Differences in Distance Perception and Spatial Impression in Immersive Virtual Space: Effects of Object Direction
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Virtual environments immerse users in experiences that closely resemble those in physical spaces.In the process of creating a virtual environment that replicates a real-world setting, components are frequently modeled to match the actual dimensions.However, users may perceive the virtual environment differently when utilizing a head-mounted display (HMD).Consequently, this study explored the differences in spatial experience between physical space and HMD space to identify any perceptual discrepancies.Additionally, we examined flat-panel displays (DPs), which are more prevalent than HMDs for visualizing 3D models.The experiment was conducted under a personal space scenario, focusing on "perception of distance" and "evaluation of impression."Participants employed a 5-point scale to rate the perceived distance to an object (distance perception) and to evaluate their impression of the space's openness and the object's presence (impression evaluation).The results were analyzed using mean and standard deviation, along with a Holm-corrected Wilcoxon signed-rank test.The findings suggest that, irrespective of the object's position, the HMD space resulted in the shortest perceived distances and a more oppressive sensation among the three spaces.However, the impression of the space did not exhibit significant differences due to the presence of the object.These results underscore the importance of considering spatial perception differences when evaluating or designing immersive virtual environments.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it