Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33900366›Full record

ArticleJournal of vision2021

Combining cues to judge distance and direction in an immersive virtual reality environment.

Peter Scarfe, Andrew Glennerster

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of vision, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Familiar size affects perception differently in virtual reality and the real world.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023
    Article
  3. Virtual Reality for Vision Science.Current topics in behavioral neurosciences · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Peter ScarfeUniversity of Reading, Earley Gate, Reading, UK.
Andrew GlennersterUniversity of Reading, Earley Gate, Reading, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When we move, the visual direction of objects in the environment can change substantially. Compared with our understanding of depth perception, the problem the visual system faces in computing this change is relatively poorly understood. Here, we tested the extent to which participants' judgments of visual direction could be predicted by standard cue combination rules. Participants were tested in virtual reality using a head-mounted display. In a simulated room, they judged the position of an object at one location, before walking to another location in the room and judging, in a second interval, whether an object was at the expected visual direction of the first. By manipulating the scale of the room across intervals, which was subjectively invisible to observers, we put two classes of cue into conflict, one that depends only on visual information and one that uses proprioceptive information to scale any reconstruction of the scene. We find that the sensitivity to changes in one class of cue while keeping the other constant provides a good prediction of performance when both cues vary, consistent with the standard cue combination framework. Nevertheless, by comparing judgments of visual direction with those of distance, we show that judgments of visual direction and distance are mutually inconsistent. We discuss why there is no need for any contradiction between these two conclusions.

Indexed as

CuesVirtual RealityHumansWalking

Identifiers

PMID33900366
PMCPMC8083085

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.