The impact of visuospatial cues on human spatial perception abilities

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3877452/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

The impact of visuospatial cues on human spatial perception abilities

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3877452/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

In this study, we conducted spatial perception tests, including distance perception (DP) and size perception (SP) tests, under various experimental conditions to investigate their effects on response accuracy and response time. Participants were divided into a control group (CG), Experimental group 1 (EG1), and Experimental group 2 (EG2). Significant differences were observed between CG and EG1, as well as between EG1 and EG2, with CG and EG2 showing higher response accuracy compared to EG1. Response time differences were also significant among the three groups.

Further analysis revealed no significant difference in DP test accuracy means, indicating that limited or no availability of landmarks did not impact participants' distance perception. However, SP test accuracy showed a significant difference, suggesting that the presence or absence of landmarks influenced participants' ability to perceive size. Pairwise comparisons indicated that SP responses in CG and EG2 were more accurate than in EG1. Response time analysis showed a significant difference in SP test response time between EG1 and EG2, with EG1 having longer response times. Gender analysis in EG1 revealed that males performed more accurately than females in this test condition. Demographic factors such as age and gamer/non-gamer status did not significantly influence participants' response accuracy.

Participants' performance on DP and SP tests revealed consistent overestimation of distance in the sagittal plane and underestimation in the frontal plane. SP test results indicated that most participants overestimated the height of the cube and underestimated its depth, with no significant gender or gamer/non-gamer differences.

This study contributes valuable insights into the impact of experimental conditions on spatial perception, emphasizing the importance of considering these factors in designing tasks or interventions requiring spatial perception. The findings have implications for fields such as cognitive psychology, human-computer interaction, and virtual reality design.

Augmented and virtual reality

Spatial Cognition

Distance perception test

Size perception test

human-computer interaction

Through scientific advancements, humans are now able to access and potentially work in uninhabited and hard-to-reach environments such as space, low Earth orbit, deep oceans, and polar regions with extreme visuospatial and gravitational conditions (Carroll 1993). Working in such unfamiliar conditions may pose significant challenges to human cognitive processing that may be accustomed to Earth’s familiar conditions (Newcombe 2002). In familiar environments on the earth, there are spatial cues offered by natural and manmade familiar objects such as roads, buildings, trees, people, cars, and animals (Ruddle, Volkova et al. 2011). These cues help people comprehend not just the relative position, size, and distance of stationary objects but also the speed of moving objects (Kearney, Gorzel et al. 2012). Mental representations of a space are based on these landmarks. Interacting with the world requires being able to perceive displacement after a visual distraction (Winter, 2014). These landmarks provide spatial cues that help people perceive displacement and create a clear mental representation of the environment (Ruddle, Volkova et al. 2011). These cues help people perceive, for instance, how tall or how far a building is. In addition, people can assess the size, distance, and position of various spatial elements and determine the speed of a moving object (Park et al., 2021). Visuospatial cues, therefore, influence human spatial perception, influencing our ability to carry out day-to-day vocational and recreational activities (Shatil, Korczyn et al. 2008).

While navigating or working in altered visuospatial conditions of low earth orbit, deep space, other planets, polar regions, and deep ocean, these cues may not be available (Oman 2007). For instance, on Moon and Mars, there are no familiar visual landmarks such as roads, cars, trees, buildings, and people, which may make determining relative size, position, and distance a challenging task (Plumert, Kearney et al. 2005). The lack of visuospatial cues, therefore, has a profound impact on how the perception of spatial space can be altered (Park et al., 2021). Worse, in deep space, not only these essential cues but also the base terrain (e.g., ground) is unavailable, which usually exists on other planets (Newman and McNamara 2022). This makes spatial perception even more difficult in deep space. Altered visuospatial conditions also exist on earth in regions such as North and South Poles and in hot and cold deserts, where roads, trees, cars, and buildings may be either limited or not available at all (Ruddle, Volkova et al. 2011). In fact, such settings are often used as analogs for training to operate in extreme conditions of space exploration (Kearney, Gorzel et al. 2012). Such environments with altered spatial conditions on earth and beyond earth may impair human spatial perception, leading to not only low work productivity but also compromised safety that may put the entire mission at risk.

The ability to perceive relative distance, height, and size is one of the critical cognitive abilities that people need to work safely and more productively in a work environment not to mention in an extreme environment like deep space (Kiefer, Giannopoulos et al. 2017). These abilities must be examined for any impact that the absence of visuospatial cues may have (). In altered work conditions, there have been a few studies conducted on the effect of visuospatial cues emanating from landmarks on people’s perceptions of size and distance (Kearney, Gorzel et al. 2012). However, comprehensive studies that assess how limited and no spatial cues impact human ability to perceive distance and size are rare (Fukushima, Fukushima et al. 2013, Ernst, Williams et al. 2017). The main goal of this study is to compare people’s size and distance perception using immersive Virtual Reality (VR) analogs of altered conditions having complete, limited, and no visuospatial cues. It is hypothesized that people would perceive object distance and size more accurately if familiar visual cues were more readily available.

1.2 Background

Over the past decade, emerging technologies have fundamentally changed the way we live, work, and interact, from how we make phone calls to how companies operate. As a result, the nature of work and the work environment are changing fast (Folkierska-Żukowska et al., 2020). The fact that humans are now able to explore the deep oceans, space, and polar regions that humans were never able to before should not be surprising. Such spaces may, however, alter the human brain’s ability to process spatial information (Fukushima, Fukushima et al. 2013, Harris, Jenkin et al. 2017). People’s ability to work productively and their understanding of spatial relationships in new environments can be adversely affected by changing visuospatial conditions in such environments (Turgut, 2015). Those working in such settings may be operating rovers and quadcopters and need to judge distance, sizes, and speeds more accurately. If their spatial perception is distorted, their safety and wellbeing may be at risk (Salehi, 2023).

