Familiar size affects perception differently in virtual reality and the real world
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The promise of virtual reality (VR) as a tool for perceptual and cognitive research rests on the assumption that perception in virtual environments generalizes to the real world. Here, we conducted two experiments to compare size and distance perception between VR and physical reality (Maltz et al . 2021 J. Vis. 21 , 1–18). In experiment 1, we used VR to present dice and Rubik's cubes at their typical sizes or reversed sizes at distances that maintained a constant visual angle. After viewing the stimuli binocularly (to provide vergence and disparity information) or monocularly, participants manually estimated perceived size and distance. Unlike physical reality, where participants relied less on familiar size and more on presented size during binocular versus monocular viewing, in VR participants relied heavily on familiar size regardless of the availability of binocular cues. In experiment 2, we demonstrated that the effects in VR generalized to other stimuli and to a higher quality VR headset. These results suggest that the use of binocular cues and familiar size differs substantially between virtual and physical reality. A deeper understanding of perceptual differences is necessary before assuming that research outcomes from VR will generalize to the real world. This article is part of a discussion meeting issue ‘New approaches to 3D vision’.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".