170
M. W˛ asowicz
emphasized the role of near ground information in scaling far ground. Furthermore,
real and virtual environments have been shown to differ in terms of “perceptual-motor
coupling,” which in simple words means that people differently perceive speed in
them [14]. In 1979, Gibson claimed that “as eye-height increases, the magnitude of
optic flow decreases,” [15] an assumption that helped Campos et al. prove, over thirty
years later, that people’s eye height affects their speed perception in VR [12].
Aside from cognitive processes, in assessing people’s feedback on virtual environments, we need to consider two important factors: affective response and esthetic
preferences. Various studies have underlined that participants reported fondness in
real built environments [16], assessed architectural spaces generated in the virtual
reality lower than their real counterparts, and showed no psychological arousal. We
could therefore deduce that affective response is associated with the resemblance
of real-world and virtual environment [17]. What can also affect people’s feedback
is an order in which they experience the two environments. It affects how users
environmental valuation and estimate distance [5].
Participants’ emotions and cognition are assessed using tools that analyze adjectives used by the participants, like bipolar semantic differential scales. These scientific tools convert words that participants used to describe built spaces studied
into indicators of how participants experienced them. Spatial attributes—such as
complexity, spaciousness, accessibility and openness—approximately reflect the
subjective evaluations of the participants [17].
Such research has various limitations. Users often misinterpret virtual space, and
so they experience it in a different way from how they would experience the corresponding real space. Measuring and experiencing a virtual environment strongly
depends on the complexity of the devices a VR system consists of, and on the multidimensionality of human perception. Quite often, presentation devices providing
visual rendering are combined with supplementary hardware, such as haptic devices,
auditory equipment and motion tracking sensors, which aims to deepen participants’
multi-sensory experience. Sometimes, however, these devices simply fail, with their
representation of real-world characteristics being far from perfection, showing either
a distorted reflection of reality or even something entirely unlike [12].
3 Virtual Environment and Human Senses
Human cognition relies upon the stimuli gathered by sensory systems: vision, sound,
touch, force, taste, and smell. People accommodate numerous sensory data in order
to support a coherent experience of their environments. In addition to cognition,
attention also connects stimuli from various sensory processes: vision, hearing,
motor function, as well as effort and touch [8]. Because of how people perceive
the surrounding environment, it is crucial to adequately and accurately represent
authentic sensory impression, in terms of apprehension and the sense of presence, in
the virtual environment. In his 1965 seminal article, Ivan Sutherland proposed “the
ultimate display” notion, which in essence can be related to the direction in which the
M. W˛ asowicz
emphasized the role of near ground information in scaling far ground. Furthermore,
real and virtual environments have been shown to differ in terms of “perceptual-motor
coupling,” which in simple words means that people differently perceive speed in
them [14]. In 1979, Gibson claimed that “as eye-height increases, the magnitude of
optic flow decreases,” [15] an assumption that helped Campos et al. prove, over thirty
years later, that people’s eye height affects their speed perception in VR [12].
Aside from cognitive processes, in assessing people’s feedback on virtual environments, we need to consider two important factors: affective response and esthetic
preferences. Various studies have underlined that participants reported fondness in
real built environments [16], assessed architectural spaces generated in the virtual
reality lower than their real counterparts, and showed no psychological arousal. We
could therefore deduce that affective response is associated with the resemblance
of real-world and virtual environment [17]. What can also affect people’s feedback
is an order in which they experience the two environments. It affects how users
environmental valuation and estimate distance [5].
Participants’ emotions and cognition are assessed using tools that analyze adjectives used by the participants, like bipolar semantic differential scales. These scientific tools convert words that participants used to describe built spaces studied
into indicators of how participants experienced them. Spatial attributes—such as
complexity, spaciousness, accessibility and openness—approximately reflect the
subjective evaluations of the participants [17].
Such research has various limitations. Users often misinterpret virtual space, and
so they experience it in a different way from how they would experience the corresponding real space. Measuring and experiencing a virtual environment strongly
depends on the complexity of the devices a VR system consists of, and on the multidimensionality of human perception. Quite often, presentation devices providing
visual rendering are combined with supplementary hardware, such as haptic devices,
auditory equipment and motion tracking sensors, which aims to deepen participants’
multi-sensory experience. Sometimes, however, these devices simply fail, with their
representation of real-world characteristics being far from perfection, showing either
a distorted reflection of reality or even something entirely unlike [12].
3 Virtual Environment and Human Senses
Human cognition relies upon the stimuli gathered by sensory systems: vision, sound,
touch, force, taste, and smell. People accommodate numerous sensory data in order
to support a coherent experience of their environments. In addition to cognition,
attention also connects stimuli from various sensory processes: vision, hearing,
motor function, as well as effort and touch [8]. Because of how people perceive
the surrounding environment, it is crucial to adequately and accurately represent
authentic sensory impression, in terms of apprehension and the sense of presence, in
the virtual environment. In his 1965 seminal article, Ivan Sutherland proposed “the
ultimate display” notion, which in essence can be related to the direction in which the