Representing Built Environments with Digital Tools …
169
demonstrates its value in architectural education, simulating users’ perspectives of
students’ building designs, and enabling students to experiment with their designs
thanks to the ability to see the resulting buildings, even if only in the virtual space
[7].
For space reasons, we will not discuss all these applications, however interesting
and important they are. Instead, we will focus on issues related to spatial cognition
that are crucial to compare virtual and real design environments. This aspect of VR is
crucial, because if spatial cognition fails, what we see in a virtual model will unlikely
reflect what we would see in reality—a designer’s failure.
2 Virtual and Real-World Environments
To accommodate the process of developing virtual buildings to users’ perceptual
needs, we have to consider human cognition. To learn how virtual reality and the
cognitive processes of an individual interact, investigations comparing the two environments—virtual and actual—are crucial. Recent years have witnessed a growing
interest in studies correlating user perception of an existing building and of its
virtual counterpart [5, 8] Such research usually uses the detailed data of humancomputer interaction, indicating where participants maneuver, stop and observe, the
records of their eye movements, or even employ brain-computer interfaces (BCIs)
and track physiological responses. Often, questionnaire studies support these data
with information about the participants themselves as well as their reactions and
opinions.
Such environmental comparability is studied in terms of the perception of action
and recognition. Three cognitive tests provide necessary information, namely those
of (i) the usability of the environments, (ii) strategies for navigation and wayfinding
in them, and (iii) spatial memory after changes in spatial arrangement. Slater et al.
have recently reviewed the contemporary research on these cognitive processes in
the context of virtual reality [4].
Among the three issues, navigation and wayfinding methods stand out, since the
related research has not provided conclusive conclusions yet. Some studies have
shown that people may be able to approach wayfinding in a similar way in both
virtual and real environments [9, 10] Other studies, however, failed to reach such a
conclusion [11].
Actually, many environmental comparability studies have led to a conclusion
that in virtual reality, people often have distorted perceptions of spatial properties,
the estimation of distance and speed being most affected. Johnson [8], Campos
[12] and Kuliga [5] reviewed studies that discussed underestimation, inaccuracy and
correspondence in distance assessment. Aspects of visual inputs that were identified
as important for the accurate perception of absolute distance include the properties
of visual graphics (texture and shadows); restrictions to the information from the
field of view, including view range; mobility; the accurate perception of eye-height;
angular declination from the horizon; and the absence of near-space scaling. Wu [13]
169
demonstrates its value in architectural education, simulating users’ perspectives of
students’ building designs, and enabling students to experiment with their designs
thanks to the ability to see the resulting buildings, even if only in the virtual space
[7].
For space reasons, we will not discuss all these applications, however interesting
and important they are. Instead, we will focus on issues related to spatial cognition
that are crucial to compare virtual and real design environments. This aspect of VR is
crucial, because if spatial cognition fails, what we see in a virtual model will unlikely
reflect what we would see in reality—a designer’s failure.
2 Virtual and Real-World Environments
To accommodate the process of developing virtual buildings to users’ perceptual
needs, we have to consider human cognition. To learn how virtual reality and the
cognitive processes of an individual interact, investigations comparing the two environments—virtual and actual—are crucial. Recent years have witnessed a growing
interest in studies correlating user perception of an existing building and of its
virtual counterpart [5, 8] Such research usually uses the detailed data of humancomputer interaction, indicating where participants maneuver, stop and observe, the
records of their eye movements, or even employ brain-computer interfaces (BCIs)
and track physiological responses. Often, questionnaire studies support these data
with information about the participants themselves as well as their reactions and
opinions.
Such environmental comparability is studied in terms of the perception of action
and recognition. Three cognitive tests provide necessary information, namely those
of (i) the usability of the environments, (ii) strategies for navigation and wayfinding
in them, and (iii) spatial memory after changes in spatial arrangement. Slater et al.
have recently reviewed the contemporary research on these cognitive processes in
the context of virtual reality [4].
Among the three issues, navigation and wayfinding methods stand out, since the
related research has not provided conclusive conclusions yet. Some studies have
shown that people may be able to approach wayfinding in a similar way in both
virtual and real environments [9, 10] Other studies, however, failed to reach such a
conclusion [11].
Actually, many environmental comparability studies have led to a conclusion
that in virtual reality, people often have distorted perceptions of spatial properties,
the estimation of distance and speed being most affected. Johnson [8], Campos
[12] and Kuliga [5] reviewed studies that discussed underestimation, inaccuracy and
correspondence in distance assessment. Aspects of visual inputs that were identified
as important for the accurate perception of absolute distance include the properties
of visual graphics (texture and shadows); restrictions to the information from the
field of view, including view range; mobility; the accurate perception of eye-height;
angular declination from the horizon; and the absence of near-space scaling. Wu [13]