Jove
Visualize
Contact Us

Related Concept Videos

Depth Perception and Spatial Vision01:15

Depth Perception and Spatial Vision

745
Depth perception is the ability to perceive objects three-dimensionally. It relies on two types of cues: binocular and monocular. Binocular cues depend on the combination of images from both eyes and how the eyes work together. Since the eyes are in slightly different positions, each eye captures a slightly different image. This disparity between images, known as binocular disparity, helps the brain interpret depth. When the brain compares these images, it determines the distance to an object.
745

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Insights into knowledge evolution based on semantic representation and dynamic visual analytics.

Innovation (Cambridge (Mass.))·2026
Same author

Enhancing User Experience in Virtual Reality Through Optical Flow Simplification with the Help of Physiological Measurements: Pilot Study.

Sensors (Basel, Switzerland)·2026
Same author

Environment Spatial Restitution for Remote Physical AR Collaboration.

IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics·2025
Same author

The Influence of Virtual Forest Walk on Physiological and Psychological Responses.

International journal of environmental research and public health·2021
Same author

Enhancement of Anticipatory Postural Adjustments by Virtual Reality in Older Adults with Cognitive and Motor Deficits: A Randomised Trial.

Geriatrics (Basel, Switzerland)·2021
Same author

Frontal Electroencephalogram Alpha Asymmetry during Mental Stress Related to Workplace Noise.

Sensors (Basel, Switzerland)·2021
Same journal

Virtual reality enhances affective valence and attentional dissociation during exercise but not exercise-induced hypoalgesia.

Virtual reality·2026
Same journal

Beyond flatland: naturalistic three-dimensional stimuli and visual working memory processing.

Virtual reality·2026
Same journal

A grounded study in user preference for immersive sound in extended reality environments.

Virtual reality·2026
Same journal

Cross-modal synchrony between music and visual motion modulates vection, urge to move, and comfort in VR.

Virtual reality·2026
Same journal

XR body illusion for managing pain in fibromyalgia: examining optimal duration.

Virtual reality·2026
Same journal

Stressful urban walks: an experimental design for measuring physiological and psychological stress in virtual urban environments.

Virtual reality·2026
See all related articles
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jul 25, 2025

An Open-Source Virtual Reality System for the Measurement of Spatial Learning in Head-Restrained Mice
08:59

An Open-Source Virtual Reality System for the Measurement of Spatial Learning in Head-Restrained Mice

Published on: March 3, 2023

2.1K

CAVE and HMD: distance perception comparative study.

Théo Combe1, Jean-Rémy Chardonnet1, Frédéric Merienne1

  • 1Arts et Métiers Institute of Technology, LISPEN, HESAM Université, UBFC, F-71100, 2 Rue Thomas Dumorey, 71100 Chalon-sur-Saône, France.

Virtual Reality
|June 26, 2023
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

This study compares user experience with Cave Automatic Virtual Environment (CAVE) and Head-Mounted Display (HMD) systems. HMD weight did not affect distance perception, and both systems showed similar results for short-distance interaction tasks.

Keywords:
CAVEDistance perceptionHMDInteraction paradigmsVirtual reality

More Related Videos

Human Fear Conditioning Conducted in Full Immersion 3-Dimensional Virtual Reality
10:38

Human Fear Conditioning Conducted in Full Immersion 3-Dimensional Virtual Reality

Published on: August 9, 2010

21.0K
Evaluating Usability Aspects of a Mixed Reality Solution for Immersive Analytics in Industry 4.0 Scenarios
06:02

Evaluating Usability Aspects of a Mixed Reality Solution for Immersive Analytics in Industry 4.0 Scenarios

Published on: October 6, 2020

2.3K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jul 25, 2025

An Open-Source Virtual Reality System for the Measurement of Spatial Learning in Head-Restrained Mice
08:59

An Open-Source Virtual Reality System for the Measurement of Spatial Learning in Head-Restrained Mice

Published on: March 3, 2023

2.1K
Human Fear Conditioning Conducted in Full Immersion 3-Dimensional Virtual Reality
10:38

Human Fear Conditioning Conducted in Full Immersion 3-Dimensional Virtual Reality

Published on: August 9, 2010

21.0K
Evaluating Usability Aspects of a Mixed Reality Solution for Immersive Analytics in Industry 4.0 Scenarios
06:02

Evaluating Usability Aspects of a Mixed Reality Solution for Immersive Analytics in Industry 4.0 Scenarios

Published on: October 6, 2020

2.3K

Area of Science:

  • Virtual Reality
  • Human-Computer Interaction
  • Immersive Technologies

Background:

  • Comparative studies on user experience with different immersive devices are lacking.
  • Cave Automatic Virtual Environment (CAVE) and Head-Mounted Display (HMD) are prominent virtual reality technologies.
  • Understanding user experience differences is crucial for designing effective immersive applications.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare user experience between CAVE and HMD systems.
  • To investigate the impact of device type on visualization and interaction.
  • To analyze differences in distance perception between CAVE and HMD.

Main Methods:

  • Two experiments were conducted using CAVE and HMD systems.
  • Experiment 1 assessed distance perception during walking, considering HMD weight.
  • Experiment 2 evaluated distance perception in short-distance interaction tasks.

Main Results:

  • HMD weight did not significantly impact distance perception over distances greater than three meters.
  • Both CAVE and HMD systems resulted in significant underestimation of distances.
  • No significant differences in distance perception were found between CAVE and HMD systems for short-distance interaction.

Conclusions:

  • HMD weight is not a significant factor for distance perception in walking tasks beyond three meters.
  • User experience regarding distance perception is comparable between CAVE and HMD systems.
  • This research contributes to understanding the nuances of user experience with different immersive virtual reality displays.