1.3 Spatial Cognition

An important area of cognitive science is spatial cognition, which concerns understanding how humans perceive, mentally represent, and manipulate space and its characteristics (Newcombe, 2002; Newcombe et al., 2013). In addition to physical attributes like size and shape, spatial characteristics include depth, orientation, and position (Newcombe, 2002). Humans use egocentric and allocentric encodings to perceive these features (Tuena, Mancuso et al. 2021). Objects’ locations are encoded in egocentric systems with references to our body, and in allocentric systems with references to other objects (Guo et al., 2016a; Harris & Mander, 2014; Lipshits et al., 2001). Three types of spatial information contribute to creating a cognitive map of space: visual, vestibular, and somatosensory (Friederici & Levelt, 1987; Harris & Mander, 2014; Reschke et al., 1998). Objects within a scene can provide monocular or binocular spatial cues that are used in defining a visual Frame of Reference (FOR) (Harris & Mander, 2014). We detect motion, the position of the head, and orientation with the vestibular system to maintain our balance (Friederici & Levelt, 1987; Harris & Mander, 2014). In addition to providing spatial information, the somatosensory system is comprised of receptors for touch, heat, pain, vibrations, and pressure (Friederici & Levelt, 1987; Reschke et al., 1998). In addition to creating clear coordinates using spatial information, our cognitive system selects a FOR that can be used to reference objects in space (Ten Brink, Biesbroek et al. 2019). Important directional references such as up, down, left, and right hinge upon a subjective vertical that humans define using gravitational cues, body axis, or a visual frame (Du et al., 2015; Harris et al., 2017; Shepard & Metzler, 1971). Using the sensory information gathered from the visual, vestibular, and somatosensory systems, humans perceive their spatial environments and spatial objects.

1.4 Spatial Perception and Landmarks

Spatial perception relates to the ability and the process of identifying spatial relationships between objects based on their orientation and position in relation to the space around them (Carroll 1993, Brenner and van Damme 1999). In other words, it refers to the ability to perceive, measure, and comprehend outside spatial information such as features, properties, shapes, positions, sizes, and motions visually (Clark, Stimpson et al. 2010). A great deal of research has been conducted on spatial perception in recent years. According to Peretz (2011), spatial perception is a result of individuals’ awareness of their relationship with the environment within and outside their body (exteroception) and within their own minds (interception) (Peretz, Korczyn et al. 2011). We live in a space surrounded by manmade and natural objects, people, elements, etc. Our thinking is also formed by space since it is where all our experiences come together. Our spatial environment is characterized by these two systems of exteroception and interception that give us information about its characteristics (Peretz et al., 2011). Shatil (2008) noted that our understanding of a spatial environment and our relationship to it depends on having good spatial awareness, which involves grasping not only how objects are situated but also how objects change position in space (Shatil et al., 2008). Peretz (2011) added that we can perceive things around us with shapes, sizes, distances, etc., due to this cognitive ability of spatial perception. Spatial perception, therefore, not only helps us mentally represent a space in 2D and 3D but also anticipate any change that may occur (Peretz et al., 2011).

Another term that is often mentioned in spatial cognition literature is “visuospatial perception,” which involves processing and interpreting visual information about the position of objects in space (Höhler, Rasamoel et al. 2021). Visuospatial perception is responsible for daily functions involving a wide range of activities of daily living, which makes it an important aspect of cognitive functioning (Kolb & Whishaw, 2009). Our ability to perceive, mentally represent, manipulate a spatial environment and navigate through it is greatly impacted by visuospatial perception (Henry and Furness 1993). Visual perception also plays a role in the ability to grasp objects in our visual field and the ability to shift our gaze to different places in space (Bartlett & Dorribo Camba, 2023; De Luca et al., 2023; Guo et al., 2016a; He et al., 2019). According to studies, the association areas of the visual cortex are divided into two major component pathways: parieto-occipital regions to process information regarding both visual motion and spatial orientation in humans and inferotemporal region to process visual information about the form and color of objects (Kim et al., 1997; Kolb & Whishaw, 2009).

Mental representations of space are based on landmarks that serve as points of reference (Higgins and Wang 2010). A mental representation of an object has the function of locating other objects within the representation (Higgins and Wang 2010). In this function, a connection is established between place and place-mark, which is yet another geographical concept that is used to structure space and is perhaps even more elusive than landmarks in terms of establishing their boundaries (Winter, 2014). An essential skill in interaction with the world is the ability to perceive the displacement of an object following a visual distraction (Higgins & Wang, 2010; Ruddle et al., 2011). People follow routes between specific places in everyday life as a primary mode of navigation — such as from their homes to their workplaces, to and from coworkers’ offices, and to their own neighborhood shops (Ruddle et al., 2011). Route knowledge, at its simplest, is a set of decisions that lead from where you are to where you should be (Siegel & White, 1975). Aside from this, we can also add metric information (distances and turn angles) as well as information about landmarks perceived primarily visually (Lynch, 1960; Montello, 1998).

According to previous studies (Casey et al., 1995; Kyttälä & Björn, 2014), landmarks, or non-geometric spatial features such as roads, buildings, and trees, contribute to distance perception, size perception, and direction perception. According to Naceri and Hoinville (Fennema, 1974), familiar objects can give us a perspective of linear dimensions and a sense of scale (familiar size), thus allowing us to judge distance more accurately (Newcombe, 2002). According to wayfinding research, landmark is an essential feature of navigation toward a destination (Casey et al., 1995). Spatial cognitive processing can be hindered by the absence of spatial cues emanating from these landmarks. There is a cognitive challenge associated with calculating depth, height, location, and direction in a desert or polar region, in which landmarks provide context (Lunneborg & Lunneborg, 1986). In altered environments, limited and incomplete visual cues might affect spatial perception as they do on Earth by affecting spatial accuracy (Parker 2003, Allred, Kravets et al. 2023). Munich University conducted a study on the physiology and pathology of human navigation control and found that successful navigation depends on effective use of topological knowledge and metric representations of space (Schöberl, Zwergal and Brandt 2020). Moreover, spatial navigation can be strongly affected by the dimensions of space (2D vs. 3D), the scales of space (vista-scale vs. large-scale environment), and the abundance of visual landmarks (Harle & Towns, 2011).

1.5 Spatial Perception Research: Size and Distance Perception

An observer’s ability to judge distances between objects in any direction relative to their eye is called distance perception (Y. Sun et al., 2019). In object or surface perception domain, depth refers to the distance directly ahead of the observer’s eye. Depth is looking directly into a hole or tube and estimating forward distances (Kearney, Gorzel et al. 2012). Taking an accurate measurement of distances requires binocular stereoscopic vision (stereopsis) in addition to other cues, especially when measuring distances over long distances (Treisman 1962). The apparent distance to an object can sometimes be indirectly determined by measuring the size of the object at a certain distance. It has been suggested that people perceive the size of an object based on the retinal size of the object compared with the distance from it (Harle & Towns, 2011; Li & Wang, 2021). A size perception inaccuracy would lead to inaccuracies in distance perception. Several studies have shown a link between distance and size perception (Xinyue He et al., 2021). There is a tendency for observers to overestimate the size of objects that are located at a distance. Our tendency is to attribute a larger size to an object when we overestimate the distance at which it can be seen, and, inversely, if we underestimate the distance at which it can be seen, we tend to attribute a smaller size to the same object (Xinyu He et al., 2021) It is learned through repeated practice that distances and sizes can be perceived. Linear perspective is less relevant in microgravity because there is no gravitational reference and no visual horizon. In addition, astronauts whose eyes are free-floating have a varying distance from the floor; therefore, they cannot use the eye height scaling to determine their height (Xinyu He et al., 2021).

