skip to main content
research-article

Quantifying fidelity for virtual environment simulations employing memory schema assumptions

Published:10 November 2010Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

In a virtual environment (VE), efficient techniques are often needed to economize on rendering computation without compromising the information transmitted. The reported experiments devise a functional fidelity metric by exploiting research on memory schemata. According to the proposed measure, similar information would be transmitted across synthetic and real-world scenes depicting a specific schema. This would ultimately indicate which areas in a VE could be rendered in lower quality without affecting information uptake. We examine whether computationally more expensive scenes of greater visual fidelity affect memory performance after exposure to immersive VEs, or whether they are merely more aesthetically pleasing than their diminished visual quality counterparts. Results indicate that memory schemata function in VEs similar to real-world environments. “High-level” visual cognition related to late visual processing is unaffected by ubiquitous graphics manipulations such as polygon count and depth of shadow rendering; “normal” cognition operates as long as the scenes look acceptably realistic. However, when the overall realism of the scene is greatly reduced, such as in wireframe, then visual cognition becomes abnormal. Effects that distinguish schema-consistent from schema-inconsistent objects change because the whole scene now looks incongruent. We have shown that this effect is not due to a failure of basic recognition.

References

  1. Bartlett, F. C. 1932. Remembering. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Brewer, W. F. and Treyens, J. C. 1981. Role of schemata in memory for places. Cog. Psych. 13, 207--230.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Cater, K. Chalmers, A., and Ward, G. 2003. Detail to attention: Exploiting visual tasks for selective rendering. In Proceedings of the Eurographics Workshop on Rendering. 270--280. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Ferwerda, J. 2001. Hi-fi rendering. In Proceedings of the Campfire in Perceptually Adaptive Graphics. http://isg.cs.tcd.ie/campfire/jimferwerda2.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Ferwerda, J. 2003. Three varieties of realism in computer graphics. In Proceedings of the SPIE Human Vision and Electronic Imaging. 290--297.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Flannery, K. A. and Walles, R. 2003. How does schema theory apply to real versus virtual memories? Cyberspych. Behav. 6, 2, 151--159.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Friedman, A. 1979. Framing Pictures: The role of knowledge in automatized encoding and memory for gist. J. Exp. Psyc. Gen. 108, 3, 316--355.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Goodman, G. S. 1980. Picture memory: How the action schema affects retention. Cog. Psych. 12, 473--495.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Haber, J., Myszkowski, K., Yamauchi, H., and Seidel, H. P. 2001. Perceptually guided corrective splatting. Comput. Graph. For. 20, 3, 142--152.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Hock, H. S., Romanski, L., Galie, A., and Williams, C. S. 1978. Real-world schemata and scene recognition in adults and children. Mem. Cog. 6, 4, 423--431.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Kuipers, B. J. 1975. A frame for frames: Representing knowledge for recognition. In Representation and Understanding: Studies in Cognitive Science, D. G. Bobrow and A. Collins, Eds. Academic Press, New York, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Land, M. F. 1999. Motion and vision: Why animals move their eyes. J. Compar. Phys. A: Neuroethol. Sens. Neur. Behav. Phys. 185, 4, 341--352.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Liu, G., Austen, E. L., Booth, K. S., Fisher, B. D., Rempel, M. I., and Enns, J. T. 2005. Multiple object tracking is based on scene, not retinal, coordinates. J. Exper. Psych. Hum. Percept. Perform. 31, 2, 235--247.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Loftus, G. R., and Mackworth, N. H. 1978. Cognitive determinants of fixation location during picture viewing. J. Education. Psych. Hum. Percept. Perform. 4, 4, 565--572.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Mania, K., Adelstein, B., Ellis, S.R., and Hill, M. 2004. Perceptual sensitivity to head tracking latency in virtual environments with varying degrees of scene complexity. In Proceedings of the 1st Symposium on Applied Perception in Graphics and Visualization. 39--47. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Mania, K., Robinson, A., and Brandt, K. 2005. The effect of memory schemata on object recognition in virtual environments. Pres. Teleop. Virt. Environ. 14, 5, 606--615. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Mania, K., Troscianko, T., Hawkes, R., and Chalmers, A. 2003. Fidelity metrics for virtual environment simulations based on human judgments of spatial memory awareness states. Pres. Teleop. Virt. Environ. 12, 3, 296--310. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Marmitt, G. and Duchowski, A. T. 2002. Modeling visual attention in VR: Measuring the accuracy of predicted scanpaths. In Eurographics Short Presentations. 217--226.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. McConcie, G. W. and Loschy, L. C. 1997. Human performance with a gaze linked multi-resolutional display. In Proceedings of the 1st Advanced Displays and Interactive Displays Annual Symposium. 25--34.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Nemire, K., Jacoby, R. H., and Ellis, S. R. 1994. Simulation fidelity of a virtual environment display. Hum. Fact. 36, 1, 79--93.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Pezdek, K., Whetstone, T., Reynolds, K., Askari, N., and Dougherty, T. 1989. Memory for real-world scenes: The role of consistency with schema expectation. J. Exper. Psych. Learn. Mem. Cog. 15, 4, 587--595.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Rodger, J. C. and Browse, R. A. 2000. Choosing rendering parameters for effective communication of 3D shape. IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl. 20, 2, 20--28. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Rojahn, K. and Pettigrew, T. F. 1992. Memory for schema-relevant information: A meta-analytic resolution. Brit. J. Soc. Psych. 31, 2, 81--109.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Saab, Z., Trottier, J., and Wall, H. M. 1984. Memory for places: Role of schemata-related expectancy and saliency in recall and recognition. Psych. Rep. 54, 607--610.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Wagner, L. 1987. The effects of shadow quality on the perception of spatial relationships in computer generated imagery. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Interactive 3D Graphics. 39--42. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Waller, D., Hunt, E., and Knapp, D. 1998. The transfer of spatial knowledge in virtual environment training. Pres. Teleop. Virt. Environ. 7, 2, 129--143. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Watson, B. Friedman, A., and McGaffey, A. 2001. Measuring and predicting visual fidelity. In Proceedings of the 28th Height Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques. 213--220. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Watson, B. A., Walker, N., Hodges, L.F., and Reddy, M. 1997. An evaluation of level of detail degradation in head-mounted display peripheries. Pres. Teleop. Virt. Environ. 6, 6, 630--637.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Wickens, T. D. 2001. Elementary Signal Detection Theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Quantifying fidelity for virtual environment simulations employing memory schema assumptions

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in

        Full Access

        • Published in

          cover image ACM Transactions on Applied Perception
          ACM Transactions on Applied Perception  Volume 8, Issue 1
          October 2010
          156 pages
          ISSN:1544-3558
          EISSN:1544-3965
          DOI:10.1145/1857893
          Issue’s Table of Contents

          Copyright © 2010 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 10 November 2010
          • Accepted: 1 October 2009
          • Revised: 1 May 2009
          • Received: 1 October 2007
          Published in tap Volume 8, Issue 1

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article
          • Research
          • Refereed

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader