↓ Skip to main content

Understanding Immersivity: Image Generation and Transformation Processes in 3D Immersive Environments

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
51 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Understanding Immersivity: Image Generation and Transformation Processes in 3D Immersive Environments
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00284
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maria Kozhevnikov, Rupali P. Dhond

Abstract

Most research on three-dimensional (3D) visual-spatial processing has been conducted using traditional non-immersive 2D displays. Here we investigated how individuals generate and transform mental images within 3D immersive (3DI) virtual environments, in which the viewers perceive themselves as being surrounded by a 3D world. In Experiment 1, we compared participants' performance on the Shepard and Metzler (1971) mental rotation (MR) task across the following three types of visual presentation environments; traditional 2D non-immersive (2DNI), 3D non-immersive (3DNI - anaglyphic glasses), and 3DI (head mounted display with position and head orientation tracking). In Experiment 2, we examined how the use of different backgrounds affected MR processes within the 3DI environment. In Experiment 3, we compared electroencephalogram data recorded while participants were mentally rotating visual-spatial images presented in 3DI vs. 2DNI environments. Overall, the findings of the three experiments suggest that visual-spatial processing is different in immersive and non-immersive environments, and that immersive environments may require different image encoding and transformation strategies than the two other non-immersive environments. Specifically, in a non-immersive environment, participants may utilize a scene-based frame of reference and allocentric encoding whereas immersive environments may encourage the use of a viewer-centered frame of reference and egocentric encoding. These findings also suggest that MR performed in laboratory conditions using a traditional 2D computer screen may not reflect spatial processing as it would occur in the real world.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 4%
Unknown 49 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 25%
Researcher 10 20%
Student > Master 4 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Lecturer 3 6%
Other 8 16%
Unknown 10 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 12 24%
Computer Science 6 12%
Design 5 10%
Neuroscience 3 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 6%
Other 8 16%
Unknown 14 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 August 2012.
All research outputs
#20,165,369
of 22,675,759 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#23,771
of 29,379 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#221,176
of 244,088 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#406
of 481 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,675,759 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,379 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 244,088 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 481 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.