augmenting virtual environments: the influence of spatial ability on learning from integrated...

This article was downloaded by: [University of Haifa Library]On: 02 November 2014, At: 00:40Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

High Ability StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/chas20

Augmenting virtual environments: theinfluence of spatial ability on learningfrom integrated displaysDerek D. Diaz & Valerie K. SimsPublished online: 03 Jun 2010.

To cite this article: Derek D. Diaz & Valerie K. Sims (2003) Augmenting virtual environments: theinfluence of spatial ability on learning from integrated displays, High Ability Studies, 14:2, 191-212,DOI: 10.1080/1359813032000163915

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359813032000163915

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/chas20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/1359813032000163915

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359813032000163915

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

High Ability Studies, Vol. 14, No. 2, December 2003

Augmenting Virtual Environments: theinfluence of spatial ability on learningfrom integrated displaysDEREK D. DIAZ & VALERIE K. SIMS

The present study examined if spatial knowledge gained from a virtual environment isaffected by the spatial ability of the participant, and whether information can be moreefficiently acquired and applied to a physical space when participants are given a displayfeaturing both overhead and first-person visual cues. Three spatial training displays wereexamined: first-person view, overhead-map view, or first-person view with integrated map(composite view). Participants learned the locations of seven targets in a computersimulation of a building. Spatial knowledge for these targets was assessed in the physicalbuilding. Results indicate that both the type of training display and spatial ability predictedperformance level and that the utility of the composite display was a function of spatialability and task. For distance estimation, the map-only view was the most accurate. Fordirectional estimation, participants with high spatial ability were the most accurate regard-less of their display condition. For route learning, spatial ability facilitated performance withonly the map view. While route training using the composite view mimicked the advantagesof the two other displays, it did not reproduce the deleterious effects also observed. Successin navigational learning from the simulated environments depended on a complex interac-tion between spatial ability, navigational task, and type of training display.

The utility of virtual environments (VEs) as training tools has been demonstrated indiverse applied settings for a multitude of learning paradigms. Compared to trainingin a real physical environment, training in a VE can offer advantages in terms ofaccessibility, convenience, cost, safety, and versatility (Witmer et al., 1996).Efficacious VE-based training results when knowledge learned through experience ina virtual world improves the performance of the activity in the real world. VEs areparticularly well suited to train navigational abilities because they can be pro-grammed to closely replicate the spatial, temporal, and action–effect relationships ofthe real world (Kreuger, 1991; Regian, Shebilske & Monk, 1992). Despite thisimplicit face validity, observations from several studies and usability analyses indi-cate that people have difficulty navigating and orienting in VEs (Ellis et al., 1991;

Author’s addresses: Derek D. Diaz and Valerie K. Sims (corresponding author), Department ofPsychology, PO Box 161390, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32816–1390, USA (e-mail:[email protected]).

ISSN 1359-8139 print; 1469-834X online/03/020191-22 2003 European Council for High AbilityDOI: 10.1080/1359813032000163915

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

aifa

Lib

rary

] at

00:

40 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

192 D. D. Diaz & V. K. Sims

Darken & Sibert, 1993; Ellis, 1993; McGovern, 1993; Witmer & Kline, 1998;Darken & Goerger, 1999; Lathan et al., 2002). Since navigational capability is afundamental component of interactive VE systems and considering that transfer oftraining is contingent upon the characteristics of the user and the learning environ-ment, this problem has implications for applications of VE technology beyondnavigational training, including training medical skills, the development of produc-tivity applications or instructional media, entertainment, and basic research.

Overview

The present paper focuses on the transfer of knowledge between two phenomeno-logically similar environments: a computer replica of a large office space and itsanalogous physical counterpart. The computer replica, or virtual environment, canbe grossly characterized as a perceptually impoverished subset of the real space. Thislearning paradigm, attaining real world skills from an artificial and simplified source,is frequently used for acquisition of various types of skills and knowledge (e.g.parachuting, aviation, rock-climbing, surgery, and air traffic control). While differ-ent training practices are typically associated with their own unique obstacles, VEsintroduce new challenges not covered by traditional research on training. Since thefuture of VE-based training systems depends upon the accumulation of knowledgeregarding these concerns, the present paper considers several factors that influencethe effectiveness of VEs for navigational training. The focus of the present work ison the design of visual displays for conveying environmental spatial relationships.Three types of display methods are specifically examined: route, survey, and com-posite display, the latter which is comprised by integrating information from boththe route and survey depictions. Considering the breadth of possible interactionsamong factors that may affect knowledge acquisition, we relate several means bywhich the composite display may be advantageous over the two single modalitydisplays. Similarly, we review previous research on dual coding, dual task perform-ance, and graphical displays to consider the issues potentially associated withintegrative display designs.

A recurring observation across various studies and usability analyses is thatindividuals have difficulty navigating and orienting in VEs. In order to understandnavigation in VEs, we must consider research regarding navigation in general.Therefore, we briefly review the environmental psychology literature as it relates tonavigation and, in particular, VEs. Since this work has accumulated over severaldecades of research, it provides a baseline to compare navigational research conduc-ted in virtual and physical environments. Cost is a practical concern when imple-menting any new technology and is thus a limiting factor when implementing VEsfor navigational training. Since maps are a proven and cost-efficient tool for spatiallearning we consider the possible benefits and repercussions for using VE displaysinstead of maps. Additionally, the utilization of VEs for knowledge acquisition mayresult in deleterious effects on learning due to interaction with factors such asindividual differences and abilities. We thus examine how these factors influence theusability of VE systems, specifically focusing on spatial ability.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

aifa

Lib

rary

] at

00:

40 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Augmenting Virtual Environments 193

As is emphasized in our review of literature on transfer of spatial knowledge, theresearch is replete with contradictory findings in regard to the advantages of VE overmap study. Despite these conflicting results, research has shown that VEs can beeffective for spatial learning and that, under certain circumstances, the process ofacquiring spatial knowledge in a virtual world is comparable to the process thatoccurs in physical environments. Notwithstanding this supporting evidence, severalstudies have found marked differences between the spatial knowledge gained fromvirtual and real worlds (for example, see Koh et al., 1999, for a review). Sincenumerous factors exist by which a surrogate VE can differ from its physicalcounterpart, characteristics of the user and the VE system (e.g. such as the interface,feedback displays, and the method of interaction) may greatly influence knowledgeacquisition.