1.6 Virtual Reality and Its Application in Spatial Perception Research

Virtual Reality (VR) provides an intuitive and naturalistic experience that allows users to immerse themselves in real-time environments (Schulteis & Rothbaum, 2002) and interact with them. VR can offer a more efficient and effective way to experience, particularly environments and scenarios that cannot be experienced first-hand (R. Sun et al., 2019, Salehi et al. 2023). VR has been applied in spatial cognition research by several studies (Fujimoto; Tachibana, 2020). Using VR, Guzsvinecz (2020) looked at the time it took students to interact with each other (Guzsvinecz, Orbán-Mihálykó et al. 2020). A study conducted Papakostas (2021) examined the psychological functioning of older adults who play digital games and those who don’t, including well-being, affect, depression, and social functioning. They designed VR mockups for a training game intended to teach scuba techniques to participants. According to many studies, VR can help offer a variety of underwater sensations in a fully immersive manner, and VR settings have also been applied to the domain of space exploration. Over various years, diverse studies have demonstrated that VR serves as a potent tool for simulating, comprehending, and forecasting the work and navigation performance of astronauts in multi-module space stations (W. L. Shebilske et al., 2006, Guo et al., 2016b). In comparison with conventional parabolic flights and drop towers, VR simulations have been recommended for astronaut testing and training (Embry-Riddle, 2017; Nick Kanas, 2003). Astronauts can eliminate several problems associated with spatial orientation and navigation by creating VR-based crew training (Oman, 2007; Wayne L Shebilske et al., 2006).

Studies also suggested that VR technology can help simulate extreme environments with same or similar physiological responses as the real-world (Embry-Riddle, 2017; Jain et al., 2016a; W. L. Shebilske et al., 2006). Several studies were conducted in the mid to late 1990s in which fMRI was combined with stationary desktop VR settings to study the control of human spatial navigation in 2D space (Aguirre, Detre et al. 1996, Maguire, Burgess and O’Keefe 1999, He, Li et al. 2021). Later, advanced VR task designs and the development of fMRI techniques allowed for further differentiation in how the human brain processes visual scenes and cues. Located directly posterior to the parahippocampus, the parahippocampal place area (PPA) is important for recognizing visual scenes and for selecting visual landmarks within those scenes (Tracy, 1987).

2.1 Research Goal and Objectives

Previous studies clearly show that spatial perception aspects such as distance and size perception are critical for humans to exist and work in and navigate through a spatial environment whether familiar or unfamiliar. It is also evident that spatial landmarks play a major role in creating an accurate and complete spatial perception. In other words, the limitation or the lack of landmark objects in a space may influence human spatial perception, eventually affecting workers’ safety and productivity. This is true for any familiar environment on Earth but more important for unfamiliar or extreme conditions working in which is already quite challenging. To ensure future workplace safety in such altered or extreme visuospatial conditions, it is essential to examine how either a lack of or limited availability of landmarks impacts the perception of size and distance, which is the main goal of this paper. This goal is reached by achieving the following research objectives:

Create VR analogs of a city setting as the control environment with routine landmark objects, altered visuospatial conditions of limited landmarks and no landmarks as experiment environments.
Measure and compare the perception of distance and size using digitalized tests between the control and the experiment conditions.
Analyze the test scores using appropriate statistical tests to understand how landmark objects may influence distance and size perception and how this influence may be moderated by demographic factors.

2.2 Participants

A total of 100 participants aged between 18 and 52 years old were included in the study (Mean = 24.74 and Std.=6.19) (Fig. 1). Most (74%) were male and less than half (40%) identified themselves as gamers. All participants had normal or corrected to normal vision. Participants were recruited from the student population at Texas A&M University through bulk email announcements sent via the university’s email system. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the university, and all subjects were required to provide written consent before the study could begin.

2.3 Study Environment and Apparatus

Unity 3D was used to create VR environments to depict the control and experiment conditions (Goldsmith et al., 2016). Using scripts, Unity 3D can emulate specific performance and functionality by customizing environments and interactions. Control and experiment groups were set up in normal and altered environments, respectively. The environment for the control group (CG) was a city environment that included familiar landmarks, as well as visual and gravitational frames of reference (FOR) that captured the essence of a typical city (Fig. 2). There were a wide variety of cues available in this environment, coming from familiar landmark objects such as road, trees, cars, buildings, and people. There were two space environments to depict altered visuospatial conditions. The first experiment condition of EG1 depicted other planet (Mars) or the moon with an FOR and a terrain with landscape feature but without familiar landmark objects (Fig. 2). The second experiment setting of EG2 simulated an outer space condition that lacked not only an FOR but also a terrain, landscape features, and familiar landmarks (Fig. 2). Such conditions were like those experienced during the spacewalk conducted by astronauts. The control condition of the cityscape offered maximum possible cues. The first experiment condition of EG1 offered limited spatial cues, whereas the second experiment condition of EG2 no spatial cues. Each environment was constructed with similar visual quality (resolution and sharpness) so that stimuli could be compared fairly. Participants were asked to complete a size and a distance perception test in each of the three environments (Fig. 3).

A size perception test is a psychological assessment designed to evaluate an individual's ability to accurately perceive and estimate the size of objects in a spatial environment (Haber and Levin 2001). Distance perception test measures an individual's perception of allocentric spatial distances between objects (Plumert, Kearney et al. 2005) (Fig. 4). These tests were developed based on Clement (2013), who examined the size and distance perception in microgravity environments (Clément, Skinner and Lathan 2013).

2.4 Limitations

This study has few limitations that are important to note. First, the extended use of VR headsets may lead to participant fatigue, potentially influencing the results, a factor not explored in this study. Additionally, despite the emphasis on immersive VR settings simulating microgravity, participants still experienced gravitational feedback, which could have introduced minor confounding effects. Second, the controlled laboratory environment used in this study may limit the ecological validity of the findings. Real-world spatial challenges often entail dynamic and unpredictable elements absent in the controlled setting. Furthermore, aspects like light quality, shadow patterns, and the presence of spatial objects commonly encountered in real-world scenarios (e.g., wires, pipes, airlocks, International Space Station handles) could introduce additional variables that may impact the results.

