Understanding the Effects of Virtual Reality System Usage on Spatial Perception: The Potential Impacts of Immersive Virtual Reality on Spatial Design Decisions
Abstract
:1. Introduction
Purpose Statement and Research Questions
- Does design in IVRIE using immersive presence and direct interaction with design elements impact a designer’s understanding of scale/volume? If so, how does this change their understanding of and impact the design outcomes?
- If there is a change, to what degree does the user’s perception of scale, size, depth, and distance differ between these two systems?
- If the degree of difference in user perception and performance is significant, do users’ particular usage of virtual environments and the characteristics of virtual spaces play any role in those differences?
- If positive, do users have an awareness of virtual environments’ different features in terms of perception and performance?
2. Research Background
2.1. Virtual Reality Environments
2.2. Virtual Reality, Visualization and Spatial Design
2.3. Virtual Reality, Design Thinking, and Design Approaches
3. Research Design and Methodology
3.1. Experiment Design
3.2. Data Collection and Analysis
3.2.1. Descriptive Statistical Tests
3.2.2. Sample Profile and Data Diversity
3.2.3. Data Refinement
4. Results
4.1. Texture and Comparison of Space Size Variations within and between Systems
4.1.1. Between-Systems Comparison
Texture: Plain; System: IVRIE vs. DT
Texture: Patterned; System: IVRIE vs. DT
4.1.2. Within-System Comparison
System: DT; Texture: Plain vs. Patterned
System: IVRIE; Texture: Plain vs. Patterned
4.2. Spatial/Experiential Guidelines and Comparison of Space Size Variations within and between Systems
4.2.1. Between-System Comparison
Texture: Plain: System: IVRIE vs. DT
Texture: Patterned; System: IVRIE vs. DT
4.2.2. Within-System Comparison
System: DT; Texture: Plain vs. Patterned
System: IVRIE; Texture: plain vs. patterned
4.3. System Usage Sequence and Comparison of Space Size Variations between Systems
4.3.1. Between-System Comparison
Sequence: DT to IVRIE
Sequence: IVRIE to DT
4.4. System Features Perception and Comparison of Space Size Variations between Systems
4.4.1. Direct Interaction with Design Objects and Space Size Variations between Systems
4.4.2. Spatial Cognition in Eye-Level View and Space Size Variations between Systems
4.4.3. Sense of Full Immersion and Space Size Variations between Systems
4.4.4. Perceived Systems’ Accuracy in Creating the Spatial Sense and Space Size Variations between Systems
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions and Future Vision
- Branch 1: Findings of analyses of descriptive and inferential statistical testing of quantitative data:
- The differences between the IVRIE and DT systems in terms of providing spatial presence affected users’ spatial perceptions and led them to different spatial decisions; the result was significant differences in the sizes of spaces designed in each system.
- Inferential statistical tests revealed that on average, the sizes of the designed spaces were smaller in IVRIE than in the DT system, and the consistency of space sizes was improved.
- The presence of textures impacted spatial perception and led users to make different spatial decisions between the IVRIE and DT systems, resulting in a significant space size variation. In addition, the inclusion of textures impacted users’ spatial decisions when using the DT system but did not have a significant impact in IVRIE.
- System usage sequence impacted users’ spatial perception differently based on the type of virtual space. When the system usage sequence was first IVRIE and then the DT system, users’ spatial decision making resulted in significant size variations in enclosure spaces but not corridors. When the DT system was used first and then IVRIE, only the corridor spaces showed significant size variations.
- Use of a common spatial/experiential guideline for designing a space (once in IVRIE and once in the DT system) frequently resulted in significant space size variations. Additionally, when the texture was changed from plain to patterned, using a common spatial/experiential guideline for designing the space frequently resulted in significant size variations.
