Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39679147›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2024

Exploring sense of spaciousness in interior settings: Screen-based assessments with eye tracking, and virtual reality evaluations.

Alp Tural, Elif Tural

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2024. 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. Review
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Alp TuralSchool of Design, College of Architecture, Arts, & Design, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, United States.
Elif TuralSchool of Design, College of Architecture, Arts, & Design, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study investigates the perception of spaciousness in interior environments using screen-based assessments with eye tracking, and virtual reality (VR) technologies. The research explores how four key design elements -view access, view content, materiality, and ceiling geometry- influence perceived spaciousness. Thirty-five college students participated in screen-based and VR-based evaluations of 16 photorealistic interior settings. Eye tracking data were collected during screen-based assessments to analyze visual attention patterns. Statistical analyses included repeated measures ANOVAs, pairwise comparisons, and correlations between screen and VR assessments. Results showed that view access significantly affected perceived spaciousness in both screen and VR conditions, with larger windows correlating to higher spaciousness ratings. Materiality also demonstrated significant effects, with natural and textured materials perceived as more spacious than concrete surfaces. View content and ceiling geometry showed trends towards influencing spaciousness perception but did not reach statistical significance. VR presentations generally yielded higher spaciousness ratings compared to screen-based presentations, suggesting that immersive technologies may enhance spatial perception. Eye tracking analyses revealed common gaze patterns and variations in visual attention across different design conditions. This study contributes to the understanding of how design elements influence spatial perception and demonstrates the potential of integrating eye tracking and VR technologies in environmental psychology research. The findings have implications for evidence-based design practices aimed at enhancing perceived spaciousness in interior environments.

Indexed as

eye trackinginteriorssense of spaciousnessspatial perceptionvirtual reality

Identifiers

PMID39679147
PMCPMC11637840

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.