Response accuracy and response time were analyzed as outcome measures for the three groups, control group (CG), experiment group 1 (EG1), and experiment group 2 (EG2). All size perception (SP) and distance perception (DP) tests included 12 questions under each of the three conditions. Each response’s absolute error ratio was calculated to measure response accuracy. Next, the mean of 12 absolute error ratios was calculated. The lower the mean, the higher the response accuracy.

4.1 Response Accuracy Results

First, we analyzed whether there is a significant difference in the response accuracy in the distance perception (DP) test under the control (CG) and the two experiment groups (EG1 and EG2). Because the required assumptions for repeated measures ANOVA were not met, the Friedman test was used to examine if there was a statistically significant difference between the scores of the three conditions. The Friedman test results showed that there was no statistically significant difference in absolute-error-ratio means for the DP test under CG, EG1, and EG2 (χ2(2) = .740, p = .691) (see Table S1 in the supporting information). It means that the limited availability or no availability of landmarks in the two experiment conditions of EG1 and EG2 did not seem to impact participants’ distance perception. Next, we examined if there is a significant difference in the response accuracy for the size perception (SP) tests under the three conditions. Like DP test analysis, the Friedman test was applied instead of the repeated measures ANOVA due to the required assumptions not being met (see Table S2 in the supporting information ). There was a statistically significant difference in absolute-error-ratio means for the SP test under the control and experiment groups of CG, EG1, and EG2 (χ2(2) = 9.500, p = .009). In other words, the existence of limited or no landmark objects in the three conditions did influence participants’ ability to perceive size.

For pairwise comparison of results, we must run appropriate post hoc tests on different combinations of related groups to examine where the differences occur. Because the distribution of the differences between the two related groups was not symmetrical in shape, we used the sign test instead of the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. The results of the sign test revealed that there was a statistically significant difference in response accuracy for the SP test under CG and EG1 (p = .012) and EG1 and EG2 (p = .021). However, no statistically significant difference in response accuracy was found for the SP test under the CG and EG2 (p = 0.617). The sign test results also indicated that the SP responses under the CG and EG2 were more accurate than the responses under EG1 (Table 3).

Table 3

Sign test results for Absolut error ratio mean in SP test
		N
Absolute error ratio means: EG1 - CG	Negative Differences	37
	Positive Differences	63
	Ties	0
	Total	100
Absolute error ratio means: EG2 - EG1	Negative Differences	62
	Positive Differences	38
	Ties	0
	Total	100
Absolute error ratio means: EG2 - CG	Negative Differences	53
	Positive Differences	47
	Ties	0
	Total	100

4.2 Response Time Results

Next, the participants’ response time was analyzed for both DP and SP tests. The Friedman test results demonstrated that there was no statistically significant difference in the response time for the DP test under the three conditions (χ2(2) = 1.940, p = .379) (Table S4). However, the Friedman test showed that the difference in the response time of the participant in SP test was statistically significant among the three groups (χ2(2) = 6.020, p = .049) (table S5), indicating the influence of landmarks not only on the SP accuracy but also response time. Like response accuracy, to understand the difference more in detail, we ran the sign test on the response time results from the three control and experiment conditions (see Tables S6-S8 in the supporting information). The results of the sign test revealed a statistically significant difference in response time only between the EG1 and EG2 (p = .004) but no difference between the CG and EG1 (p = .484) and CG and EG2 (p = .368). The sign test results also indicated that the SP response time under EG1 was longer than under EG2 (Table 4).

Table 4

Sign test results for response time in SP test
		N
Response time: EG1- CG	Negative Differences	54
	Positive Differences	46
	Ties	0
	Total	100
Response time: EG2 - EG1	Negative Differences	65
	Positive Differences	35
	Ties	0
	Total	100
Response time: EG2 - CG	Negative Differences	55
	Positive Differences	45
	Ties	0
	Total	100

We also wanted to see if there is any interconnectedness between the participants’ accuracy and response time. Pearson’s correlation could be used to understand whether there is an association between accuracy and response time. However, since the scatter plots revealed no linear relationship between the accuracy and the response time for both DP and SP tests under all three conditions, no further analysis was done to measure the strength and direction of associations.

4.3 Response accuracy and response time relationship to demographic factors

To examine if participants’ gender moderated the impact of landmarks on spatial perception, we considered using the point-biserial correlation and Mann-Whitney U test to determine whether there is an association between participants’ absolute-error-ratio means and gender (see Tables S9 and S10). The assumptions for point-biserial correlation were met only for EG2 (see Tables S11 and S12). The Point-biserial correlation results indicated no statistically significant association between participants’ performance and gender under Space circumstances since the p-value was greater than 0.05 (p-value = .054). For CG, we applied Mann-Whitney U test, which showed no statistically significant difference in absolute-error-ratio means for the DP test under CG (p-value = .072) (See Table S11 and S13). The results also indicated that females’ absolute-error-ratio means were statistically significantly higher than males’ under EG1 (U = 688.000, p-value = .031). It means males’ performance was statistically significantly more accurate under EG1 than females. In the case of SP tests results, the Mann-Whitney U test showed no statistically significant difference in absolute-error-ratio means for the SP test for CG, EG1, and EG2 since the corresponding p-values were 0.148, 0.112, and 0.133 for CG, EG1, and EG2, respectively. Overall, gender does not seem to influence the response accuracy of participants under the three conditions for both tests (except for SP-EG1). Since the corresponding scatter plots showed no linear relationship between the absolute error ratio means and age of the participants in both the DP and SP tests under the three conditions, there was no interconnectedness between the participants’ response accuracy and their age. Using Point-biserial correlation and the Mann-Whitney test (when the assumptions were met), we tested if participants’ gamer and non-gamer status had any influence on their response accuracy. The Point-biserial correlation results indicated no statistically significant association between participants’ response accuracy on the DP test and their gaming status in EG1 and EG2 since the p-values were greater than 0.05: .468 and .132, respectively. The Mann-Whitney U test showed no statistically significant difference in absolute-error-ratio means of gamers and non-gamers for the DP test for CG (p-value = .637). Moreover, the Mann-Whitney U test results showed no statistically significant difference in absolute-error-ratio means of gamers and non-gamers for the SP test under the three conditions. In other words, the demographic factors of gender, age, and gamer/non-gamer status did not influence participants’ response accuracy (except for gender in SP-EG1).

