Technical Report 1214 

Training Wayfinding: Natural Movement 

in Mixed Reality 

Ruthann Savage 

University of Central Florida 

Consortium Research Fellows Program 

 

October 2007 

 

 United States Army Research Institute 

 for the Behavioral and Social Sciences 

 Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 
U.S. Army Research Institute 

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences 

A Directorate of the Department of the Army 

Deputy Chief of Staff, G1 

Authorized and approved for distribution: 

 BARBARA A. BLACK, Ph.D. MICHELLE SAMS, PhD. 

Research Program Manager Director 

Training and Leader Development 

Technical review by 

James Belanich, U.S. Army Research Institute 

Christian Jerome. U.S. Army Research Institute 

 

NOTICES 

DISTRIBUTION: Primary distribution of this Technical Report has been made by ARI. 

Please address correspondence concerning distribution of reports to: U.S. Army 

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, Attn: DAPE-ARI-MS, 2511 

Jefferson Davis highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3926. 

FINAL DISPOSITION: This Technical Report may be destroyed when it is no longer 

needed. Please do not return it to the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral 

and Social Sciences. 

NOTE: The findings in this Technical Report are not to be construed as an official 

Department of the Army position, unless so designated by other authorized documents. 

 
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE 

1. REPORT DATE (dd-mm-yy) 2. REPORT TYPE

Final 

3. DATES COVERED (from. . . to) 

 October 2007 January 2005-August 2006 

5a. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER 

 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Training Wayfinding; Natural Movement in Mixed Reality 

5b. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 

2O262785

5c. PROJECT NUMBER 

A790 

6. AUTHOR(S) 

Ruthann Savage (University of Central Florida) 

5d. TASK NUMBER 233 

5e. WORK UNIT NUMBER 

 H01 

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER 

U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral & Social Sciences 

ATTN: DAPE-ARI-IF 

12350 Research Parkway 

Orlando, FL 32826-3276 

10. MONITOR ACRONYM 

 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 

U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral & Social 

Sciences 

2511 Jefferson Davis Highway 11. MONITOR REPORT NUMBER 

Arlington, VA 22202-3926 Technical Report 1214 

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 

 Subject Matter POC: Ruthann Savage

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words): 

This report describes an experiment that investigated a prototype mixed reality (MR) system, utilizing the Battlefield 

Augmented Reality System (BARS), for training wayfinding. BARS is a mobile augmented reality system that uses a 

head mounted display (HMD) and a wireless system that tracks the users’ head position and orientation. In this 

application a graphic representation of an office space was used as a virtual environment (VE), through which users 

walked using natural movement. Sixty participants in three rehearsal conditions - drawing the route on a map, 

actual physical space, and MR – were trained to traverse a path through a complex area as quickly and accurately 

as possible. Transfer of training measures included route knowledge (time to complete the route and the number of 

errors committed) and survey knowledge (the ability to orient oneself to the environment and identify the location of 

the beginning and end of the route). MR participants performed as well as those who rehearsed by drawing the 

route on a map, in both route and survey knowledge, but not as well as those who rehearsed in the actual space, 

without reporting symptoms of simulator sickness, common to work in VE. The addition of natural movement to a VE 

may enhance training through proprioceptive feedback. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS 

virtual environment, mixed reality, augmented reality, BARS, simulator sickness, mission rehearsal, training 

 SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF 19. LIMITATION OF 21. RESPONSIBLE PERSON

ABSTRACT

20. NUMBER 

OF PAGES

16. REPORT 17. ABSTRACT 18. THIS PAGE Ellen Kinzer 

Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified Unlimited 65 Technical Publication Specialist 

(703) 602-8047 

 Standard Form 298 

i
ii 
Technical Report 1214 

Training Wayfinding: Natural Movement 

in Mixed Reality 

Ruthann Savage 

University of Central Florida 

Consortium Research Fellows Program 

Simulator Systems Research Unit 

Stephen L. Goldberg, Chief 

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences 

2511 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3926 

October 2007 

Army Project Number Personnel Performance 

622785A790 and Training Technology 

 iii
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

This experiment could not have been accomplished without the involvement and 

dedication of a number of people. Dr. Bruce Knerr and Dr. Bob Witmer, my mentors at the U.S. 