Graphical Display of Spatial Relationships

A common differentiation in display designs used for spatial learning is the route-survey dichotomy. Route and survey perspectives are frequently used in computer-generated displays to convey spatial relationships. The route view presents afirst-person perspective as experienced during real world exploration and is thetraditional method for visually representing virtual worlds. The survey view providesan overhead perspective comparable to that commonly used by maps. A primarydistinction between these two display methods is that they emphasize different facetsand relationships in the environment and therefore promote the development ofdifferent proficiencies in spatial-reasoning. The present study compares spatiallearning from both the route and survey display methods in terms of the accuracy ofreal world navigation. A unique contribution from the present work is a third displaymethod, the composite display, an integrative representation created by superimpos-ing the survey over the route view.

Integrative Displays

Since the amount of potential knowledge transfer is generally constrained to theinformation acquired during the learning experience, increasing the salience andinterpretability of spatial information available in a VE should result in moreeffective knowledge transfer. The synergistic approach used by the compositedisplay may foster better knowledge acquisition by increasing the navigability of thevirtual world. However, research has shown that merely conjoining multiple singledisplays does not necessarily lead to an improvement in the operator’s ability andefficiency to correctly interpret such a display (Bennett & Flach, 1992). There is ageneral consensus, however, that improved performance can result from integrateddisplays when consideration has been given to the balance between data availabilityand the additional cognitive demand required for extracting this information. Intheir review of integrative display theory, Bennett and Flach (1992) explain that, byconsidering human cognitive and perceptual capabilities and limitations, conscien-tious and innovative design can yield an integrated display which effortlessly conveys

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

aifa

Lib

rary

] at

00:

40 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


more elaborate information than available from a single-mode display or frommultiple separate displays.

The composite display used in the present study may facilitate increased naviga-bility in virtual worlds through several mechanisms. The first addresses thedeficiency in the visual information available in VEs compared to that availablethrough direct real world experience. It often has been suggested that navigationalproblems experienced by users of VEs may be due in part to insufficient availabilityof sensory cues which facilitate spatial knowledge acquisition (e.g. Bowman, 1999).Although the rapid rate of advancement in computer graphics technology seeks toreduce the differences between virtual and real scenes, even the most sophisticatedcontemporary VEs are not comparable to the fidelity achieved during humanperception. The composite display provides a more elaborate representation byincreasing the number of visual cues over the route or survey displays. Thisenhancement is achieved by conveying information redundant in the single displaymodalities (i.e. the route and survey components of the composite display) and byincorporating information unique to each single display. Prior research supports thissupposition, having shown that the addition of various navigational aids can increasethe navigability of even relatively low fidelity VEs (e.g. Darken & Sibert, 1996).

A second proposition considers the existence of a preference for spatial learningfrom a specific frame of reference (as communicated by S. Hart in Harwood &Wickens, 1991). If such an individual characteristic does influence spatial learning,the composite display will allow the learner the flexibility to selectively focus visualattention on either the route or survey component. Additionally, individual differ-ences in aptitudes and abilities may interact with the display method. The advantageof the composite display for acquiring spatial knowledge may be mediated by spatialability so that only those with high levels will be able to reconcile the correspondingfeatures of the two components in the display (Mayer & Sims, 1994). Finally,research stipulates that a reduced field of view (FOV) has negative effects on spatialbehaviour (Rinalducci, 1996). Unfortunately, the cost and accessibility of equip-ment with larger, more life-like FOVs precludes their use. By supplementing thereduced forward FOV captured by most VE systems with a top-down full FOV (i.e.360° overhead FOV), the composite display may serve to reduce these deleteriouseffects without incurring a high monetary cost.

Although the integrative approach used by the composite view is relatively new tovirtual environments, the idea of simultaneously presenting dual or multiple layersof information is not novel to display design in general. Indeed, empirical evidencestrongly supports the advantages of integrative display designs (Bennett & Flach,1992) and contemporary trends indicate that this type of convergent approach isbecoming the standard practice for representing complex data (Hancock, 1996).Furthermore, technological advancement has enabled the recent implementation ofintegrated display concepts to reduce the navigational demands associated withoperating critical systems such as rescue helicopters (Harwood & Wickens, 1991) orVE augmented surgery (e.g. Bajura et al., 1992). Accordingly, a large number ofresearchers have investigated the consequences of dual task environments anddivided attention on performance, as well as applications of this design concept such

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

aifa

Lib

rary

] at

00:

40 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


as such heads-up and multi-sensory displays. Generally, this line of research hasfound that in multi-task scenarios, responses to at least one of the tasks become lessaccurate. Therefore we also consider the antithesis, that a composite display mayhinder spatial knowledge acquisition by reducing the comprehensibility of thedisplay and increasing demand of the user’s cognitive resources.

Contributions From Environmental Psychology

A great deal of research pertaining to human navigation has been covered in theenvironmental psychology literature. Re-examining this research in the context ofvirtual worlds allows us to evaluate the congruency between the navigationalinfluences in physical and virtual spaces, and to assess the appropriateness forgeneralizing findings from the two settings. Results from this work indicate thatprinciples for effective navigation in the real world also are applicable to virtualworlds (e.g. Darken & Sibert, 1996; Regian, 1996). Moreover, several studies (e.g.Witmer et al., 1996; Ruddle et al., 1997; Wilson et al., 1997; Waller et al., 1998)indicate that spatial representations attained through VEs are similar to representa-tions attained from the real world and thus support the popular contention thattransfer of training between analogous virtual and physical environments can beachieved with some efficiency. Among the environmental design principles upheldfor VEs by this research is the fundamental tenet that a structured environment (i.e.one that includes clear delineation and landmarks) promotes accurate navigation(Lynch, 1960). Ruddle et al. (1997) used a VE to replicate a study conducted byThorndyke and Hayes-Roth (1982) which examined mental representations of realworld buildings. Having found a similar pattern of results as Thorndyke andHayes-Roth, the results of Ruddle et al. (1997) suggest that the hierarchical processwhereby spatial knowledge is acquired from real environments also holds for VEs.

This underlying process of spatial learning, as described by Siegel and White(1975) states that the sources from which people acquire navigational informationcan be classified into three successive components of knowledge: landmark, route,and survey. Landmark knowledge refers to memory one has for salient perceptualfeatures of the environment. Route knowledge emerges from one’s knowledge aboutthe relationships between landmarks by adding new spatial information that facili-tates travel along specific paths in the environment. Route knowledge is cognitivelyrepresented from a first person, or egocentric, perspective, survey knowledge ischaracterized by the ability to consider the entire space from a globally-referencedpoint of view.