4.4. Underestimation and overestimation of the tests

Based on the mean of error ratios, each participant's performance on each test was categorized as either underestimating (for negative means) or overestimating (for positive means). Table 5 illustrates that most participants overestimated the distance in the DP test across all three conditions of CG, EG1, and EG2. To further analyze differences in underestimated and overestimated distances and sizes between the three conditions, Cochran's Q test was employed. The results of Cochran's Q test indicated that there was no statistically significant difference in this proportion under these circumstances: χ2 (2) = 2.438, p = 0.296.

Table 5

Frequencies of participants who underestimated and overestimated the distance in the DP
Circumstance	Performance
Circumstance	Underestimated	Overestimated
CG	17	83
EG1	22	78
EG2	24	76

Likewise, Table 6 demonstrates that most participants underestimated the size in the SP test across all three circumstances, with CG having the largest proportion, and EG1 and EG2 showing the same proportion of participants who underestimated the size. Subsequently, Cochran's Q test further revealed that there was no statistically significant difference in this proportion: χ2 (2) = 5.158, p = 0.076.

Table 6

Frequencies of participants who underestimated and overestimated the size in the SP test
Circumstance	Performance
Circumstance	Underestimated	Overestimated
CG	96	4
EG1	89	11
EG2	89	11

Moving forward, the chi-square test of association was utilized to investigate any relationship between participants' gender and distance overestimation or underestimation in both the tests under the three conditions. The results indicated that there was no statistically significant association between gender and distance perception in the DP test under CG [χ (1) = 0.124, p = 0.725], EG1 [χ (1) = 0.496, p = 0.481], or EG2 [χ (1) = 0.016, p = 0.898] circumstances. Similarly, there was no statistically significant association between gender and size perception in the SP test under CG [χ (1) = 1.464, p = 0.226], EG1 [χ (1) = 1.837, p = 0.175], or EG2 [χ (1) = 0.393, p = 0.531] conditions. This implies that both males and females perceived distance and sizes under the three conditions in a similar manner. Ch-square test also showed that there was no statistically significant association between gamers and DP results under CG [χ (1) = 0.425, p = 0.514], EG1 [χ (1) = 0.350, p = 0.554], or EG2 [χ (1) = 1.316, p = 0.251]. There was also no statistically significant association found between gamers and size perception in the SP test under CG [χ (1) = 0.174, p = 0.677], EG1 [χ (1) = 0.068, p = 0.794], or EG2 [χ (1) = 2.451, p = 0.117] circumstances. This denotes that participants who regularly play video games responded to the two tests in the same way as those who do not play video games. Lastly, the feasibility of conducting a point-biserial correlation analysis was considered to explore the association between participants' age and distance overestimation or underestimation in the case of both the tests. However, it was not possible to determine whether an association existed between participants' age and size perception in the SP and DP tests under the three conditions due to the presence of outliers and results not meeting the required assumptions (see Figures S1-S6).

This study tested human spatial perception in situations simulating the availability of a frame of reference (FOR) and varying levels of spatial cues through distance perception (DP) and size perception (SP) tests. The goal was to understand if and to what extent participants’ distance and size perception are altered by a lack of an FOR and/or spatial cues. Three conditions were tested: (1) a control group condition depicting a city setting with most spatial cues and an FOR; (2) an experiment group 1 condition indicating a Martian setting that has an FOR but with unfamiliar spatial cues; and (3) an experiment groups 2 condition representing deep space setting which lacks both the FOR and spatial cues. Results showed that there was no significant difference between participants’ DP performance under the three conditions in terms of response accuracy and reaction time. In other words, lack of spatial cues and FOR may not influence human distance perception. However, in the case of SP test, there was a statistically significant difference in participants’ response accuracy and reaction time in the three conditions indicating that lacking FOR and spatial cues may influence human size perception. This is significant to more safely and efficiently completing several tasks performed by astronauts, for instance, performing maintenance and repairs through spacewalks, remotely operating robotic arms or a piece of equipment, and riding a rover (Clement et al., 2013). These findings conflict with the results of other studies such as Clement et al. (2013), which found that there was no statistically significant difference between astronauts’ size perception on earth and in orbit. This may be because their tests subjects included well-trained astronauts as compared to the participants of this study who did not receive any training. Additionally, this study was conducted in virtual environments, whereas Clement et al. (2013) tested SP and DP in physical reality.

Studies (e.g., Maltz et al., 2021) that examined the impact of familiar size on distance and size perception concluded that the familiar sizes influenced size perception significantly but not the distance perception. Such findings may help explain the results of this study that showed that the presence of familiar and unfamiliar visual landmarks may affect size perception more than distance perception. The pairwise comparison of the three conditions revealed statistically significant difference between the control group and experiment group 1 and the experiment group 1 and the experiment group 2 with the control group and experiment group 2 participants completing SP tasks more accurately that the experiment group 1. This means that the complete absence of an FOR and visual cues in fact helped the participants in experiment group 2 as compared to experiment group 1, which had an FOR and some unfamiliar spatial cues. In other words, the absence of visual cues was more helpful in SP tasks than the unfamiliar FOR and visual landmarks of Martian settings, which may be misleading to spatial perception (Park et al., 2021). Rzepka et al. (2023) compared physical and virtual realities for the impact of familiar sizes and found that participants seemed to rely heavily on familiar sizes in virtual environments than the physical reality; this finding may help understand why unfamiliar visual landmarks may have misled participants in the virtual settings of this study.

Results of this study further indicated that participants did not always underestimate distance and sizes in contrary to the findings of several previous studies, which demonstrated or discussed distance and spatial compression in virtual environments (Mohler et al., 2008; Clement et al., 2013; Woldegiorgis and Lin, 2017; Rosales et al., 2019; Li et al., 2021; Park et al., 2021; Wiesing and Zimmermann, 2023). In fact, distance perception in the sagittal plane was consistently overestimated in all three conditions (83–87% of the participants), whereas it was underestimated along the frontal plane (65%-76% of the participants). This finding was different from that of Clement et al. (2013) comparing astronauts’ DP on earth and in orbit and Woldegiorgis and Lin (2017) studying DP in virtual settings, both ow which found underestimation of distance in both frontal and the sagittal planes. However, studies such as Peillard et al. (2019) investigated DP when objects are placed right in the front (frontal plane) and the side of participants (depth plane). Their research showed underestimation and overestimation of distance in the frontal and side planes, respectively, which may align with this study’s results. Even though, gender is not found to moderate the relationship of the presence of an FOR and visual cues with size and distance perception, males seem to outperform females under the experiment group 1 condition for the DP test.

Further analysis of size perception results showed that participants overestimated the height of the cube in all three conditions (73%-75% of the participants), which may align with Clement et al. (2013), who concluded that astronauts tend to perceive height of the cube taller that its actual height in orbit. They further showed that the cube depth is comprehended shallower than the actual depth by astronauts on board the International Space Station, which agrees with our conclusion that participants underestimated cube depth in all three conditions (~ 94% of the participants). In this study, we also found that participants overestimated the width of the cube. Since the width of the cube is in the frontal plane and the depth in the sagittal plane, these results conflict with that of DP tests, which showed underestimation in the frontal and overestimation in the depth planes. It is important to note that the DP tasks of this study involved allocentric encoding, in which participants were asked to relate distances in sagittal and frontal planes to complete the DP tasks, whereas the SP tasks are objected centered and may involve more of egocentric processing (Park et al., 2021). The fact that participants’ response time was statistically significantly longer in experiment group 1 than the other two groups further substantiates the spatial cognitive challenges posed by misleading cue emanating from unfamiliar visual landmarks of Martian settings.

It is also crucial to note the limitations of VR settings in simulating real-world scenarios due to several issues such as realism, narrow field of view, graphical constraints, distortions, and response measures that may cause spatial compression (Alexandrova et al., 2010; Rzepka et al., 2023). Other issues such as lack of other modalities such as haptic, olfactory, and audio feedback and vergence-accommodation conflict may further confound spatial perception results (Rzepka et al., 2023). The issue of the weight of HMDs and the physical and mental fatigue of wearing HMDs for longer time (60–90 minutes in this study) may have also played a role in affecting participants responses. The DP and SP findings also indicate that these tasks may not be related, a finding that is concurred with the conclusions of Maltz et al. (2021).

This study explored the research question of if and to what extent the availability of an FOR and familiar and unfamiliar visual landmark impacts human spatial perception measured through size and distance perception tests. The results of this study advance the current state of knowledge in the field of spatial perception, particularly in unfamiliar and altered visuospatial conditions of space explorations simulated in Virtual Reality (VR). The perception of distance and size is crucial to not only creating an accurate and complete mental representation of a spatial environment but also recognizing objects and completing “visually guided actions” (Maltz et al., 2021). If size and distance perceptions are distorted it could adversely impact human judgement of speed, orientation, location, and relationship of objects in space, jeopardizing safety, health, and productivity. Spatial perception, therefore, has educational, vocational, recreational, and personal consequences. The results showed that there was a statistically significant difference in absolute-error-ratio as well as response time means for the SP test under the control and the two experiment groups, indicating potential impact of FOR and visual cues on size perception. The results of the sign test revealed that the responses in experiment group 1 were significantly different from those of control group and experiment group 2. This means that no visual cues and FOR supported size perception than available unfamiliar visual cues. Although no significant impact of visual cues and FOR was found on distance perception, results showed that distance was consistently underestimated and overestimated along the frontal and sagittal planes, respectively. This was the opposite in size perception test findings that indicated overestimation and underestimation along the cube’s frontal and depth planes, respectively. The height of the cube was overestimated in most cases. Demographic factors did not seem to moderate the relationship of the FOR and visual cues with distance and size perception except for the fact that males’ performance was better on SP test in experiment group 1. Notably, gender and video game playing habits did not yield substantial variations in participants' distance and size perception. Both male and female participants, as well as individuals with diverse gaming behaviors, exhibited similar tendencies to perceive distances and sizes. Furthermore, while exploring the relationship between age and perception, the feasibility of assessing this connection was constrained due to outliers and non-compliance with necessary assumptions. This study contributes to the understanding of how individuals perceive spatial dimensions and offers implications for fields such as cognitive psychology, human-computer interaction, and virtual reality design.

Future research direction

While the sample size of 100 participants is relatively large, it would be advantageous for future research to include a more diverse and extensive participant pool to enhance the generalizability of the findings. Furthermore, the utilization of specific spatial tests may not fully capture the complexities of real-world spatial tasks. This suggests the importance of incorporating a wider range of spatial assessments in future studies to gain more comprehensive insights.

Additionally, future studies could delve into how this knowledge can be translated into actionable steps. This might entail the development of tools and strategies designed to train diverse populations to function safely and effectively in environments characterized by these altered conditions.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the support from the NSF. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, and recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the NSF.

Statements and Declarations

The authors declare no conflict of interest (financial or otherwise) related to the work submitted for publication.

