THE STUDY OF ACCURACY OF AN OPERATOR’S PERCEPTION OF GEOMETRICAL OBJECT SIZES AND SHAPES IN THE VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENTS
Abstract
This paper is devoted to the experimental comparison of accuracy of an operator’s perception of geometrical object sizes and shapes between the different conditions of information perception in the virtual environments and from the electronic displays. The experiments were conducted using a psychophysiological test for the accuracy of perceiving geometrical object sizes and shapes by an operator in the virtual environments and in the conditions of information perception from an electronic display. As a common metric of the accuracy of perceiving geometrical object sizes and shapes, an operator was offered to visually determine the object center of gravity. No significant differences in the measurement results of both the accuracy of perceiving geometrical object sizes and shapes and speed of this process were found based on the different methods of displaying the visual information to an operator.
Keywords
Acknowledgements
These results were obtained with the support of the Russian Science Foundation Grant No. 23-19-00568 “Methods and intelligent system for supporting dynamic stability of operators of ergatic systems”, https://rscf.ru/project/23-19-00568/.
References
1.
Lapointe, J. F., Jean-Marc, R.
(2000). Using VR for efficient training of forestry machine operators. Education
and Information Technologies, no. 5, p. 237-250.
2.
Zheng, Yili. (2018). Research on virtual driving system of a forestry
logging harvester. Wireless Personal Communications, no. 102, p. 667-682.
3.
Pereira, J. J. (2019). Development of a Harvester Machine Simulator in
Virtual Reality. MS thesis, from https://trepo.tuni.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/115646/Pereira.pdf?sequence=2, accessed
on 01.11.2024.
4.
Hartsch, F. (2022). Influence of Loading Distance, Loading Angle and Log
Orientation on Time Consumption of Forwarder Loading Cycles: A Pilot Case
Study. Forests, no. 13(3), p. 384.
5.
Steshina, L., Petukhov, I., Tanryerdiev, I., Kurasov, P., Glazyrin, A.
(2019). Training of high-skilled workers using exercisers and simulators. 2019
3rd European Conference on Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS),
IEEE, p. 134-139.
6.
Bachman, P., Milecki, A. (2019). Safety improvement of industrial drives
manual control by application of haptic joystick. Intelligent Systems in
Production Engineering and Maintenance, Springer International Publishing, p. 563-573.
7.
Hornsey, R. L., Hibbard, P. B., Scarfe, P. (2020). Size and shape
constancy in consumer virtual reality. Behavior research methods, no. 52, p. 1587-1598.
8.
Creem-Regehr, S. H., Stefanucci, J. K., Bodenheimer, B.
(2023). Perceiving
distance in virtual reality: theoretical insights from contemporary
technologies. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, no. 378(1869),
20210456.
9.
Ping, J., Weng, D., Liu, Y., Wang, Y. (2020). Depth perception in
shuffleboard: Depth cues effect on depth perception in virtual and augmented
reality system. Journal of the Society for Information Display, no. 28(2), p. 164-176.
10.
Lebreton, P., Raake, A., Barkowsky, M., Le Callet, P. (2014). Measuring
perceived depth in natural images and study of its relation with monocular and
binocular depth cues. In Stereoscopic Displays and Applications XXV, SPIE, no. 9011,
p. 82-92.
11.
Watt, S. J., Akeley, K., Ernst, M. O., Banks, M. S. (2005). Focus cues
affect perceived depth. Journal of vision, no. 5(10), p.
7-7.
12.
Kim, J. J. J., McManus, M. E., Harris, L. R. (2022). Body orientation
affects the perceived size of objects. Perception, no. 51(1), p. 25-36.
13.
Harris, L. R., Mander, C. (2014). Perceived distance depends on the
orientation of both the body and the visual environment. Journal of vision, no.
14(12), p. 17-17.
14.
Holden, J., Francisco, E., Lensch, R., Tommerdahl, A.,
Kirsch, B., Zai, L., Tommerdahl, M. (2019). Accuracy of different modalities of reaction
time testing: Implications for online cognitive assessment tools. BioRXIV,
726364.
15.
Efron, B. (2003). Second thoughts on the bootstrap. Statistical science,
no. 18(2), p. 135-140.
16.
Jolliffe, I. T., Cadima, J. (2016). Principal component analysis: a
review and recent developments. Philosophical transactions of the royal society
A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, no. 374(2065), 20150202.
17.
McInnes, L., Healy, J., Melville, J. (2018). Umap: Uniform manifold
approximation and projection for dimension reduction. arXiv preprint
arXiv:1802.03426.
18.
MacQueen, J. (1967). Some methods for classification and analysis of
multivariate observations. In Proceedings of 5-th Berkeley Symposium on
Mathematical Statistics and Probability/University of California Press.
19.
Thorndike, R. L. (1953). Who belongs in the family? Psychometrika, no. 18(4),
p. 267-276.
20.
Deza, E., Deza, M. M. (2009). Encyclopedia of distances. Springer Berlin
Heidelberg.
21.
Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., Van Der Walt, S. J., Gommers, R.,
Virtanen, P., Cournapeau, D., Oliphant, T. E. (2020). Array programming with
NumPy. Nature, no. 585(7825), p. 357-362.
22.
McKinney, W. (2010). Data structures for statistical computing in
Python. SciPy, vol. 445, no. 1, p. 51-56.
23.
Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., Haberland, M., Reddy, T.,
Cournapeau, D., Van Mulbregt, P. (2020). SciPy 1.0: fundamental algorithms for
scientific computing in Python. Nature methods, no. 17(3), p. 261-272.
24.
McInnes, L., Healy, J., Melville, J. (2018). Umap: Uniform manifold
approximation and projection for dimension reduction. arXiv preprint
arXiv:1802.03426.
25.
Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B.,
Grisel, O., Duchesnay, É. (2011). Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python. the
Journal of machine Learning research, no. 12, p. 2825-2830.