Objective: Existing reports suggest that males significantly outperform females in navigating 3-D virtual environments. Although researchers have recognized that this may be attributable to males and females possessing different spatial abilities, most work has attempted to reduce the gender gap by providing more training for females. In this paper, we explore using large displays to narrow the gender gap within these tasks. Background: While evaluating various interaction techniques, we found that large displays affording wider fields of view seemed to improve virtual navigation performance in general and, additionally, to narrow the gender gap that existed on standard desktop displays.Method: We conducted two experiments (32 and 22 participants) exploring the individual contributions of display and geometric fields of view to the observed effects as well as isolating factors explaining performance increases seen on the large displays. Results: We show that wider fields of view on large displays not only increase performance of all users on average but also benefit females to such a degree as to allow them to perform as well as males do. We further demonstrate that these benefits can be attributed to better optical flow cues offered by the large displays. Conclusion: These findings provide a significant contribution, including recommendations for the improved presentation of 3-D environments, backed by empirical data demonstrating performance benefits during navigation tasks. Application. Results can be used to design systems that narrow the gender gap in domains such as teleoperation and virtual environments for entertainment, virtual training, or information visualization.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alfano, P. L., & Michel, G. F. (1990). Restricting the field of view: Perceptual and performance effects. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 70, 35–45.
2.
Atchley, P., & Andersen, G. J. (1999). The discrimination of heading from optic flow is not retinally invariant. Perception and Psychophysics, 61, 387–396.
3.
Carnegie Mellon University. (n.d.). Alice 3D authoring system [Computer software]. Available from http://www.alice.org
4.
Chambers, W. W. (1982 April). Visual technology research simulator: Flight simulation-avionic systems and aero medical aspects. Presented at the Royal Aeronautical Society's Flight Simulation Symposium, London.
5.
Crook, T. H., Youngjohn, J. R., & Larrabee, G. J. (1993). The influence of age, gender, and cues on computer-simulated topographic memory. Developmental Neuropsychology, 9, 41–53.
6.
Crowell, J. A., & Banks, M. S. (1993). Perceiving heading with different retinal regions and types of optic flow. Perception and Psychophysics, 53, 325–337.
7.
Cutmore, T. R. H., Hine, T. J., Maberly, K. J., Langford, N. M., & Hawgood, G. (2000). Cognitive and gender factors influencing navigation in a virtual environment. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 53, 223–249.
8.
Czerwinski, M., Tan, D. S., & Robertson, G. G. (2002). Women take a wider view. In Proceedings of the CHI 2002 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 195–202). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
9.
Darken, R., & Sibert, J. (1996). Navigating in large virtual worlds. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 8, 49–72.
10.
Devlin, A. S., & Bernstein, J. (1995). Interactive wayfinding: Use of cues by men and women. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 23–38.
11.
Dolezal, H. (1982). Living in a world transformed: Perceptual and performatory adaptation to visual distortion. New York: Academic Press.
12.
Draper, M. H., Viirre, E. S., Furness, T. A., & Gawron, V. J. (2001). Effects of image scale and system time delay on simulator sickness within head-coupled virtual environments. Human Factors, 43, 129–146.
13.
Duffy, C. J. (2000). Optic flow analysis for self-movement perception. International Review of Neurobiology, 44, 199–218.
14.
Eckstrom, R. B., French, J. W., Harman, H. H., & Dermen, D. (1976). Kit of factor-referenced cognitive tests. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
15.
Gibson, J. J. (1966). The senses considered as perceptual systems. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
16.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
17.
Halpern, D. F. (2000). Sex differences in cognitive abilities (3rd ed). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
18.
Hosman, R., & van der Haart, J. (1981). Effects of vestibular and visual motion perception on task performance. Acta Psychologica, 48, 271–281.
19.
Hubona, G. S., & Shirah, G. (2004). The gender factor performing visualization tasks on computer media. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences [CDROM]. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press.
20.