Army Research Institute were directly responsible for giving me this project, with the confidence 

that I would be able to accomplish a study that would be useful to the U.S. Army training 

mission. Mr. Glenn Martin and Mr. Jason Daley produced the amazingly realistic 3 dimensional 

computer model of the fourth floor of the Partnership II building, and were patient with my 

requests for tweaks, and training on the computer systems. Dr. Sherrie Jones, of the U.S. Marine 

Corps Program Manager, Training Systems, made sure the secured space was accessible anytime 

I needed it during the week, while Colonel Robert Parrish of the USMC Reserves was my escort 

on weekends. Mr. Kevin Oden assisted in running all 60 participants through this experiment, 

and I am truly grateful for his upbeat, positive attitude. The members of my committee deserve 

my special thanks for the time they spent reviewing and providing advice on my work, to be sure 

I was communicating as clearly as possible what I meant to communicate. Thank you, Dr. 

Valerie Gawron, Dr. Stephen Goldberg, Dr. Mustafa Mouloua, and Dr. Valerie Sims. My 

deepest thanks are to Dr. Richard Gilson who believed in me from the start, and stayed with me 

throughout. 

 

iv 
TRAINING WAYFINDING: NATURAL MOVEMENT IN MIXED REALITY 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Research Requirement: 

The U.S. Army needs a distributed training environment that can be accessed whenever 

and wherever required for training and mission rehearsal. This report describes an exploratory 

experiment designed to investigate the effectiveness of a prototype of such a system in training a 

navigation task. 

Procedure: 

A wearable computer, acoustic tracking system, and see-through head mounted display 

(HMD) were used to wirelessly track users’ head position and orientation while presenting a 

graphic representation of their virtual surroundings, through which they walked using natural 

movement. Sixty participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: route drawing 

on a printed floor plan, rehearsal in the actual facility, and rehearsal in a mixed reality (MR) 

environment. Participants studied verbal directions of route, then performed three rehearsals of 

the route, with those in the map condition drawing it onto three separate printed floor plans, 

those in the practice condition walking through the actual facility, and those in the MR condition 

walking through a three dimensional virtual environment (VE), with landmarks, waypoints and 

virtual footprints. A scaling factor was used, with each step in the MR environment equal to 

three steps in the real environment, with the MR environment also broken into “tiles”, like pages 

in an atlas, through which participant progressed, entering each tile in succession until they 

completed the entire route. 

Findings: 

A transfer of training test that consisted of a timed traversal of the route through the 

actual facility showed a significant difference in route knowledge based on the total time to 

complete the route and the number of errors committed while doing so, with “walkers” 

performing better than participants in the paper map or MR condition, although the effect was 

weak. Survey knowledge showed little difference among the three rehearsal conditions. Three 

standardized tests of spatial abilities did not correlate with route traversal time, or errors, or with 

3 of the 4 orientation localization tasks. Within the MR rehearsal condition there was a clear 

performance improvement over the three rehearsal trials as measured by the time required to 

complete the route in the MR environment which was accepted as an indication that learning 

occurred. As measured using the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire, there were no incidents of 

simulator sickness in the MR environment. 

 v
Utilization and Dissemination of Findings: 

Rehearsal in the actual facility was the most effective training condition; however, it is 

often not practical for mission rehearsal. Performance between participants in the other two 

conditions were indistinguishable, and continued experimentation should include the combined 

effect of paper map rehearsal with MR, especially as it is likely to be the more realistic case for 

mission rehearsal. Additional future research should also be conducted to compare the effects of 

different scaling and tiling factors for different environments and tasks. Future research might 

also include a direct comparison between this MR, and a VE system through which users move 

by manipulating an input device such as a mouse or joystick, while physically remaining 

stationary. 

