The Community for Technology Leaders
RSS Icon
Issue No.05 - September (1995 vol.15)
pp: 46-51
Two experiments are reported in which subjects performed a search-and-act spatial task in conditions of reduced resolution and exploratory freedom. Images were produced using miniature cameras, comparing static camera position, passive camera movement, and head-coupled immersive VR/teleoperation conditions. By using cameras and real light, time lags could be avoided. Video processors were used to artificially reduce spatial, and temporal resolutions. Results show that although spatial and intensity resolutions are very important in static viewing conditions, like those of traditional image-producing computer graphics, subjects can complete the puzzle in head-mounted (VR-like) conditions with resolutions as little as 18x15 pixels. Furthermore results show that animation of the image viewpoint does not always improve spatial performance when the animation is not user-controlled; in some conditions performance actually got worse by adding passive movement.
virtual reality, visual resolution, interactivity
Gerda J.F. Smets, Kees J. Overbeeke, "Trade-Off Between Resolution and Interactivity in Spatial Task Performance", IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, vol.15, no. 5, pp. 46-51, September 1995, doi:10.1109/38.403827
1. M. Swartz, D. Wallace, and S. Tkacz, “The Influence of Frame Rate and Resolution Reduction on Human Performance,” Proc. Human Factors Society 36th Annual Meeting, Human Factors and Ergonmics Soc., Santa Monica, Calif., 1992, pp. 1,440-1,444.
2. V. Ranadive and T. Sheridan, “Video Frame Rate, Resolution, and Grey Scale Trade-Offs for Undersea Manipulator Control,” Proc. 17th Annual Conf. on Manual Control,Los Angeles, 1981, pp. 77-88.
3. R.L. Pepper, R.E. Cole, and E.H. Spain, “The Influence of Camera Separation and Head Movement on Perceptual Performance Under Direct and TV-Displayed Conditions,” Proc. SID, Soc. for Information Display, Playa del Rey, Calif., 1983, pp. 24:73-80.
4. J.J. Gibson, The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, Mass., 1979.
5. J.M. Flach, “Control with and Eye for Perception: Precursors to an Active Psychophysics,” Ecological Psychology, Vol. 2, No. 2, 1990, pp. 83-110.
6. C.J. Overbeeke and M.H. Stratmann, Space Through Movement, doctoral dissertation, Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Netherlands, 1988.
7. D.N. Lee, “A Theory of Visual Control of Braking Based on Information about Time-to-Collision,” Perception, Vol. 5, 1976, pp. 437-459.
8. T. Sheridan, “Musings on Telepresence and Virtual Presence,” Presence, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1992, pp. 120-126.
9. G.J.F. Smets, “Designing for Telepresence: The Interdependence of Movement and Visual Perception Implemented,” Proc. Fifth IFAC/IFIP/IFORS/IEA Symp. on Analysis, Design, and Evaluation of Man-Machine Systems,The Hague, Netherlands, 1992, pp. 1-7.
10. P. Bach-y-Rita, Brain Mechanisms in Sensory Substitution, Academic Press, London, 1972.
11. B.J. Winer, Statistical Principles in Experimental Design, McGraw-Hill, London, 1962 (int’l student edition).
12. J.T. Townsend and F.G. Ashby, The Stochastic Modeling of Elementary Psychological Processes, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, NY, 1983.
13. E.S. Edgington, Randomization Tests, Dekker, New York, 1980.
288 ms
(Ver 2.0)

Marketing Automation Platform Marketing Automation Tool