Abstract

Augmented reality, whereby computer-generated images are overlaid onto the physical environment, is becoming significant part of the world of education and training. Little is known, however, about how these external images are treated by the sensorimotor system of the user – are they fully integrated into the external environmental cues, or largely ignored by low-level perceptual and motor processes? Here, we examined this question in the context of the size–weight illusion (SWI). Thirty-two participants repeatedly lifted and reported the heaviness of two cubes of unequal volume but equal mass in alternation. Half of the participants saw semi-transparent equally sized holographic cubes superimposed onto the physical cubes through a head-mounted display. Fingertip force rates were measured prior to lift-off to determine how the holograms influenced sensorimotor prediction, while verbal reports of heaviness after each lift indicated how the holographic size cues influenced the SWI. As expected, participants who lifted without augmented visual cues lifted the large object at a higher rate of force than the small object on early lifts and experienced a robust SWI across all trials. In contrast, participants who lifted the (apparently equal-sized) augmented cubes used similar force rates for each object. Furthermore, they experienced no SWI during the first lifts of the objects, with a SWI developing over repeated trials. These results indicate that holographic cues initially dominate physical cues and cognitive knowledge, but are dismissed when conflicting with cues from other senses.

Highlights

  • Immersive virtual reality typically involves allowing an individual to experience, and interact with, a computergenerated environment as if it were the physical environment

  • In the timepoints examined during the experimental trials (T1-4), all main effects and interactions involving the Timepoint variable failed to meet the assumption of Sphericity, so tests involving these factors had their degrees of freedom adjusted with the Greenhouse–Geisser correction

  • In the Control group’s experimental trials, paired t tests comparing the heaviness ratings given to the large object compared to the small object at each timepoint found significant differences at Timepoint 1 (t(15) = 5.1, p < 0.001, d = 1.27), Timepoint 2 (t(15) = 6.2, p < 0.001, d = 1.54), Timepoint 3 (t(15) = 8.0, p < 0.001, d = 2.0) and Timepoint

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Immersive virtual reality (iVR) typically involves allowing an individual to experience, and interact with, a computergenerated environment as if it were the physical environment. In its simplest form, a smartphone with a camera is capable of delivering a reasonably compelling AR experience. More sophisticated devices, such as the Microsoft HoloLens, use translucent lenses, external sensors, and holographic projection to overlay individual graphical elements to discrete elements of the physical environment. This technology, while far from widespread, has significant potential to fundamentally alter real-time access to information in the classroom and the workplace (Dey et al 2018) and has recently been trialled as a way to support clinical populations (Rohrbach et al 2019b).

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call