The effect of physical and virtual rotations of a 3D object on spatial perception
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We question whether a virtual reality (VR) environment produces the same spatial perception as natural world. In this study, as a first attempt to answer the above question, we examined the perceived rotation of an object (a building) in both virtual and natural environments on spatial ability of 30 young males, while navigating in a virtual environment. We calculated the number of errors they made in finding a destination in a virtual reality navigational environment. The subjects performed three sets of 4 trials of finding a target room in a virtual building with no landmarks. At the beginning of each trial the target room was shown to the subject by rotation of the building from outside perspective. The building rotation was achieved in three conditions: 1) in virtual environment, 2) in real environment by rotating an identical but scaled physical building, and 3) by walking around the physical model. Each subject performed 4 trials of virtual navigation under each of the above conditions. In each trial, the traversed distance and the visited rooms were recorded by the program. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was employed to find any statistical difference between the particpants' errors in three conditions. Overall, no statistically significant differences were found between the error scores in any of the three conditions. The results and their implications are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".