vi 
TRAINING WAYFINDING: NATURAL MOVEMENT IN MIXED REALITY 

CONTENTS 

 Page 

INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 

LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................................2 

METHOD ........................................................................................................................................5 

 Participants...........................................................................................................................5 

 Equipment and Materials .....................................................................................................5 

 Hardware..................................................................................................................6 

 Software ...................................................................................................................8 

 Model .......................................................................................................................9

 Tests of Spatial Abilities....................................................................................................10 

 Questionnaires....................................................................................................................11 

 Experimental Design..........................................................................................................12 

 Research Questions................................................................................................12 

 Task and Procedure................................................................................................12 

RESULTS ................................................................................................................................16 

 Description of Variables and Measures .............................................................................16 

 Effectiveness of MR on Performance Measures................................................................16 

 Route Knowledge...................................................................................................16 

 Survey Knowledge.................................................................................................17 

 Comparison of Spatial Abilities Tests to Performance Measures .....................................17 

 Route Knowledge...................................................................................................18 

 Survey Knowledge.................................................................................................18 

 Learning in Mixed Reality.................................................................................................19 

 MR and Simulator Sickness...............................................................................................21 

DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................23 

REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................27 

APPENDIX A List of Acronyms............................................................................................... A-1 

APPENDIX B Floor Plan: Route, Landmarks, and Localization................................................B-1 

APPENDIX C Orientation Localization......................................................................................C-1 

APPENDIX D Floor Plan used for Paper Map Rehearsal.......................................................... D-1 

vii 
CONTENTS (continued) 

APPENDIX E Experimental Scripts and Procedures ..................................................................E-1 

APPENDIX F Demographics Questionnaire...............................................................................F-1 

APPENDIX G Route Directions for Memorization ................................................................... G-1 

LIST OF TABLES 

TABLE 1. SITUATIONAL DATA TAKEN FROM QUESTION 15 OF MOTION HISTORY 

 QUESTIONNAIRE ....................................................................................................11 

TABLE 2. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR TRAVERSAL ERRORS ...................................16 

TABLE 3. POST HOC WITH SCHEFFE ADJUSTMENT FOR TRAVERSAL ERRORS.......16 

TABLE 4. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR TIME TO COMPLETE ROUTE.......................17 

TABLE 5. POST HOC WITH SCHEFFE ADJUSTMENT FOR TIME TO COMPLETE.........17 

TABLE 6. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF SPATIAL ABILITIES TESTS ...........................17 

TABLE 7. CORRELATION OF SPATIAL ABILITIES TESTS AND ROUTE 

 KNOWLEDGE...........................................................................................................18 

TABLE 8. CORRELATION BETWEEN SPATIAL ABILITIES AND SURVEY 

 KNOWLEDGE PERFORMANCE ............................................................................18 

TABLE 9. ANOVA FOR TIME SPENT IN EACH TILE OVER 3 TRIALS.............................20 

TABLE 10. MEANS OF THREE REHEARSAL TRIAL TIMES BY TILE ..............................21 

TABLE 11. ANOVA POST TEST SSQ (W) INVENTORY.......................................................22 

TABLE 12. ANOVA POST TEST SSQ (R) INVENTORY........................................................22 

LIST OF FIGURES 

FIGURE 1. MR REHEARSAL SPACE AND EXPERIMENTER WORKSTATION .................6 

FIGURE 2. QUANTUM3D THERMITE TACTICAL VISUAL COMPUTER ...........................7 

FIGURE 3. SONY GLASSTRON HEAD MOUNTED DISPLAY...............................................7 

viii 
 CONTENTS (continued) 