Hunt, E., & Waller, D. (1999). Orientation and wayfinding: A review (ONR Tech. Rep. N00014-96-0380). Arlington, VA: Office of Naval Research.
21.
Kearns, M. J., Warren, W. H., Duchon, A. P., & Tarr, M. J. (2002). Path integration from optic flow and body senses in a homing task. Perception, 31, 349–374.
22.
Kimura, D. (1999). Sex and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
23.
Kirschen, M. P., Kahana, M. J., Sekuler, R., & Burack, B. (2000). Optic flow helps humans learn to navigate through synthetic environments. Perception, 29, 801–818.
24.
Klatzky, R. L., Loomis, J. M., Beall, A. C., Chance, S. S., & Golledge, R. G. (1998). Spatial updating of self-position and orientation during real, imagined, and virtual locomotion. Psychological Science, 9, 293–298.
25.
Lawton, C. A., Charleston, S. I., & Zieles, A. S. (1996). Individual and gender-related differences in indoor wayfinding. Environment and Behavior, 28, 204–219.
26.
Loomis, J. M., Klatzky, R. L., Golledge, R. G., & Philbeck, J. W. (1999). Human navigation by path integration. In R. G. Golledge (Ed.), Wayfinding: Cognitive mapping and other spatial processes (pp. 125–151). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins.
27.
Patrick, E., Cosgrove, D., Slavkovic, A., Rode, J., Verratti, T., & Chiselko, G. (2000). Using a large projection screen as an alternative to head-mounted displays for virtual environments. In Proceedings of the CHI 2000 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 478–485). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
28.
Piantanida, T. P., Boman, D., Larimer, J., Gille, J., & Reed, C. (1992). Studies of the field-of-view/resolution tradeoff in virtual reality. In Proceedings of the SPIE: Human Vision, Visual Processing and Digital Display III (Vol. 1666, pp. 448–456). Bellingham, WA: SPIE-The International Society for Optical Engineering.
29.
Prestopnik, J. L., & Roskos-Ewoldsen, B. (2000). The relations among wayfinding strategy use, sense of direction, sex, familiarity, and wayfinding ability. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20, 177–191.
30.
Richardson, A. E., Montello, D. R., & Hegarty, M. (1999). Spatial knowledge acquisition from maps, and from navigation in real and virtual environments. Memory and Cognition, 27, 741–750.
31.
Richman, J. B., & Dyre, B. P. (1999). Peripheral vision stimulation benefits heading perception during active control. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 43rd Annual Meeting (p. 1411). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
32.
Sandstrom, N. J., Kaufman, J., & Huettel, S. A. (1998). Males and females use different distal cues in a virtual environment navigation task. Cognitive Brain Research, 6, 351–360.
33.
Tan, D. S., Czerwinski, M., & Robertson, G. G. (2003). Women go with the (optical) flow. In Proceedings of the CHI 2003 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 217–224). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
34.
Tan, D. S., Robertson, G. G., & Czerwinski, M. (2001). Exploring 3D navigation: Combining speed-coupled flying with orbiting. In Proceedings of the CHI 2001 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 418–425). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
35.
Thorndyke, P., & Hayes-Roth, B. (1982). Differences in spatial knowledge acquired from maps and navigation. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 560–589.
36.
Voyer, D., Voyer, S., & Bryden, M. P. (1995). Magnitude of sex differences in spatial abilities: Ameta-analysis and consideration of critical variables. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 250–270.
37.
Waller, D. (1999). An assessment of individual differences in spatial knowledge of real and virtual environments. Dissertation Abstracts International, 60(4), 1882B. (UMI No. DA9924139)
38.
Warren, W. H., & Kurtz, K. J. (1992). The role of central and peripheral vision in perceiving the direction of self-motion. Perception and Psychophysics, 51, 443–454.
39.
Warren, W. H., Morris, M. W., & Kalish, M. (1988). Perception of translational heading from optical flow. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 646–660.