Spatial Learning From Maps And Virtual Environments

The effectiveness of maps for spatial learning is spoken by their ubiquity. Maps havea long tradition as navigational aids and have seen numerous variations andrefinements in design. In order to formulate expectations in the characteristics ofspatial knowledge acquired from maps and VEs, it is essential to understand thefundamental differences between the two. Additionally, since maps are a compara-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

aifa

Lib

rary

] at

00:

40 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


bly simpler technology, sufficient gain must be expected before justifying the costincurred to attain, operate, and maintain a VE.

Maps

Maps are the most common tools used for navigational learning and generallyconvey one-dimensional configurational information. Maps promote learning aboutthe relative organization of locations in the environment and are most directlyassociated with acquisition of survey knowledge. While maps are available in avariety of forms, a particular dichotomy exists in the overall method by which spatialrelationships are represented. The most common type has a fixed-orientation, as isseen in the familiar road map. Such maps present a static depiction of the environ-ment’s orientation relative to the location of the reader. A drawback of this designis that the mental representation acquired can be influenced by the specific orien-tation from which it is drawn. As a result, less accurate spatial judgments can occurwhen the environment is out of alignment with the orientation presented by themap. The second type of map, often referred to as track-up, is not constrained bya specific orientation and provides a dynamic, person-centred display that rotates toorient itself with the traveller’s present view. An advantage of the track-up map overa north-up map is that it helps the traveller maintain superior orientation andtherefore situation awareness (Endsley, 1995; Smith & Hancock, 1995). Conversely,a disadvantage of track-up maps is that due, to the displacement of landmarksduring directional changes, learning the absolute location of objects can be difficult.While this design was developed early in the mapping process (e.g. Ogilby, 1675),modern track-up maps such as those found in vehicles and transportation-monitor-ing systems incur a substantially higher cost due to a necessity for electroniccomponents not required by fixed-orientation maps. Regardless of these designvariations, maps are generally optimized for global viewing of large two-dimensionalspaces.

Virtual Environments

One goal of VEs is to simulate the reality of being in another physical location. Thus,in terms of navigational training, VEs most directly convey route knowledge such asthat attained through actual physical exploration. In contrast to spatial learning froma fixed-orientation map, VE-based learning does not result in an orientation depend-ant representation (Rosanno & Moak, 1998). Another important distinction be-tween VEs and maps is that VEs provide the traveller with line-of site informationin contrast to the omni-directional view presented by maps. Thus an advantage ofVEs over maps is that they promote the learning of paths, objects, and landmarksfrom the same perspectives as seen in the real world. However, since VEs mustreplicate much more of the environment than merely the layout, individuals whoexplore a physical location after experiencing an analogous VE are much more likelyto be cognizant of their inconsistencies (Darken & Goerger, 1999). Being artificiallygenerated, VEs offer an infinite number possible enhancements or augmentations to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

aifa

Lib

rary

] at

00:

40 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


the virtual worlds they create. Moreover, VEs can help prepare for dangerous orcostly situations for which direct real world experience is either impossible orperilous. For example, satellite data can be used to construct a replica of the Marsterrain to enable astronauts to rehearse procedures during the extensive inter-plane-tary travel before performing the physical landing.

Experimental Findings

To justify the additional cost, several studies have assessed the advantages of VEs fornavigational training over and above that attained by map study alone. Whiledifferent methodological and procedural differences make it difficult to compareresults across studies (i.e. differences between testing groups, VE fidelity, interfacecharacteristics, and performance measures), unless otherwise noted, each studyreviewed in the present work compares the real world performance of navigationalskills transferred from either VE or map-based training. Of nine such studies(Regian, 1996; Witmer et al., 1996; Bliss et al., 1997; Tate et al., 1997; Darken &Banker, 1998; Goerger et al., 1998; Wallar et al., 1998; Koh et al., 1999), fourindicated a performance advantage for VE-based over map-based learning. In aseries of experiments by Darken and Banker (1998) and Goerger et al. (1998) whichincluded both natural outdoor and office-type environments, results indicted thatVE training conducted in addition to map-based training did not substantially aidnavigational performance in analogous real spaces. Regian (1996) did not find adifference in the real-world performance of participants who trained with either anoverhead map-type display or a route-based VE. Similarly, Bliss et al. (1997), foundno significant differences in performance between VE and map based learning,although their VE was not interactive. Bowman (1999) compared spatial learninggained through VE and map based learning without measuring transfer to a physicalenvironment. Bowman found a significant advantage for leaning from a two-dimen-sional representation akin to an overhead map compared to learning from a three-di-mensional route-type perspective. While the inter-subject variability was greater thanthe between subject variability, Koh et al. (1999) found no difference betweengroups trained in the real-world, a VE, or a model which presented the VE from anoverhead perspective.

In contrast, some studies have found a preference for VE over map learning, suchas Witmer et al. (1996) and Waller et al. (1998). Wallar et al. (1998) compared mapbased training to training in three types of virtual environments: a desktop-basedVE, a short duration immersive VE (using head-tracking and a head-mounteddisplay), and a long duration immersive VE. Only the long duration immersive VEgroup, which had spent five times the duration of the map group in training,performed better than the map group. The map group performed better than theVE-desktop and VE-immersive short duration groups. Somewhat more compellingsupport for VE based training was attained by an earlier study by Witmer et al.(1996), which used a task that primarily involved spatial reasoning for routes. Thefindings from this study were in accord with a frequently reported observation thatVE training is preferable for learning route knowledge whereas map training is

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

aifa

Lib

rary

] at

00:

40 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


preferable for survey knowledge. While it is important to show that VEs offertraining advantages over map study, it is also of interest to examine their perform-ance in comparison to training in the real task itself. Several of the above mentionedstudies comparing VE and map based training used training in the real world as acontrol condition. Groeger (1998) interestingly found that adding real or virtualworld training to map study did not increase transfer performance. Waller et al.(1998) also included a real-world condition for which comparable transfer wasfound only for VE exposure five times that of the real world.