- Branch 2: Findings of analyses of descriptive and inferential statistical testing of qualitative data:
- The features of IVRIE (i.e., direct interaction with design objects, browsing surroundings via an eye-level view, and a sense of full immersion) were recognized by 85% of participants as “very helpful” in spatial decision making. A comparison of the sizes and areas of similar spaces designed by participants who found those features “very helpful” showed significant differences between the two systems.
- A substantial majority of the participants felt that the IVRIE system was more accurate than the DT system, allowing them to more effectively create the intended spatial sense. Statistical comparisons of the spaces designed by participants who perceived IVRIE as the most accurate system (80% of the sample population) revealed that on average, the sizes of the spaces designed/created in IVRIE, regardless of form, volume, and texture, were smaller than their paired spaces designed in the DT system.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
VR | Virtual Reality |
TVR | Traditional Virtual Reality |
IVRIE | Immersive Virtual Reality Interactive Environment |
DT | Desktop system |
3D | Three-dimensional |
References
- Lange, E. 99 Volumes Later We Can Visualise. Now What? Landsc. Urban Plan. 2011, 100, 403–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Portman, M.E.; Natapov, A.; Fisher-Gewirtzman, D. To Go Where No Man Has Gone before: Virtual Reality in Architecture, Landscape Architecture and Environmental Planning. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 2015, 54, 376–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghadirian, P.; Bishop, I.D. Integration of Augmented Reality and GIS: A New Approach to Realistic Landscape Visualisation. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2008, 86, 226–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kalisperis, L.N.; Muramoto, K.; Balakrishnan, B.; Nikolic, D.; Zikic, N.; Environments, I.; Pennsylvania, T.; Effects, M.; State, T.P. Evaluating Relative Impact of Virtual Reality System Variables on Architectural Design Comprehension and Presence. 2002. Available online: https://doi.org/10.52842/conf.ecaade.2006.066 (accessed on 12 February 2021).
- Rice, A. Exploring the Impact of Emerging Landscape Visualization Tools on Spatial Perception and Design Education; Anhalt University of Applied Sciences: Köthen, Germany, 2003; pp. 173–182. [Google Scholar]
- George, B.H.; Sleipness, O.R.; Quebbeman, A. Using Virtual Reality as a Design Input: Impacts on Collaboration in a University Design Studio Setting. J. Digit. Landsc. Archit. 2017, 2, 252–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Otto, G.; Kalisperis, L.N.; Gundrum, J.; Muramoto, K.; Burris, G.; Masters, R.; Slobounov, E.; Heilman, J.; Agarwala, V. Virtual Reality/Space Visualization in Design Education: The VR-Desktop Initiative. Int. J. Archit. Comput. 2003, 1, 233–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oxman, R. Digital Architecture as a Challenge for Design Pedagogy: Theory, Knowledge, Models and Medium. Des. Stud. 2008, 29, 99–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sánchez, Á.; María Barreiro, J.; Maojo, V. Design of Virtual Reality Systems for Education: A Cognitive Approach. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2000, 5, 345–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ole, R.; Benjamin, H. Impacts of Immersive Virtual Reality on Three-Dimensional Design Processes: Opportunities and Constraints for Landscape Architecture Studio Pedagogy. Landsc. Res. Rec. 2017, 6, 2–11. [Google Scholar]
