Skip to main content
Log in

Sharing spatial information in a virtual environment: How do visual cues and configuration influence spatial coding and mental workload?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Virtual Reality Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

When sharing virtual collaborative environments, operators exchange spatial statements that refer to the objects’ positions in the virtual space. If operators are to understand each other, they need to develop a common spatial frame of reference and then choose a space coding to describe the objects’ positions. In this paper, we consider how the content of a virtual environment can influence communication between users. We designed two studies in which one participant (the speaker) had to indicate the position of one object to another participant (the addressee). The virtual environment was sometimes enriched by additional (proximal and distal) visual cues. In study 1, we considered statements production. We observed that the speakers most often used the avatar of their partner as a spatial reference to indicate a localization in the virtual space (i.e., Addressee-Centered coding) despite it increases their mental workload. Nevertheless, in complex situations, they also used distal cues to speak to the addressees (i.e., Exocentric coding of the space). In study 2, we considered statements comprehension. Addressee-Centered coding and Exocentric coding were used by the speakers in various spatial configurations to indicate the object position. We observed that Exocentric coding is the most difficult to manage for the addressee. These results indicate that speakers implemented the principle of less collaborative effort by adopting a way of exchanging information based on an asymmetrical cognitive cost, taking into consideration each other’s difficulties. This allows a balanced mental workload to be maintained between the two operators throughout the task.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bryant DJ, Tversky B (1999) Mental representations of spatial relations from diagrams and models. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 25:137–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryant DJ, Wright WG (1999) How body asymmetries determine accessibility in spatial frameworks. Q J Exp Psychol A 52(2):487–508

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cegarra J, Morgado N (2009) Étude des propriétés de la version francophone du NASA-TLX. In: Cahour B, Anceaux F, Giboin A (eds) EPIQUE 2009: 5ème Colloque de Psychologie Ergonomique. Nice, France, pp 233–239

    Google Scholar 

  • Chellali A, Milleville-Pennel I, Dumas C (2013) Influence of contextual objects on spatial interactions and viewpoints sharing in virtual environments. Virtual Real J 17(1):1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark HH, Brennan SE (1991) Grounding in communication. In: Resnick LB, Levine J, Teasley SD (eds) Perspectives on socially shared cognition. APA, Washington D.C, pp 127–149

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Clark HH, Wilkes-Gibbs D (1986) Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition 22(1):1–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duran ND, Dale R, Kreuz RJ (2011) Listeners invest in an assumed other’s perspective despite cognitive cost. Cognition 121:22–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duran N, Dale R, Galati A (2016) Toward integrative dynamic models for adaptive perspective taking. Top Cognit Sci 8:761–779

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galati A, Avraamides MN (2015) Social and representational cues jointly influence spatial perspective-taking. Cognit Sci 39:739–765. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaver WW, Sellen A, Heath C, Luff P (1993) One is not enough: multiple views in a media space. In: Proceedings of INTERCHI, pp 335–341

  • Hegarty M, Richardson AE, Montello DR, Lovelace K, Subbiah I (2002) Development of a self-report measure of environmental spatial ability. Intelligence 30:425–447

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heldal I, Tromp J (2006) The usability of collaborative virtual environments and methods for the analysis of interaction. Presence J Teleoper Virtual Environ 15(6):655–667

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heldal I, Spante M, Steed A, Bengstoon S (2005) Successes and failures in co-present situations. Presence J Teleoper Virtual Environ 14(5):563–579

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hindmarsh J, Fraser M, Heath C, Benford S, Greenhalg C (1998) Fragmented interaction: establishing mutual orientation in virtual environments. In: CSCW’98, pp 217–226

  • Hoc JM (2001) Towards a cognitive approach to human–machine cooperation in dynamic situations. Int J Hum Comput Stud 54:509–540. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.2000.0454

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNamara TP (2003) How are the locations of objects in the environment represented in memory? In: Freksa C, Brauer W, Habel C, Wender KF (eds) Spatial cognition III. Spatial cognition 2002. Lecture notes in computer science (Lecture notes in artificial intelligence), vol 2685. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Michelon P, Zacks JM (2006) Two kinds of visual perspective taking. Percept Psychophys 68:327–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mou W, McNamara TP, Rump B, Xiao C (2006) Roles of egocentric and allocentric spatial representations in locomotion and reorientation. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 32:1274–1290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pouliquen-Lardy L, Mars F, Guillaume F, Milleville-Pennel I (2015) Virtual collaboration: effect of spatial configuration on spatial statements production. Cognit Process 16:S337–S342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pouliquen-Lardy L, Milleville-Pennel I, Guillaume F, Mars F (2016) Effect of role distribution on the common spatial frame of reference in a remote collaborative task. Virtual Real 20(4):213–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-016-0294-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spante M, Schroeder R, Axelsson A-S, Christie M (2004) How putting yourself into the other persons virtual shoes enhances collaboration. In: Proceeding of the 7th international workshop on presence, Valencia, Spain, pp 190–196

  • Tversky B, Hard BM (2009) Embodied and disembodied cognition: spatial perspective-taking. Cognition 110:124–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.10.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vandenberg SG, Kuse AR (1978) Mental rotations, a group test of three-dimensional spatial visualization. Percept Mot Skills 47:599–601

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Isabelle Milleville-Pennel.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Milleville-Pennel, I., Mars, F. & Pouliquen-Lardy, L. Sharing spatial information in a virtual environment: How do visual cues and configuration influence spatial coding and mental workload?. Virtual Reality 24, 695–712 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-020-00430-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-020-00430-0

Keywords

Navigation