Individual Differences

The earliest human–computer interfaces were so complicated that they limited theuse of computer technology to a small and informed subset of users (Dix, 1998).Contemporary interface designers, driven to produce marketable products in today’stechnology-reliant society, have slowly realized the necessity to consider usabilityand accessibility along with functionality. In light of the rapid growth by which newtechnologies inundate our daily activities, this trend is an important step to addressthe difficulties and anxiety that result from unusable human-machine interfaces(Hancock & Diaz, 2002). However, compared to past information and productivitysystems, the promulgation of new technologies in contemporary systems isinfluenced to a greater degree by specific user abilities and characteristics in termsof performance capability and usability (Chen et al., 2000). Thus the developmentand widespread use of these technologies has elicited a renewed interest in individualdifferences and abilities research. Nonetheless, individual differences remains one ofthe least studied aspects of human performance in VEs and, accordingly, there ismuch to be learned about their effects (Koh et al., 1999; Waller, 1999; Waller,2000). A recognizable stage in the evolution of human-machine interfaces is thecareful consideration of differences between individuals as opposed to the one-sizedfits all approach which characterizes the majority of present systems.

Implications for Virtual Environments

A relatively small amount of research has specifically examined individual differ-ences in VEs (e.g. Hunt & Waller, 1999; Waller 1999; Waller, 2000; Waller et al.,2001), while others either incidentally detected their effects (e.g. Witmer et al.,1996). Koh et al. (1999) found that variability in performance variables frominter-subject differences was greater than the differences caused by the independentvariables. Even for studies that have found comparable levels of performance invirtual and real environments, a common observation is that the between participantvariability is substantially larger in VEs than in the real world. Waller (2000)reasoned that this incongruity might exist because tasks in VEs require similardemands of the real world plus the additional burden brought by the variouscognitive, motor, and sensory demands of the interface. Thus, individual differencesresearch is especially relevant to VEs due to the numerous design considerations andalternatives that may be affected by individual characteristics and abilities. Since

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

aifa

Lib

rary

] at

00:

40 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


individual differences may substantially influence the usability and performancecapability associated with a VE, several related considerations are important. Vari-ous combinations of VE design alternatives may facilitate superior performanceamong individuals. Another important question is whether or not designs existwhich optimize the performance potential for each individual and, additionally, if acompromise design allows sufficient performance across a heterogeneous group.The composite display examined in the present work seeks to further explore thelatter case.

Spatial Ability

Spatial ability is an individual aptitude that has been repeatedly found to affectperformance when operating human-computer systems. Several studies indicate thatindividuals with high and low levels of spatial ability experience different degrees ofsuccess with interfaces that present information spatially and require navigationthrough several levels of data (e.g. Sellen & Nicol, 1990; Stanney & Salvendy,1995). Stanney and Salvendy (1995) were able to reduce the effect of menu depthby designing an interface that promoted the use of a two-dimensional mental modeldeemed more interpretable by users with low spatial ability. Since the representa-tional method used by a display can influence the way a user mentally represents,comprehends, and responds, the display method may be the most direct approachto accommodate individual differences.

Spatial orientation is a subset of general spatial ability that has been of specialinterest to navigation related research because it is associated with the ability toproperly align oneself to a reference point, a skill often used by travellers for inferringtheir location. The Guilford–Zimmerman (Guilford & Zimmerman, 1948) is amongthe most widely used paper and pencil based measures of spatial orientation ability.Scores on the spatial orientation subset of the Guilford–Zimmerman test batteryhave been significantly correlated with performance in several VE transfer of spatialtraining experiments (e.g. Bailey, 1994; Goerger, 1998) but not in others (e.g.Waller et al., 1998).

Objectives of the Present Research

The present research examines a method to increase the navigability of a VE byaugmenting the standard first-person route display with survey information. Thebenefit of having a map has been previously realized in several experiments (e.g.Darken & Sibert, 1996; Bowman, 1999). However, the map used in the presentexperiment differs from previous instances in two important ways. First, it is atrack-up map which is often preferable to fixed-orientation maps because it aids inmaintaining a sense of orientation within the environment (Aretz, 1988). Second,the map is always visible, is overlaid over the entire screen, and its immediateutilization is not restricted in any way. Since the map consists entirely of wire-frames, it does not visually interfere with the first-person view of the surroundings.On a theoretical level, the inclusion of the track-up map aims to coalesce three

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

aifa

Lib

rary

] at

00:

40 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


important types of information that facilitate spatial learning, namely, landmark,route, and survey information. A reasonable concern is that a VE augmented witha rotating map may differentially affect people with varying degrees of spatial ability.In order to assess the gain in spatial knowledge associated with the use of the mapaugmentation, the modality of the VE display was a between subjects variable withthree levels: (a) first-person view (route); (b) overhead-map view (survey); and (c)first-person view with an overhead-map (composite). Since the rotating map re-quires interpretation from various orientations, its use was expected to result in thegreatest gains for individuals high with spatial ability. Therefore, each participantwas rated as possessing a high or low level of spatial ability.

Method

Participants

Eighty-two undergraduate students enrolled in at least one psychology course at theUniversity of Central Florida participated in the present study. Each participantreceived extra credit in one psychology course for taking part. Eight of the partici-pants were excluded from the data analysis for having prior been exposed to thebuilding used in the experiment, thus, 74 individuals contributed valid data. Theaverage age of these participants was 21.4 years (M � 21).

Materials and Apparatus

The third floor of the Center for Health and Public Affairs at the University ofCentral Florida, an approximately 33,500 square foot office-type space, served asthe setting for the navigation experiment. The present study consisted of a learningphase and a testing phase. In the learning phase, participants navigated through acomputer generated scale replica of the building. The computer model was pre-sented on a 16-inch viewable colour monitor (1024 � 768 pixels screen resolutionin 32-bit colour) using a Macintosh G3 computer running the Build graphics engine(1997, Ken Silverman). A game-pad controller provided two degrees of freedom ofnavigational control (forward and backward translation plus the ability to rotate360°). A single push-button was used to open and close doors in the computersimulation.

Three methods to visually present the computer model were available: route,survey, and composite. The route view presented the environment as if seen by aperson from inside the building and provided a 65° FOV. The survey view wassimilar to a track-up map and presented an overhead, configurational view of thebuilding. Like the route view, the survey view also was ego-centred. Thus, the surveyview maintained an iconic representation (a human figure seen from an overheadperspective) of the participant’s location in the centre of the screen. Movementunder this condition resulted in the map flowing around the icon: forward orbackward movements resulted in vertical shifts whereas the map rotated when theparticipant executed left or right turns. In order to not provide the survey view with

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

aifa

Lib

rary

] at

00:

40 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


Figure 1. The three displays used for navigational training: display (a) presents a first-person routeview; display (b) presents a top-down survey view; and display (c) presents the composite view which

integrates the two former displays.

an advantage by being able to see the entire structure at once, the survey view waszoomed so that only 1/8 of the building could be on-screen at a single time. Thecomposite view presented the first-person display used for the route view overlaidwith a translucent wire-frame version of the map from the survey view. Figure 1illustrates an identical scene from each of the three different display methods.Movement rate was the same for all viewing conditions as was the frame rate whichwas greater than 30 frames per second. A single constraint was applied to the surveyview and the survey component of the composite view: unexplored areas becamevisible only after being visited and remained visible from that point onward.

