Side-by-Side Comparison of Human Perception and Performance Using Augmented, Hybrid, and Virtual Reality.

Area of Science:

• Human-Computer Interaction
• Engineering Design
• Cognitive Psychology

Background:

• Engineered space design traditionally uses physical mockups for evaluation.
• Alternative reality (XR) technologies offer potential advantages over physical mockups.
• Differences in human perception and performance across XR modalities are not well-quantified.

Purpose of the Study:

• To quantify and compare human perception and performance across different XR environments and physical mockups.
• To determine which XR technology best simulates physical reality for design evaluation.
• To provide data for selecting appropriate XR modalities in iterative design processes.

Main Methods:

• Subjects performed volumetric assessments and functional task experiments (checklist-based operational tasks).
• Evaluated perception and performance in physical reality, virtual reality, and other XR environments of equal fidelity.
• Compared results across modalities to establish a baseline for human perception and performance.

Main Results:

• Virtual reality (VR) environments demonstrated perception and performance metrics most similar to physical reality.
• Digital XR technologies show varying degrees of fidelity compared to physical mockups.
• Quantifiable differences in perception and performance were identified across XR modalities.

Conclusions:

• VR systems can accelerate the iterative design of engineered spaces while maintaining human perception and performance fidelity.
• Findings guide practitioners in selecting optimal XR technologies for specific design applications.
• This comparative analysis clarifies the advantages and disadvantages of different XR modalities for engineered space design.