FIGURE 4. INTERSENSE IS-900 VET BASE STATION ...........................................................8 

FIGURE 5. INTERSENSE WIRELESS UNIT..............................................................................8 

FIGURE 6. MOVING BETWEEN TWO SECTIONS OF THE ROUTE ...................................10 

FIGURE 7. MODEL DIAGRAM SHOWING TILES, TILE COORDINATES AND ROUTE .20 

FIGURE B 1. DIAGRAM OF ENVIRONMENT SHOWING ALL INFORMATION. ..........B-1 

FIGURE C 1. ORIENTATION LOCALIZATION....................................................C-2 

FIGURE D 1. FLOOR PLAN USED FOR PAPER MAP REHEARSAL................................ D-1 

ix 
 x
TRAINING WAYFINDING: NATURAL MOVEMENT IN MIXED REALITY 

INTRODUCTION 

About thirty years ago, during training in map reading, a U.S. Army basic trainee listened 

as a drill sergeant instructed the class on map folding and layout, with the caution to keep oneself 

oriented by always knowing where north was in relationship to the trainee’s position. If a trainee 

found themselves to be so disoriented that they were unable to locate any of the cardinal 

directions, they were told to “shake a tree, and watch it move on the map”. Since the entire class 

of trainees was very nervous, earnest, and intent on learning map-reading skills, this joke 

experienced a very flat landing. Now, however, the shake-a-tree method of orientation may have 

applicability while using training systems with displays of virtual environments (VEs). 

The U.S. Army has a continuing need for training, from basic training of new recruits 

through mission rehearsals, which provides immediate feedback on specific skills, tactics and 

strategies. The use of simulation technologies provides the opportunity to train in realistic 

environments without the associated expense of creating physical replications of environments of 

interest. Mixed reality (MR) technology, in this case providing a three dimensional VE through 

which the user may walk as if in the actual space, has the potential to provide not only a 

simulated environment in which to train, but to do so while being mobile. MR has an advantage 

over an immersive VE in that the Soldier trainee can physically move through the simulated 

environment using natural movements with less computer equipment than that required to 

generate a VE. 

The system used in this experiment to present the MR was the Battlefield Augmented 

Reality System (BARS), developed by the Naval Research Laboratory in collaboration with 

Columbia University. The intended use for BARS is to provide the wearer with information 

about their surroundings by presenting data from a central command center to the head mounted 

display (HMD), through which the wearer sees the real world augmented with labels and or 

graphics. For example, a vehicle driver might have a route laid onto an austere environment 

where there are few or no landmarks to provide orientation or guidance. Dismounted infantry 

could be provided information about the location of enemy combatants that has been gathered 

using unoccupied aerial vehicles, and transmitted to them through a command center. BARS has 

been demonstrated to be compatible with both indoor tracking systems and global positioning 

system (GPS) technology, providing an opportunity for outdoor use. 

The potential training applications of MR, as presented using BARS or a similar system, 

are numerous, once the system has been demonstrated to be an effective tool in a specific 

training task. This experiment is an exploratory study, designed to consider the utility of using 

MR technology in the training of wayfinding, a basic skill required of all Soldiers, and one that 

has been used in previous experiments concerned with the effectiveness of training systems. 

1
LITERATURE REVIEW 

Among the potential benefits of training for dismounted infantry using VE identified by 

Nemire (1998) is that it gives users the opportunity to interact with the environment in real time. 

These multisensory experiences enable the conduct of mission planning and rehearsal exercises 

on simulated battlefields, providing a level of spatial awareness that is not available with other 

training media, while minimizing risk to personnel, equipment and the environment. 

The use of MR in training should provide the same benefits as VE, while in addition 

providing the added benefit of the mobility of the technology, its smaller footprint, and reduced 

programming requirements. Specifically, MR may be useful as a mission rehearsal tool in a 

theater of operations by providing a tailored rehearsal space created based on information 

acquired through multiple sources such as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) reconnaissance, 

global positioning systems (GPS), topological maps, city plans, and building plans. 