Additional materials included the Guildford Zimmerman test of spatial orien-tation (Guilford & Zimmerman, 1948), a pointer-compass, a handheld video re-corder, and a demographics and computer experience questionnaire. The GuildfordZimmerman measure (GZ) was a 10-minute test which required participants torecognize the change in the relative orientation of a boat and the coastline for a seriesof successive pairs of scenes. The pointer-compass was used to attain quantitativelymeasure the accuracy by which participants pointed toward specific locations duringthe testing phase. Similarly, the video camera was used by participants during thetesting phase to record their movement toward specific locations. A questionnaire

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

aifa

Lib

rary

] at

00:

40 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


Figure 2. A schematic representation of the actual building used for the present experiment.

was also given to each participant to gather demographic information, informationcorresponding to previous experience with virtual environments and about priorexperience with the building used in the present study.

Procedure

Learning phase. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the three viewingconditions. The task to be completed involved navigating through the corridors androoms of the computer generated building in search of specific markers. Fourteenmarkers were arranged flat against the floor of the computer model. Seven of themarkers were numbered and identified as targets to participants. The remaining halfwas unnumbered and identified as non-targets. Figure 2 shows the layout of thebuilding with locations of the locations of the seven targets. Each marker wasaccompanied by a token which participants were instructed to collect by navigatingonto their position. A small onscreen counter located on the bottom left corner ofthe display kept track of the collected number of tokens in real time. Participants ineach group were familiarized with the display and were given verbal instructions onhow to interact with the computer interface. Following this briefing, participantswere guided through one training trial followed by another trial that was completedwithout any assistance. Participants then were given instructions for the experimen-tal task for the learning phase. Participants were instructed to explore the VE inorder to collect all 14 tokens within a 25-minute time period. As part of the briefing,each participant was made aware that the VE was a replica of a building on campusand that for the testing phase they would be required to complete a navigational taskinvolving only the seven numbered targets. Thus, participants were instructed to paycareful attention to these seven targets. Spatial knowledge of the building wasexamined in the testing phase from inside the actual building.

Testing phase. For the testing phase, participants performed two sets of tasks while

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

aifa

Lib

rary

] at

00:

40 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


inside the real building. The first set was designed to assess the internal spatialrepresentation gained from the VE. Participants were positioned in the centre of thebuilding and asked to aim a compass pointer at each target and to provide a verbaldistance estimate. Additionally, a specific point 10 feet away and directly viewablewas given as a metric. The accuracy of the directional judgments was measured intwo ways: first, as the number of correct estimates within 22.5° ( 11.25°) of thetarget’s actual location, and, second, as the mean absolute error of directionaljudgments to all seven targets. Accuracy of the distance judgments was measured bythe number of correct estimates within 10 feet of the target’s actual distance.

The second set of tasks was designed to demonstrate functional spatial knowledgeby testing the participants’ ability to physically place targets in the real worldlocations as specified from the surrogate VE. Participants used a small handheldvideo camera to record their movements and the locations where they placed sevennumbered cards, designed to represent the seven targets. Participants were in-structed to take the shortest routes between targets and to place them in the randomsequence that was provided. Following the target placement task, participants wereled back to the original lab from the learning phase where they completed severalother tasks and measures. Participants first were asked to draw a sketch map basedon specific written instructions. Although sketch maps were drawn these data werenot included in the preset study. Following this task, participants answered ademographics and computer experience questionnaire. In this questionnaire, dataregarding experience with computers, video games, and virtual reality were gathered.Participants also rated the usefulness of the computer model experience using a7-point Likert scale. Each participant subsequently was administered the spatialorientation component of the Guildford Zimmerman test battery and categorized ashigh (n � 39) or low (n � 35) in spatial orientation ability based on a median split onthe GZ scores.

Results

Results of the tasks from this experiment are presented first for data showing theparticipants internal mental representation and second examining data for theperson’s external behaviour. Unless otherwise specified, separate 3 (display mode:route, survey, or composite) � 2 (spatial orientation ability: high or low) ANOVAswere used to examine each dependent variable. An alpha of 0.05 was used for allanalyses. The average scores attained for both men and women on the GZ wereconsistent with the national averages as reported in Guilford and Zimmerman(1948). Overall, there was a great deal of variance in performance on the tasks.

Internal Representation

Three dependant variables were used to assess the internal spatial representationattained from the computer model: correct distance judgments, correct directionaljudgments, and mean error of directional judgments.

Distance judgments. Figure 3 presents the results of the analysis for correct distance

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

aifa

Lib

rary

] at

00:

40 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


Figure 3. The main effect of training display for the distance estimation task.

judgments which yielded a main effect of display mode, F(2, 68) � 3.46, p � 0.05.Post hoc analysis using Fischer’s least-significant difference (LSD) indicated that thesurvey group (M � 1.84) correctly identified significantly more targets than thecomposite group (M � 1.16), p � 0.028, and marginally more than the route group(M � 1.29), p � 0.077. The analysis did not yield a significant difference between theroute and composite groups.

Directional judgments. For both the number of correct directional estimates and themean directional error there was a main effect of GZ-classification, F(1,68) � 16.53, p � 0.01, and F(1, 68) � 6.80, p � 0.01, respectively. Histograms forthese results appear in Figures 4 and 5, respectively. On average, individuals whoseGZ score was below the median (M � 1.05) correctly identified only 2/5 the numberof targets correctly identified by those who scored above the median (M � 2.50).Similarly, an examination of the mean directional error indicated that individualswho performed below the median (M � 85.6) were, on average, almost 20° lessaccurate as those who scored above the median (M � 66.42).

Figure 4. The main effect of spatial ability on the number of targets correctly identified during thedirectional estimation task.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

aifa

Lib

rary

] at

00:

40 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


Figure 5. The main effect of spatial ability on the mean absolute error during the target directionalestimation task.

