Henry B - Human Interface Technology Laboratory - University of ...

FOV may also influence spatial awareness in VEs. Witmar, Bailely, and Knerr (1994) reported that
when subjects moved through a VE, limited FOV could cause frequent collisions with walls and
doorways. Subjects apparently failed to detect VE features such as intersections between the walls and
floor, etc. Kline and Witmer (1996) found that distance estimates were also affected by FOV. They tested
12 different viewing distances in a VE (1-12 feet). Subjects overestimated distances when presented with
a narrow FOV (60º X 38.5º) and underestimated the same distances with a wide FOV (140º X 90º).
Limited FOV interfered with development of spatial knowledge and increased navigational difficulties
(Alfano and Michel, 1990). McCreary and Williges (1998) reported that when using an HMD, larger
FOVs resulted in greater route and configuration knowledge while landmark knowledge was not
significantly changed. Kenyon and Kneller (1993) examined a visual nulling task at five different FOVs
(10º, 20º, 40º, 80º and 120º). They found that subjects’ minimum RMS error occurred at 80º, not 120º.
Also subjects reported greater task difficulty at the 120º FOV than at 80º. They suggested that subjects
experienced stronger vection at the 120º FOV, making the nulling task more difficult.
1.3 Image Resolution
Pausch, Crea and Conway (1992) suggested that display FOV is only one of several factors that may