiley.
6.
Hunt, E. & Waller, D. (1999). Orientation and wayfinding: A review (ONR Technical Report N00014-96-0380).Arlington, VA: Office of Naval Research.
7.
Jaeger, B. K. (1998). The effects of training and visual detail on accuracy of movement production in virtual and real-world environments. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 42nd Annual Meeting (pp. 1486–1490). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
8.
Lindberg, E. & Gurling, T. (1983). Acquisition of different types of locational information in cognitive maps: Automatic or effortful processing?Psychological Research, 45, 19–38.
9.
Montello, D. R., Richardson, A. E., Hegarty, M., & Provenza, M. (1999). A comparison of methods for estimating directions in egocentric space. Perception, 28, 981–1000.
10.
Pedhazur, E. J. (1977). Coding subjects in repeated measures designs. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 298–305.
11.
Peruch, P.Vercher, J., & Gauthier, G. M. (1995). Acquisition of spatial knowledge through visual exploration of simulated environments. Ecological Psychology, 7, 1–20.
12.
Raven, J. C. (1990). Standard progressive matrices: Sets A, B, C, D, & E. Oxford: Oxford Psychologist Press.
13.
Rossano, M. J., & Moak, J. (1998). Spatial representations acquired from computer models: Cognitive load, orientation specificity, and the acquisition of survey knowledge. British Journal of Psychology, 89, 481–497.
14.
Ruddle, R. A., Payne, S. J., & Jones, D. M. (1997). Navigating buildings in "desk-top" virtual environments: Experimental investigations using extended navigational experience. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3, 143–159.
15.
Salthouse, T. A. (1993). Influence of working-memory on adult age-differences in matrix reasoning. British Journal of Psychology, 84, 171–199.
16.
Shore, D. I., Stanford, L., MacInnes, J. W., Klein, R. M., & Brown, R. E. (1999). Of mice and men: A comparison using virtual Hebb-Williams mazes.Poster presented at the 40th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Los Angeles, CA.
17.
Surdick, R. T., Davis, E. T., King, R. A., & Hodges, L. F. (1997). The perception of distance in simulated visual displays: A comparison of the effectiveness and accuracy of multiple depth cues across viewing distances. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 6, 513–531.
18.
Thorndyke, P. W., & Hayes-Roth, B. (1982). Differences in spatial knowledge acquired from maps and navigation. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 560–589.
19.
Waller, D. (1999). An assessment of individual differences in spatial knowledge of real and virtual environments (Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington, 1999).. Dissertation Abstracts International, 60, 1882.
20.
Waller, D.Hunt, E., & Knapp, D. (1998). The transfer of spatial knowledge in virtual environment training. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 7, 129–143.
21.
Wilson, P. N., Foreman, N., & Tlauka, M. (1997). Transfer of spatial information from a virtual to a real environment. Human Factors, 39, 526–531.
22.
Witmer, B. G., Bailey, J. H., Knerr, B. W., & Parsons, K. C. (1996). Virtual spaces and real world places: Transfer of route knowledge. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 45, 413–428.
