Visual information processing of 2D, virtual 3D and real‐world objects marked by theta band responses: Visuospatial processing and cognitive load as a function of modality.
Saved in:
| Title: | Visual information processing of 2D, virtual 3D and real‐world objects marked by theta band responses: Visuospatial processing and cognitive load as a function of modality. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Kisker, Joanna (AUTHOR), Johnsdorf, Marike (AUTHOR), Sagehorn, Merle (AUTHOR), Hofmann, Thomas (AUTHOR), Gruber, Thomas (AUTHOR), Schöne, Benjamin (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | European Journal of Neuroscience. Jan2025, Vol. 61 Issue 1, p1-19. 19p. |
| Subjects: | Virtual reality, Cognitive load, Image processing, Three-dimensional modeling, Sensory perception, Mental rotation, Theta rhythm |
| Abstract: | While pictures share global similarities with the real‐world objects they depict, the latter have unique characteristics going beyond 2D representations. Due to its three‐dimensional presentation mode, Virtual Reality (VR) is increasingly used to further approach real‐world visual processing, yet it remains unresolved to what extent VR yields process comparable to real‐world processes. Consequently, our study examined visuospatial processing by a triangular comparison of 2D objects, virtual 3D objects and real 3D objects. The theta band response (TBR) was analysed as an electrophysiological correlate of visual processing, allowing for the differentiation of predominantly stimulus‐driven processes mirrored in the evoked response and internal, complex processing reflected in the induced response. Our results indicate that the differences between conditions driven by sensory features go beyond a binary division into 2D and 3D materials but are based on further sensory features: The evoked posterior TBR differentiated between all conditions but revealed fewer differences between processing of real‐world and VR objects. Moreover, the induced midfrontal TBR indicated higher cognitive load for 2D objects compared to VR and real‐world objects, while no difference between both latter conditions was revealed. In conclusion, our results demonstrate that the transferability of 2D‐ and VR‐based findings to real‐world processes depends to some degree on whether predominantly sensory stimulus features or higher cognitive processes are examined. Yet although VR and real‐world processes are not to be equated based on our results, their comparison yielded fewer significant differences relative to the PC condition, advising the use of VR to examine visuospatial processing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of European Journal of Neuroscience is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | While pictures share global similarities with the real‐world objects they depict, the latter have unique characteristics going beyond 2D representations. Due to its three‐dimensional presentation mode, Virtual Reality (VR) is increasingly used to further approach real‐world visual processing, yet it remains unresolved to what extent VR yields process comparable to real‐world processes. Consequently, our study examined visuospatial processing by a triangular comparison of 2D objects, virtual 3D objects and real 3D objects. The theta band response (TBR) was analysed as an electrophysiological correlate of visual processing, allowing for the differentiation of predominantly stimulus‐driven processes mirrored in the evoked response and internal, complex processing reflected in the induced response. Our results indicate that the differences between conditions driven by sensory features go beyond a binary division into 2D and 3D materials but are based on further sensory features: The evoked posterior TBR differentiated between all conditions but revealed fewer differences between processing of real‐world and VR objects. Moreover, the induced midfrontal TBR indicated higher cognitive load for 2D objects compared to VR and real‐world objects, while no difference between both latter conditions was revealed. In conclusion, our results demonstrate that the transferability of 2D‐ and VR‐based findings to real‐world processes depends to some degree on whether predominantly sensory stimulus features or higher cognitive processes are examined. Yet although VR and real‐world processes are not to be equated based on our results, their comparison yielded fewer significant differences relative to the PC condition, advising the use of VR to examine visuospatial processing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 0953816X |
| DOI: | 10.1111/ejn.16634 |