Aguirre, G. K., Detre, J. A., Alsop, D. C., & D'Esposito, M. (1996). The parahippocampus subserves topographical learning in man. Cerebral Cortex, 6(6), 823-829.
Allred, A. R., Kravets, V. G., Ahmed, N., & Clark, T. K. (2023). Modeling orientation perception adaptation to altered gravity environments with memory of past sensorimotor states. Frontiers in Neural Circuits, 17.
Bartlett, K. A., & Dorribo Camba, J. (2023). The role of a graphical interpretation factor in the assessment of Spatial Visualization: A critical analysis. Spatial Cognition & Computation, 23(1), 1-30.
Brenner, E., & van Damme, W. J. M. (1999). Perceived distance, shape and size. Vision Research, 39(5), 975-986. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0042-6989(98)00162-X
Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. Cambridge University Press.
Casey, M. B., Nuttall, R., Pezaris, E., & Benbow, C. P. (1995). The influence of spatial ability on gender differences in mathematics college entrance test scores across diverse samples. Developmental psychology, 31(4), 697.
Clark, T. K., Stimpson, A. J., Young, L. R., Oman, C. M., & Duda, K. R. (2010). Analysis of human spatial perception during lunar landing. 2010 IEEE Aerospace Conference,
Clément, G., Skinner, A., & Lathan, C. (2013). Distance and Size Perception in Astronauts during Long-Duration Spaceflight. Life (Basel), 3(4), 524-537. https://doi.org/10.3390/life3040524
Corballis, M. C., Anuza, T., & Blake, L. (1978). Tachistoscopic perception under head tilt. Perception & Psychophysics, 24, 274-284.
De Luca, V., Gatto, C., Liaci, S., Corchia, L., Chiarello, S., Faggiano, F., Sumerano, G., & De Paolis, L. T. (2023). Virtual Reality and Spatial Augmented Reality for Social Inclusion: The “Includiamoci” Project. Information, 14(1), 38.
Du, X., Zhang, Y., Tian, Y., Huang, W., Wu, B., & Zhang, J. (2015). The influence of spatial ability and experience on performance during spaceship rendezvous and docking. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 955.
Embry-Riddle, S. M. (2017). The Issues and Complexities Surrounding the Future of Long Duration Spaceflight. https://commons.erau.edu/ww-graduate-works/3/
Ernst, J. V., Williams, T. O., Clark, A. C., & Kelly, D. P. (2017). Factors of spatial visualization: An analysis of the PSVT: R. The Engineering Design Graphics Journal, 81(1).
Fennema, E. (1974). Mathematics, Spatial Ability and the Sexes.
Fujimoto, K. Postural adjustment School of Letters, Kyoto University].
Fukushima, K., Fukushima, J., Warabi, T., & Barnes, G. R. (2013). Cognitive processes involved in smooth pursuit eye movements: behavioral evidence, neural substrate and clinical correlation. Front Syst Neurosci, 7, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2013.00004
Goldsmith, L., Hetland, L., Hoyle, C., & Winner, E. (2016). Visual-spatial thinking in geometry and the visual arts. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 10, 56-71.
Guo, J., Jiang, G., Liu, Y., & An, M. (2016a). Predicting Navigation Performance in a Multi-module Space Station Through Spatial Abilities. Man-Machine-Environment System Engineering: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on MMESE,
Guo, J., Jiang, G., Liu, Y., & An, M. (2016b). Predicting Navigation Performance in a Multi-module Space Station Through Spatial Abilities. In (Vol. 406, pp. 39-46). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2323-1_5
Guzsvinecz, T., Orbán-Mihálykó, É., Perge, E., & Sik-Lányi, C. (2020). Analyzing the spatial skills of university students with a Virtual Reality application using a desktop display and the Gear VR. Acta Polytechnica Hungarica, 17(2), 35-56.
Haber, R. N., & Levin, C. A. (2001). The independence of size perception and distance perception. Perception & Psychophysics, 63(7), 1140-1152.
Harle, M., & Towns, M. (2011). A review of spatial ability literature, its connection to chemistry, and implications for instruction. Journal of Chemical Education, 88(3), 351-360.
Harris, L. R., Jenkin, M., Jenkin, H., Zacher, J. E., & Dyde, R. T. (2017). The effect of long-term exposure to microgravity on the perception of upright. npj Microgravity, 3(1), 3.
Harris, L. R., & Mander, C. (2014). Perceived distance depends on the orientation of both the body and the visual environment. Journal of vision, 14(12), 17-17.
He, Q., McNamara, T. P., & Brown, T. I. (2019). Manipulating the visibility of barriers to improve spatial navigation efficiency and cognitive mapping. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 1-12.
He, X., Li, T., Turel, O., Kuang, Y., Zhao, H., & He, Q. (2021). The impact of STEM education on mathematical development in children aged 5-6 years. International Journal of Educational Research, 109, 101795.
Henry, D., & Furness, T. (1993). Spatial perception in virtual environments: Evaluating an architectural application. Proceedings of IEEE virtual reality annual international symposium,
Higgins, J. S., & Wang, R. F. (2010). A landmark effect in the perceived displacement of objects. Vision Research, 50(2), 242-248.
Höhler, C., Rasamoel, N. D., Rohrbach, N., Hansen, J. P., Jahn, K., Hermsdörfer, J., & Krewer, C. (2021). The impact of visuospatial perception on distance judgment and depth perception in an Augmented Reality environment in patients after stroke: an exploratory study. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, 18(1), 1-17.
Jain, D., Sra, M., Guo, J., Marques, R., Wu, R., Chiu, J., & Schmandt, C. (2016a). Immersive Scuba Diving Simulator Using Virtual Reality Proceedings of the 29th Annual Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, Tokyo, Japan. https://doi.org/10.1145/2984511.2984519
Jain, D., Sra, M., Guo, J., Marques, R., Wu, R., Chiu, J., & Schmandt, C. (2016b). Immersive scuba diving simulator using virtual reality. Proceedings of the 29th Annual Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology,
Kim, C. K., Kalynchuk, L. E., Kornecook, T. J., Mumby, D. G., Dadgar, N. A., Pinel, J. P., & Weinberg, J. (1997). Object-recognition and spatial learning and memory in rats prenatally exposed to ethanol. Behavioral neuroscience, 111(5), 985.
Kearney, G., Gorzel, M., Rice, H., & Boland, F. (2012). Distance perception in interactive virtual acoustic environments using first and higher order ambisonic sound fields. Acta Acustica united with Acustica, 98(1), 61-71.
Kiefer, P., Giannopoulos, I., Raubal, M., & Duchowski, A. (2017). Eye tracking for spatial research: Cognition, computation, challenges. Spatial Cognition & Computation, 17(1-2), 1-19.
Kolb, B., & Whishaw, I. Q. (2009). Fundamentals of human neuropsychology. Macmillan.
Kyttälä, M., & Björn, P. M. (2014). The role of literacy skills in adolescents' mathematics word problem performance: Controlling for visuo-spatial ability and mathematics anxiety. Learning and Individual Differences, 29, 59-66.
Li, X., & Wang, W. (2021). Exploring Spatial Cognitive Process Among STEM Students and Its Role in STEM Education: A Cognitive Neuroscience Perspective. Science & Education, 30(1), 121-145.
Lipshits, M., McIntyre, J., Zaoui, M., Gurfinkel, V., & Berthoz, A. (2001). Does gravity play an essential role in the asymmetrical visual perception of vertical and horizontal line length? Acta Astronautica, 49(3-10), 123-130.