- Paes, D.; Arantes, E.; Irizarry, J. Automation in Construction Immersive Environment for Improving the Understanding of Architectural 3D Models: Comparing User Spatial Perception between Immersive and Traditional Virtual Reality Systems. Autom. Constr. 2017, 84, 292–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuliga, S.F.; Thrash, T.; Dalton, R.C.; Hölscher, C. Virtual Reality as an Empirical Research Tool—Exploring User Experience in a Real Building and a Corresponding Virtual Model. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 2015, 54, 363–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stanney, K.M.; Mourant, R.R.; Kennedy, R.S. Human Factors Issues in Virtual Environments: A Review of the Literature. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 1998, 7, 327–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wann, J.; Mon-Williams, M. What Does Virtual Reality NEED?: Human Factors Issues in the Design of Three-Dimensional Computer Environments. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 1996, 44, 829–847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jerald, J. The VR Book; Association for Computing Machinery: San Rafael, CA, USA, 2015; ISBN 9781970001129. [Google Scholar]
- Noghabaei, M.; Heydarian, A.; Balali, V.; Han, K. Trend Analysis on Adoption of Virtual and Augmented Reality in the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction Industry. Data 2020, 5, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gómez-Tone, H.C.; Escapa, J.B.; Escapa, P.B.; Martin-Gutierrez, J. The Drawing and Perception of Architectural Spaces through Immersive Virtual Reality. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Özgen, D.S.; Afacan, Y.; Sürer, E. Usability of Virtual Reality for Basic Design Education: A Comparative Study with Paper-Based Design. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 2021, 31, 357–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Witmer, B.G.; Singer, M.J. Measuring Presence in Virtual Environments: A Presence Questionnaire. Presence Virtual Augment. Real. 1998, 3, 225–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Casti, J.L. Would-Be Worlds: How Simulation Is Changing the Frontiers of Science; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1996; ISBN 0471123080. [Google Scholar]
- Akbulut, D. The Effects of Different Student Backgrounds in Basic Design Education. Procedia—Soc. Behav. Sci. 2010, 2, 5331–5338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coxon, M.; Kelly, N.; Page, S. Individual Differences in Virtual Reality: Are Spatial Presence and Spatial Ability Linked? Virtual Real. 2016, 20, 203–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Castronovo, F.; Nikolic, D.; Liu, Y.; Messner, J. An Evaluation Of Immersive Virtual Reality Systems For Design Reviews. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Construction Applications of Virtual Reality, London, UK, 30–31 October 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Ibrahim, R.; Pour Rahimian, F. Comparison of CAD and Manual Sketching Tools for Teaching Architectural Design. Autom. Constr. 2010, 19, 978–987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Lammeren, R.; Clerc, V.; Kramer, H. Virtual Reality in the Landscape Design Process. 2002. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/40140656_Virtual_Reality_in_the_landscape_design_process (accessed on 12 July 2022).
- Mengots, A. Review of Digital Tools for Landscape Architecture. Sci. J. Latv. Univ. Agric. Landsc. Archit. Art 2017, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nothhelfer, U. Landscape Architecture in the Reality-Virtuality. Trends GIS Virtualiz. Environ. Plan. Des. Anhalt. Univ. Appl. Sci. 2002, 2001, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
