Visual perception of egocentric distance in real and virtual environments.

533 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Limited Field of View of Head-Mounted Displays Is Not the Cause of Distance Underestimation in Virtual Environments (2004, methodology): “Figure 1 gives such a result (from Loomis & Knapp, 2003, as based on the experimental results of Knapp, 1999).”
The Cognitive Science of Visual-Spatial Displays: Implications for Design (2011, background): “D world (e.g., Loomis & Knapp, 2003) and not just visual displays of the world, so that adding more depth cues (e.g., stereoscopic viewing) does not solve the problem.”
All One Needs to Know about Metaverse: A Complete Survey on Technological Singularity, Virtual Ecosystem, and Research Agenda (2021, background): “key techniques include “blind walking” [396], imagined blind walking [397], and triangulation by walking [398].”
The perception of egocentric distances in virtual environments - A review (2013, background): “Blind walking estimates are quite good without systematic errors up to distances of 25 meters [Loomis and Knapp 2003; Loomis and Philbeck 2008], though individual differences exist and participants’ accuracy improves over time [Kuhl et al. 2006a].”
Estimation of Detection Thresholds for Redirected Walking Techniques (2010, background): “A PSE greater than one is consistent with earlier findings that subjects tend to underestimate travel distances in the virtual world [13], [15], [16], [25].”