Lunneborg, P. W., & Lunneborg, C. E. (1986). Everyday spatial activities test for studying differential spatial experience and vocational behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 28(2), 135-141.
Lynch, K. (1960). The image of the environment. The image of the city, 11, 1-13.
Maguire, E. A., Burgess, N., & O’Keefe, J. (1999). Human spatial navigation: cognitive maps, sexual dimorphism, and neural substrates. Current opinion in neurobiology, 9(2), 171-177.
Montello, D. R. (1998). A new framework for understanding the acquisition of spatial knowledge in large-scale environments. Spatial and temporal reasoning in geographic information systems, 143-154.
Newcombe, N. S. (2002). Spatial cognition.
Newcombe, N. S., Uttal, D. H., & Sauter, M. (2013). Spatial development.
Newman, P. M., & McNamara, T. P. (2022). Integration of visual landmark cues in spatial memory. Psychol Res, 86(5), 1636-1654. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-021-01581-8
Nick Kanas, D. M. (2003). Space Psychology and Psychiatry. Springer Science & Business Media.
Oman, C. (2007). Spatial Orientation and Navigation in Microgravity. In F. Mast & L. Jäncke (Eds.), Spatial Processing in Navigation, Imagery and Perception (pp. 209-247). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-71978-8_13
Papakostas, C., Troussas, C., Krouska, A., & Sgouropoulou, C. (2021). Exploration of augmented reality in spatial abilities training: a systematic literature review for the last decade. Informatics in Education, 20(1), 107-130.
Parker, D. E. (2003). Spatial perception changes associated with space flight: implications for adaptation to altered inertial environments. Journal of Vestibular Research, 13(4-6), 331-343.
Peretz, C., Korczyn, A. D., Shatil, E., Aharonson, V., Birnboim, S., & Giladi, N. (2011). Computer-based, personalized cognitive training versus classical computer games: a randomized double-blind prospective trial of cognitive stimulation. Neuroepidemiology, 36(2), 91-99.
Plumert, J. M., Kearney, J. K., Cremer, J. F., & Recker, K. (2005). Distance perception in real and virtual environments. ACM Transactions on Applied Perception (TAP), 2(3), 216-233.
Reschke, M. F., Bloomberg, J. J., Harm, D. L., Paloski, W. H., Layne, C., & McDonald, V. (1998). Posture, locomotion, spatial orientation, and motion sickness as a function of space flight. Brain Research Reviews, 28(1-2), 102-117.
Ruddle, R. A., Volkova, E., Mohler, B., & Bülthoff, H. H. (2011). The effect of landmark and body-based sensory information on route knowledge. Memory & cognition, 39(4), 686-699.
Salehi, Faezeh, Fatemeh Pariafsai, and Manish K. Dixit. "The impact of misaligned idiotropic and visual axes on spatial ability under altered visuospatial conditions." Virtual Reality (2023): 1-15.
Salehi, F., et al. (2023). How Human Spatial Ability is Affected by the Misalignment of Idiotropic and Visual Axes. International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Springer.
Schaller, S., Yucel, I., & Kahn, R. (2018). Applying Game Learning Principles to Analyze and Identify Improvements for Scuba Training Simulations
Schulteis, M., & Rothbaum, B. O. (2002). Ethical issues for the use of virtual reality in the psychological sciences. Ethical issues in clinical neuropsychology. Lisse, NL: Swets & Zeitlinger, 243, 80.
Schöberl, F., Zwergal, A., & Brandt, T. (2020). Testing Navigation in Real Space: Contributions to Understanding the Physiology and Pathology of Human Navigation Control. Front Neural Circuits, 14, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fncir.2020.00006
Shatil, E., Korczyn, A. D., Peretz, C., Breznitz, S., Aharonson, V., & Giladi, N. (2008). P2‐406: Improving cognitive performance in elderly subjects using computerized cognitive training. Alzheimer's & Dementia, 4, T492-T492.
Shebilske, W. L., Tubré, T., Tubré, A. H., Oman, C. M., & Richards, J. T. (2006). Three-dimensional spatial skill training in a simulated space station: random vs. blocked designs. Aviation, space, and environmental medicine, 77(4), 404-409.
Shebilske, W. L., Tubré, T., Tubré, A. H., Oman, C. M., & Richards, J. T. (2006). Three-dimensional spatial skill training in a simulated space station: random vs. blocked designs. Aviat Space Environ Med, 77(4), 404-409.
Shepard, R. N., & Metzler, J. (1971). Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects. Science, 171(3972), 701-703.
Siegel, A. W., & White, S. H. (1975). The development of spatial representations of large-scale environments. Advances in child development and behavior, 10, 9-55.
Škola, F., Rizvić, S., Cozza, M., Barbieri, L., Bruno, F., Skarlatos, D., & Liarokapis, F. (2020). Virtual reality with 360-video storytelling in cultural heritage: Study of presence, engagement, and immersion. Sensors, 20(20), 5851.
Sun, R., Wu, Y. J., & Cai, Q. (2019). The effect of a virtual reality learning environment on learners’ spatial ability. Virtual Reality, 23, 385-398.
Sun, Y., Xu, Q., Li, Y., Zhang, C., Li, Y., Wang, S., & Sun, J. (2019). Perceive where to focus: Learning visibility-aware part-level features for partial person re-identification. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition,
Ten Brink, A. F., Biesbroek, J. M., Oort, Q., Visser-Meily, J. M., & Nijboer, T. C. (2019). Peripersonal and extrapersonal visuospatial neglect in different frames of reference: A brain lesion-symptom mapping study. Behavioural Brain Research, 356, 504-515.
Tachibana, K. (2020). Workplace in space: Space neuroscience and performance management in terrestrial environments. Organizational neuroethics: Reflections on the contributions of neuroscience to management theories and business practices, 235-255.
Treisman, A. (1962). Binocular rivalry and stereoscopic depth perception. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 14(1), 23-37.
Tuena, C., Mancuso, V., Stramba-Badiale, C., Pedroli, E., Stramba-Badiale, M., Riva, G., & Repetto, C. (2021). Egocentric and allocentric spatial memory in mild cognitive impairment with real-world and virtual navigation tasks: a systematic review. Journal of Alzheimer's Disease, 79(1), 95-116.
Tracy, D. M. (1987). Toys, spatial ability, and science and mathematics achievement: Are they related? Sex Roles, 17, 115-138.
Turgut, M. (2015). Development of the spatial ability self-report scale (SASRS): reliability and validity studies. Quality & Quantity, 49, 1997-2014.
Winter, K.-F. R. S. (2014). Chapter 1 Introduction: What landmarks are, and why they are important. https://people.eng.unimelb.edu.au/winter/pubs/book-landmarks-sample-(ch-1).pdf

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

The impact of visuospatial cues on human spatial perception abilities

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

1. Introduction

1.2 Background

1.3 Spatial Cognition

1.4 Spatial Perception and Landmarks

1.5 Spatial Perception Research: Size and Distance Perception

1.6 Virtual Reality and Its Application in Spatial Perception Research

2. Materials and Methods

2.1 Research Goal and Objectives

2.2 Participants

2.3 Study Environment and Apparatus

2.4 Limitations

3. Results

4.1 Response Accuracy Results

4.2 Response Time Results

4.3 Response accuracy and response time relationship to demographic factors

4.4. Underestimation and overestimation of the tests

4. Discussion

5. Conclusions

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1