External Representation

Target placement. The number of correct targets placed during the route targetplacement task was used to assess the external spatial representation attained fromthe computer model. Data from the target placement task yielded a significantGZ-categorization � display mode interaction, F(2, 68) � 3.39, p � 0.05. Figure6 graphically details this interaction. Subsequent univariate analyses performedseparately for the two GZ groups (low and high ability) using display mode as afactor revealed a single significant main effect for the low ability group, F(1,36) � 4.60, p � 0.02. Post hoc analyses using Fischer’s LSD indicated that thesurvey group (M � 1.5) correctly placed significantly less targets than both the route(M � 3), p � 0.021, and composite (M � 3.3), p � 0.011 groups, and, furthermore,that the route and composite groups did not differ significantly.

Subjective Assessment

The ANOVA to assess subjective rating of the usefulness of the display modes usedthe scores on the 7-point Likert scale as a dependent variable. There was a main

Figure 6. The interaction between spatial ability and training display for the target placement task.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

aifa

Lib

rary

] at

00:

40 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


effect for spatial orientation ability, F(1, 68) � 14.85, p � 0.01. A comparison ofthese means indicted that those with high GZ scores rated the computer model asbeing slightly beneficial (M � 5.03), whereas, those with low GZ scores rated it asbeing slightly not helpful (M � 3.49).

Discussion

The present research compared real-world navigational performance of three groupstrained under different methods for displaying a synthetic space. Navigationalperformance was determined based on several spatial reasoning tasks in an anal-ogous real-world environment. Spatial knowledge regarding routes was assessedthrough a task where participants located places corresponding to targets in thetraining simulation. Survey knowledge was assessed through the distance anddirectional estimation tasks as well as by the accuracy of sketch drawings. A broadview of the results clearly indicates that navigational performance depended not onlyon the interaction between the type of display used during training and the type ofspatial knowledge assessed by the task, but also on the spatial ability of theparticipant. Thus, a fundamental implication from the present study is that superiorreal world navigational performance can be attained by considering the spatial abilityof the trainee and by training for different spatial competencies using specific typesof visual displays. The following discussion will focus on the influences determinedto primarily affect transfer of training performance for the spatial competenciesmeasured by the present study and, additionally, will compare the advantages anddisadvantages of the composite display for spatial learning.

Survey Knowledge

Past research supports the finding that certain spatial competencies are moreeffectively developed through specific methods of spatial learning. For example,Witmer et al. (1996) found that transfer of route knowledge occurred more effec-tively than transfer of survey knowledge when the training task was predominantlyroute based. Similarly, in the present study, the group which trained under thesurvey display produced the most accurate distance estimations, a task that is usuallyassociated with survey knowledge. To further explain this finding it is important tonote that the overhead display experienced by participants in the survey groupenabled clear and comprehensible observation of the relative configuration of thetargets. In comparison, visual relationships between targets were highly occluded byenvironmental structures when using the route display. Therefore, it is expected thatan overhead, unobstructed perspective resulted in more accurate distance estima-tions. While these results for the route group are intuitive, the outcome of thecomposite group for the distance estimation task resulted through a more compli-cated process. The performance of participants in the composite display group wasmost comparable to those in route display group. Thus, despite having been exposedto the same information that facilitated more accurate distance estimations forparticipants in the survey group, participants in the composite group did not attain

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

aifa

Lib

rary

] at

00:

40 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


their level of performance. A persuasive account for this outcome implicates thedeleterious effects of divided attention. When individuals are required to simul-taneously attend to two tasks, performance on one task often declines. Thus itappears that participants in the composite display group primarily attended to theroute component of the display and therefore did not experience the benefitsattained by those in the survey display group. Qualitative observations providedadditional support for this assertion. Participants in the composite display groupwere asked to explain their strategy for learning the spatial layout of the trainingsimulation. Nearly three-quarters (72.3%) of these participants reported to haveprimarily focused on the route component of the display. Additionally, since GZclassification did not significantly affect distance estimation performance, a case canbe made that the dual task deficit experienced by the composite display occursregardless of spatial ability.

Results from the analysis of directional estimations indicate that spatial ability wasa greater determinate of performance level than was the visual method from whichlearning took place. The effect of spatial ability on the accuracy of a similarorientation task has previously been related by Bowman (1999). Additionally, themore general finding that spatial ability accounts for a substantial amount ofvariance in spatial knowledge acquisition from VEs has been related by several paststudies (Bailey, 1994; Darken, 1996; Waller, 2000). An expectation of the com-posite display was that it could convey emergent spatial information not directlyavailable to trainees using the route and survey displays. Gains from the emergentinformation may have been manifest as more accurate spatial orientation due tomore elaborate spatial cues present in the display. While the results suggest that thiswas not the case, the additional information of the composite display did notoverwhelm the participant nor reduce their sense of orientation below the levelsattained by the route or survey displays.

Route Knowledge

The analysis of route performance also revealed effects from both displaymodality and spatial ability. Spatial ability was found to interact with the VEdisplay modality such that individuals low in spatial ability and exposed solelyto an overhead perspective performed with only half the accuracy that wasattainable through exclusive use of, or, the addition of, the first-person view.Moreover, this sizable deficit demonstrated by the survey group, compared tothe other two groups, not only was eliminated, but became a slight advantagefor individuals high in spatial ability. This finding is in agreement with ourhypothesis that the survey view would be most beneficial for individuals withhigh spatial ability. This pattern of results suggests that the dynamic presen-tation of multiple orientations as conveyed by the survey view may be morecomprehensible by individuals with high spatial ability. Additionally, the com-posite display group again behaved similarly to the route group thus furthersupporting the contention that the route component of the composite displaycommanded the attention of participants.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

aifa

Lib

rary

] at

00:

40 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


Integrative Navigational Displays

Based on the outcomes of the present research, the composite display appears to bea versatile method for navigational training that may aid individuals with low spatialability in acquiring more accurate route knowledge. Based on the outcome of thedistance estimation task, the composite display appears to not directly foster acqui-sition of survey knowledge but does, however, aid route learning as was evident bythe results of the route task. The benefit of the composite display is that, for routelearning, it appears to not be affected by spatial ability as was the survey display.This finding has important implications for developers of navigational aiding sys-tems such as those becoming common in automobiles. Such devices often display atop-down representation of the surrounding environment similar to the surveydisplay used by the present study. Based on the pattern of observed results,individuals with low spatial ability are expected to generally acquire spatial infor-mation less effectively than those with high spatial ability. However, for routelearning, this deficit may be reduced if the navigational aiding device dually providesroute information, as was the case for low-spatial participants using the compositedisplay.