- Azarby, S. Using an Immersive Virtual Reality Interactive Environment (IVRIE) to Improve the Understanding of Spatial Factors in Design: Comparing User Spatial Perceptions between IVRIE and Traditional Digital Design Environments; NCSU: Raleigh, NC, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Stevens, J.A.; Kincaid, J.P. The Relationship between Presence and Performance in Virtual Simulation Training. Open J. Model. Simul. 2015, 03, 41–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bullinger, H.J.; Bauer, W.; Wenzel, G.; Blach, R. Towards User Centred Design (UCD) in Architecture Based on Immersive Virtual Environments. Comput. Ind. 2010, 61, 372–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Orland, B.; Budthimedhee, K.; Uusitalo, J. Considering Virtual Worlds as Representations of Landscape Realities and as Tools for Landscape Planning. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2001, 54, 139–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oxman, R. Theory and Design in the First Digital Age. Des. Stud. 2006, 27, 229–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soliman, M.; Pesyridis, A.; Dalaymani-Zad, D.; Gronfula, M.; Kourmpetis, M. The Application of Virtual Reality in Engineering Education. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 2879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Z.Q. Virtual Package Design and Realization Based on 3D Visualization Technology. Procedia Eng. 2017, 174, 1336–1339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lindquist, M.; Lange, E.; Kang, J. From 3D Landscape Visualization to Environmental Simulation: The Contribution of Sound to the Perception of Virtual Environments. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2016, 148, 216–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chamberlain, B. Crash Course or Course Crash: Gaming, VR and a Pedagogical Approach. J. Digit. Landsc. Archit. 2015, 354–361. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, P.; Wu, P.; Wang, J.; Chi, H.L.; Wang, X. A Critical Review of the Use of Virtual Reality in Construction Engineering Education and Training. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 1204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Freitas, M.R.; Ruschel, R.C. What Is Happening to Virtual and Augmented Reality Applied to Architecture? In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Computer-Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia (CAADRIA 2013), Singapore, 15–18 May 2013; pp. 407–416. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, M.J.; Wang, X.; Love, P.E.D.; Li, H.; Kang, S.C. Virtual Reality for the Built Environment: A Critical Review of Recent Advances. J. Inf. Technol. Constr. 2013, 18, 279–305. [Google Scholar]
- Lange, E. Visualization in Landscape Architecture and Planning: Where We Have Been, Where We Are Now and Where We Might Go from Here. Landsc. Archit. 2002, 8–18. [Google Scholar]
- Creswell., J.W. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 4th ed.; SAGE Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2011; ISBN 9781452226095. [Google Scholar]
- Johnson, R.B.; Onwuegbuzie, A.J.; Turner, L.A. Definition Mixed Method Research. Pdf. J. Mix. Method Res. 2007, 1, 112–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Çakir, A. Review of Handbook of Virtual Environments: Design, Implementation, and Applications, 2nd ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2015; Volume 34, ISBN 9781466511859. [Google Scholar]
- Radianti, J.; Majchrzak, T.A.; Fromm, J.; Wohlgenannt, I.; Taub, M.; Sawyer, R.; Smith, A.; Rowe, J.; Azevedo, R.; Lester, J. A Systematic Review of Immersive Virtual Reality Applications for Higher Education: Design Elements, Lessons Learned, and Research Agenda. Comput. Educ. 2020, 147, 103781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gomez-Tone, H.C.; Chávez, M.A.; Samalvides, L.V.; Martin-Gutierrez, J. Introducing Immersive Virtual Reality in the Initial Phases of the Design Process—Case Study: Freshmen Designing Ephemeral Architecture. Buildings 2022, 12, 518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hartmann, T.; Wirth, W.; Schramm, H.; Klimmt, C.; Vorderer, P.; Gysbers, A.; Böcking, S.; Ravaja, N.; Laarni, J.; Saari, T.; et al. The Spatial Presence Experience Scale (SPES): A Short Self-Report Measure for Diverse Media Settings. J. Media Psychol. 2016, 28, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Within Scenarios/Between Systems | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Scenarios | Plain | Patterned | |||||||||
