Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36511405›Full record

ReviewPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2023

Perceiving distance in virtual reality: theoretical insights from contemporary technologies.

Sarah H Creem-Regehr, Jeanine K Stefanucci, Bobby Bodenheimer

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Probing mental representations of space through sketch mapping: a scoping review.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. New Approaches to 3D Vision.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023
    Article
  14. 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

3 authors.

Sarah H Creem-RegehrDepartment of Psychology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7740-1118
Jeanine K StefanucciDepartment of Psychology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4238-2951
Bobby BodenheimerDepartment of Computer Science, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37235, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0616-5936

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Decades of research have shown that absolute egocentric distance is underestimated in virtual environments (VEs) when compared with the real world. This finding has implications on the use of VEs for applications that require an accurate sense of absolute scale. Fortunately, this underperception of scale can be attenuated by several factors, making perception more similar to (but still not the same as) that of the real world. Here, we examine these factors as two categories: (i) experience inherent to the observer, and (ii) characteristics inherent to the display technology. We analyse how these factors influence the sources of information for absolute distance perception with the goal of understanding how the scale of virtual spaces is calibrated. We identify six types of cues that change with these approaches, contributing both to a theoretical understanding of depth perception in VEs and a call for future research that can benefit from changing technologies. This article is part of the theme issue 'New approaches to 3D vision'.

Indexed as

Virtual RealityCuesDistance PerceptionTechnologyUser-Computer InterfaceVision, Oculardistance perceptionvirtual realityvisual cues

Identifiers

PMID36511405
PMCPMC9745869

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.