The subjective assessment of the usefulness of the training displays wassignificantly affected by spatial ability. While this finding does not implicate theparticular type of display used during training, it does suggest that individuals withhigh spatial ability will perceive the display as being more effective than individualswith low spatial ability. However, the interpretability of this result is complicated byat least two issues. Participants who scored on the upper half of the spatial abilitiesmeasure also performed more accurately and may therefore have provided a morepositive response. However, considering the overall difficulty of the task (i.e. fewparticipants were extremely accurate across tasks) it is unlikely that this was the case.Additionally, participants did not have a reference against which to assess the displaythey had trained with. Moreover, this finding suggests that individuals are indeedcapable of gauging the effectiveness for which a training display facilitates spatiallearning despite not being presented with a reference for comparison. To explorethis issue further research might use a repeated measures design. A caveat to thisfinding is that participants with low spatial scores did not rate the composite displayto be more effective, as was reflected by their performance in the target placementtask. A possible explanation may be that the basis used for responding to thesubjective assessment items was the directional estimation task for which spatialability was indicative of performance. Research specifically targeted to examinesubjective ratings of navigational training displays may answer the question ofwhether or not a preference exists for learning from certain types of displays and, ifso, whether individual differences play an important role.

The similarity in the performance between the route and composite displayssuggests that participants using the composite display may have been biased towardfocusing on the route component the view. One account for this behaviour focuseson the differences between the visual characteristics of the two components of thecomposite display. Most individuals are very familiar with visual scenes from a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

aifa

Lib

rary

] at

00:

40 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


grounded first-person perspective and thus easily comprehend route displays. Thesurvey view, in comparison, is less frequently seen and therefore is more likely toappear unfamiliar and confusing. Individuals with a great deal of experience withsuch perspectives (e.g. pilots and architects) may more rapidly comprehend thevisual scene from the survey view. Moreover, while these results do not directlyindicate that trainees selectively focusing on either the route or survey component,the qualitative reports suggested that at least one fourth of the participants in thecomposite display primarily focused on the survey view. One approach to accommo-date this seemingly inherent bias is to provide specific instructions to trainees usingthe composite display. Moreover, instructions may aid trainees in optimally acquir-ing spatial knowledge by guiding their focus to either the route or survey componentwhen it is most appropriate to the task at hand. Additionally, individuals who havedemonstrated a learning preference for a specific view can be instructed to focustheir attention on the appropriate component of the display.

Conclusions

A major finding from the present study was that, when aiming to transfer spatialknowledge gained from a VE to a real space, spatial ability may be more importantthan the visual presentation of the VE. The most accurate route knowledge wasdemonstrated by individuals who had high spatial ability and studied the environ-ment from a rotating overhead perspective. However, this training method yieldedthe worst performance for individuals with low spatial ability. A caveat to our findingregarding spatial ability is that, when training only for distance estimation, atrack-up map may offer more benefit than a first-person VE, regardless of spatialability.

The composite display appeared to only suffer from deleterious effects associatedwith divided attention for tasks relying heavily on survey knowledge (i.e. the distanceestimation task). A breadth of evidence indicates that the composite display groupbehaved similarly to the route display group. A positive finding is that for taskswhich rely heavily on route knowledge, the composite display group did not sufferfrom the ill effects of divided attention. Additionally, instructions may be used tocontrol what component of the display to focus upon when training tasks that aremore compatible by a specific type of display.

This work has implications for navigational training, especially under circum-stances where accurate spatial knowledge is critical. Based on the conditions used inthe present experiment, designers of route-based VE training systems should expectcomparable levels of spatial learning regardless of spatial ability. However, applyingsurvey-based navigational training to a heterogeneous group may result in pooracquisition of spatial knowledge from individuals with low spatial ability. Since theproliferation of rotating overhead-view navigational training systems into automobileand portable displays has demonstrated their cost to be far less than fully simulatedVEs, careful consideration must be taken in deciding between the two methods forpurposes of spatial training.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

aifa

Lib

rary

] at

00:

40 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Tiffany Devine for her assistance during datacollection for this experiment.

References

ARETZ, A. J. (1988) A model of electronic map interpretation. Proceedings of the Human FactorsSociety 32nd Annual Meeting, 1, 130–134.

BAILEY, J. H. & WITMER, B. G. (1994) Learning and transfer of spatial knowledge in a virtualenvironment. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 38th Annual Meeting,Nashville, Tennessee, 1, 1158–1162.

BAJURA, M., FUCHS, H. & OHBUCHI, R. (1992) Merging virtual objects with the real world: seeingultrasound imagery within the patient, presented at SIGGRAPH. 19th Annual ACMConference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, Chicago, IL.

BENNETT, K. B. & FLACH, J. M. (1992) Graphical displays: Implications for divided attention,focused attention, and problem solving. Human Factors, 34(5), 513–533.

BLISS, J. P., TIDWELL, P. & GUEST, M. (1997) The effectiveness of virtual reality for administeringspatial navigation training to firefighters. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments,6(1), 73–86.

BOWMAN, D. A., DAVIS, E. T., HODGES, L. F. & BADRE, A. N. (1999) Maintaining spatialorientation during travel in an immersive virtual environment. Presence: Teleoperators andVirtual Environments, 8(6), 618–631.

CHEN, C., CZERWINSKI, M. & MACREDIE, R. (2000) Individual differences in virtual environ-ments—Introduction and Overview. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,51(6), 499–507.

DIX, A. FINLAY, J. ABOWD, G. & BEALE, R. (1998) Human–Computer Interaction, 2nd edn. NewYork: Prentice Hall.

DARKEN, R. P. & BANKER, W. P. (1998) Navigating in natural environments: a virtual environmenttraining transfer study. Proceedings of VRAIS, 1, 12–19.

DARKEN, R. P. & GOERGER, S. R. (1999) The transfer of strategies from virtual to real environ-ments: an explanation for performance differences? Proceedings of Virtual Worlds andSimulations, 1, 159–164.

DARKEN, R. P. & SIBERT, J. L. (1993) A toolset for navigation in virtual environments. Proceedingsof UIST, 1, 157–165.

DARKEN, R. P. & SIBERT, J. L. (1996) Wayfinding strategies and behaviors in large virtual worlds.Proceedings of ACM SIGCHI, 1, 142–149.

ELLIS, S. R., SMITH, S. R., GRUNWALD, A. J. & MCGREEVY, M. W. (1991) Direction judgmenterror in computer generated displays and actual scenes. In S. ELLIS (Ed.), PictorialCommunication In Virtual And Real Environments. London: Taylor & Francis.

ENDSLEY, M. R. (1995) Measurement of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors,Human Factors, 37, 137–148.

GOERGER, S. R., DARKEN, R. P., BOYD, M., GAGNON, T., LILES, S., SULLIVAN, J. & LAWSON, J.(1998) Spatial knowledge acquisition from maps and virtual environments in complexarchitectural spaces. Proceedings of the 16th Applied Behavioral Sciences Symposium, US AirForce Academy, Colorado Springs, CO.

GOLDIN, S. E. & THORNDYKE, P. W. (1982) Simulating navigation for spatial knowledge acqui-sition. Human Factors, 24(4), 457–471.

GUILFORD, J. P. & ZIMMERMAN, E. S. (1948) The Guilford–Zimmerman aptitude survey. Journalof Applied Psychology, 32, 1.

HANCOCK, P. A. (1996) On convergent technological evolution. Ergonomics in Design, January,22–29.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

aifa

Lib

rary

] at

00:

40 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


HANCOCK, P. A. & DIAZ, D. D. (2002) Toward a Unified Theory of Performance: HowErgonomics can Bridge Across Concepts of Behavior. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomic Science,3, 115–123.

HARWOOD, K. & WICKENS, C. D. (1991) Frames of reference for helicopter electronic maps: therelevance of spatial cognition and componential analysis. The International Journal ofAviation Psychology, 1(1), 5–23.

HUNT, E. & WALLER, D. (1999) Orientation and wayfiding: A review. Technical report N00014-96-0380-ONR. Arlington, VA: Office of Naval Research.

KOH, G., VON WIEGAND, T. E., GARNETT, R. L., DURLACH, N. I. & SHINN–CUNNINGHAM, B.(1999) Use of virtual environments for acquiring configurational knowledge about specificreal-world spaces: I. preliminary experiment. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environ-ments, 8, 6.

KREUGER, M. (1991) Artificial Reality II. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.LATHAN, C. E., TRACEY, M. R., SEBRECHTS, M. M., CLAWSON, D. M. & HIGGINS, G. A. (2002)

Using virtual environments as training simulators: Measuring transfer. In STANNEY, K. M.(Ed.), Handbook of Virtual Environments: Design, Implementation, and Applications. Mahwah,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

LYNCH, K. (1960) The Image of the City. Boston: MIT Press.MAYER, R. E. & SIMS, V. K. (1994) For whom is a picture worth a thousand words? Extensions

of a dual-coding theory of multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86,389–401.

MCGOVERN, D. E. (1993) Experience and results in teleoperation of land vehicles. In S. ELLIS

(Ed.), Pictorial communication in virtual and real environments (pp. 182–195). London: Taylor& Francis

OGILBY, J. (1675) Britannia—A Geographical and Historical Description of the Principle Roads Thereof(cited in MORELAND, C. & BANNISTER, D., 1983, Antique Maps. London: Phaedon Press).

REGIAN, J. W. (1996) Virtual reality as a task performance interface and an intelligent trainingtool. Paper presented at the SIOP conference, San Diego, CA.

REGIAN, J. W., SHEBILSKE, W. & MONK, J. (1992) A preliminary empirical evaluation of virtualreality as an instructional medium for visual-spatial tasks. Journal of Communication, 42(4),136–149.

ROSANNO, M. J. & MOAK, J. (1998) Spatial representations acquired from computer models:Cognitive load, orientation specificity, and the acquisition of survey knowledge. BritishJournal of Psychology, 89, 481–497.

RUDDLE, R. A., PAYNE, S. J. & JONES, D. M. (1997) Navigating buildings in ‘desk-top’ virtualenvironments: Experimental investigations using extended navigational experience. Journalof Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3, 143–159.

RUDDLE, R. A., PAYNE, S. J. & JONES, D. M. (1999) The effects of maps on navigation and searchstrategies in very-large-scale virtual environments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Ap-plied, 5, 54–75.

SELLEN, A. & NICOL, A. (1990) Building user-centered on-line help. In B. LAUREL (Ed.), The artof human–computer interface design (pp. 143–153). MA: Addison-Wesley.

SIEGEL, A. W. & WHITE, S. (1975) The development of spatial representations of large-scaleenvironments. In REESE, H. W. (Ed.). Advances in Child Development and Behaviour. NewYork: Academic Press

SMITH, K. & HANCOCK, P. A. (1995) Situation awareness is adaptive, externally-directed con-sciousness. Human Factors, 37, 137–148.

STANNEY, K. M. & SALVENDY, G. (1995) Information visualization: Assisting low spatial individ-uals with information access tasks through the use of visual mediators. Ergonomics, 38(6),1184–1198.

TATE, D., SIBERT, L. & KING, T. (1997) Using virtual environments for firefighter training. IEEEComputer Graphics and Applications, 17(6), 23–29.

THORNDYKE, P. W. & HAYES–ROTH, B. (1982) Differences in spatial knowledge acquired frommaps and navigation. Cognitive Psychology, 14(4), 560–589.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

aifa

Lib

rary

] at

00:

40 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


WALLER, D. (1999) An assessment of individual differences in knowledge of real and virtualenvironments. Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington. Dissertation Abstracts Inter-national, 60, 1882B.

WALLER, D. (2000) Individual differences in spatial learning from computer-simulated environ-ments. Journal of Experiential Psychology: Applied, 6(4), 307–321.

WALLER, D., HUNT, E. & KNAPP, D. (1998) The transfer of spatial knowledge in virtual environ-ment training. Presence: Teleoperator and Virtual Environments, 7(2), 129–143.

WILSON, P. N., FOREMAN, N. & TLAUKA, M. (1997) Transfer of spatial information from a virtualto a real environment. Human Factors, 39(4), 526–531.

WITMER, B. G. & KLINE, P. (1998) Judging perceived and traversed distance in virtual environ-ments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 7(2), 144–167.

WITMER, B. G., BAILEY, J. H., KNERR, B. W. & PARSONS, K. C. (1996) Virtual spaces and realworld places: Transfer of route knowledge. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies,45, 413–428.

WITMER, B. G., KLINE, P. B. & SADOWSKI, W. J. (1997) Spatial learning and distance judgementsin virtual environments. In Astrid Schmidt–Nielsen (Chair), Moving About and Orientingin Virtual Environments. Symposium conducted at the 105th American Psychological AssociationConvention. Chicago.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

aifa

Lib

rary

] at

00:

40 0

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

augmenting virtual environments: the influence of spatial ability on learning from integrated...

Documents