Systems | DT | IVRIE | DT | IVRIE | |||||||
Mean | ST | Mean | ST | p-Value | Mean | ST | Mean | ST | p-Value | ||
Space categories | Corridor (ft.) | 14 | 5.25 | 13.9 | 5.02 | 0.83 | 15.6 | 5.79 | 13.8 | 5.23 | 0.003 * |
Enclosure (ft2) | 867.4 | 484.6 | 951.5 | 389.7 | 0.13 | 958.2 | 600.4 | 792.1 | 327.1 | 0.003 * |
Between Scenarios/Within Systems | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Systems | DT | IVRIE | |||||||||
Scenarios | Plain | Patterned | Plain | Patterned | |||||||
Mean | ST | Mean | ST | p-Value | Mean | ST | Mean | ST | p-Value | ||
Space categories | Corridor (ft.) | 14.4 | 5.19 | 15.3 | 5.88 | 0.02 * | 14 | 5.06 | 13.6 | 5.2 | 0.22 |
Enclosure (ft2) | 895.2 | 503.2 | 1074.4 | 691.6 | 0.0002 * | 743.4 | 392.8 | 790.2 | 327.01 | 0.09 |
Between Systems Comparison DT vs. IVRIE | Within Systems Comparison SC1 vs. SC2 | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SC1 (Plain) | SC2 (Patterned) | DT | IVRIE | ||||||||||
Space Categories | Mean | p-Value | Mean | p-Value | Mean | p-Value | Mean | p-Value | |||||
DT | IVRIE | DT | IVRIE | SC1 | SC2 | SC1 | SC2 | ||||||
Space 1 | Corridor 1 | 9.1 | 10.1 | 0.1 | 10.13 | 9 | 0.008 * | 9.1 | 10.13 | 0.02 * | 10.18 | 9 | 0.02 * |
Space 2 | Enclosure1 | 391.1 | 446.8 | 0.01 * | 539.2 | 522.3 | 0.0019 * | 397.1 | 522.6 | 0.09 | 446.6 | 524.2 | 0.0006 * |
Space 3 | Corridor 2 | 19.6 | 17.9 | 0.09 | 21.3 | 18.7 | 0.5 | 19.9 | 20.8 | 0.00008 * | 18.1 | 18.57 | 0.4 |
Space 4 | Enclosure 2 | 1241.4 | 1081 | 0.02 * | 1316.5 | 1046.9 | 0.0006 * | 12.74.1 | 1465.8 | 0.001 * | 1029.7 | 1046.9 | 0.6 |
Between Systems Comparison | ||
---|---|---|
Group 1 | Group 2 | |
Sequence | ||
DT: 1 IVRIE: 2 | DT: 2 IVRIE: 1 | |
Space Categories | p-value | |
Corridor (ft.) | 0.03 * | 0.1 |
Enclosure (ft2) | 0.3 | 0.004 * |
Perception Question | Focused Feature | Answer Option | Population Percentage | p-Value | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Corridor Spaces | CI (95%) Ft | Enclosure Spaces | CI (95%) Ft2 | ||||
Q1 | Direct interaction | 1 | 82% | 0.014 * | (1.9, 2.9) | 0.019 * | (135, 313.5) |
2 | 15% | 0.51 | - | 0.2 | - | ||
3 | 3% | 0.3 | - | 0.9 | - | ||
4 | 0% | - | - | - | - | ||
Q2 | Eye-level view | 1 | 93% | 0.014 * | (2.1, 3.1) | 0.009 * | (140, 298) |
2 | 5% | 0.8 | - | 0.7 | - | ||
3 | 2% | - | - | - | - | ||
4 | 0% | - | - | - | - | ||
Q3 | Full immersion | 1 | 82% | 0.017 * | (2, 3.5) | 0.037 * | (126, 299) |
2 | 18% | 0.2 | - | 0.1 | - | ||
3 | 0% | - | - | - | - | ||
4 | 0% | - | - | - | - | ||
Q4 | Perceived overall system accuracy | DT | 3% | 0.3 | - | 0.2 | - |
IVRIE | 80% | 0.02 * | (1.9, 3.1) | 0.006 * | (132, 309.5) | ||
Both systems | 17% | 0.3 | - | 0.6 | - |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Azarby, S.; Rice, A. Understanding the Effects of Virtual Reality System Usage on Spatial Perception: The Potential Impacts of Immersive Virtual Reality on Spatial Design Decisions. Sustainability 2022, 14, 10326. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610326
Azarby S, Rice A. Understanding the Effects of Virtual Reality System Usage on Spatial Perception: The Potential Impacts of Immersive Virtual Reality on Spatial Design Decisions. Sustainability. 2022; 14(16):10326. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610326
Chicago/Turabian StyleAzarby, Sahand, and Arthur Rice. 2022. "Understanding the Effects of Virtual Reality System Usage on Spatial Perception: The Potential Impacts of Immersive Virtual Reality on Spatial Design Decisions" Sustainability 14, no. 16: 10326. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610326