In their discussion concerning the use of augmented reality (AR) in military operations in 

urban terrain (MOUT), Livingston, Brown, Gabbard, Rosenblum, Yohan, Julier, Swan and Hix 

(2002) saw BARS as a possible source for embedded training for dismounted warriors. They 

were interested in how BARS might impact training at three levels: “as a means to blend 

synthetic and live forces; as a means to provide ‘training wheels’ to show trainees critical 

information; and as a tool to assist trainers in constructing and operation a training scenario” 

(Livingston, et al., 2002, p. 7). Given the typical size and barrenness of a current MOUT facility, 

BARS was suggested as a tool to add detail to the buildings, as well as to expand the size of the 

facility virtually, by showing the trainee additional streets and buildings through the BARS 

HMD. In addition to building features, BARS was considered a potential source for the insertion 

of synthetic forces, or even live forces from a different MOUT site. The “training wheels” 

feature of BARS was anticipated to be helpful in identifying critical situations and providing 

feedback about what had occurred during the training session. Finally, trainers could use BARS 

to monitor the whereabouts of trainees that were not physically visible, or they could make 

training scenarios more compelling and difficult. 

 

BARS and the closely related Mobile Augmented Reality System (MARS) have been 

demonstrated to successfully augment real world scenes, both indoors under a tracking system 

and outdoors using GPS systems for location data (Columbia University, 2004). Moreover, the 

computer hardware requirements to produce an AR environment are less demanding than those 

required to produce a VR environment. The reduced programming requirements for MR, the fact 

that MR systems can be wearable, and the fact that human can move using natural movement, 

providing kinesthetic cues not available in maps (Arthur and Hancock, 2001), may make it 

preferable to VR for training and mission rehearsal. 

If MR is as good as or better than traditional training, it is possible that further 

development efforts for MR as a training tool would be recommended. One step in determining 

the feasibility of using MR as a mission rehearsal tool is to compare its effectiveness in training 

navigation skills. 

VE has the potential to be as effective for spatial learning as exploration of a real world 

environment (Arthur and Hancock 2001). While congruency between VE and the real world 

2
may be a concern given scaling issues, the relative relationships of objects and distances between 

them should accurately transfer from one environment to the other when evaluating transfer of 

training. Banker (1997) compared three types of navigation training: map study, VE combined 

with map study, and study in the actual environment, and found that the participants’ 

navigational ability had more of an effect on performance than the training condition. However, 

within the treatment groups those with intermediate navigational skills benefited the most from 

exposure to VE. Beginners appeared to be overloaded with information, while experienced 

navigators used the VE to pinpoint specific locations or waypoints. This study has some minor 

limitations (e.g., small sample size), but navigation training in VE may still be advantageous 

over study of a paper map alone in many situations. 

The complexity of the environment and path to traverse may make a difference in the 

effectiveness of VE as a training tool. Schlender, Peters, and Wienhofer (2002) randomly 

assigned participants to one of five conditions in a desktop VE: having a map available during 

the entire test, only able to view the map prior to the start of the test, having textual information 

available throughout the test or only prior to the start of the test, and finally, no additional 

navigational cues. Overall, having some information available during the test was more effective 

than having the information available only before the start of the test. 

Darken and Sibert (1993) used information about how both birds and humans use real 

world information, map design, cognitive mapping principles, and how cartographers and 

planners may use those data, to select tools to facilitate navigating a simple VE. They found they 

could make some general conclusions about people’s predictable use of environmental cues 

based on the small sample set that they studied. Cues, especially cues that are static and can be 

seen from anywhere within the environment, are used to divide up a space that is being searched, 

and to maintain directional relationships. Multi-modal combinations of cues, e.g. auditory and 

visual, can make targets easier to find. The ability to "fly" over an environment in VE is a tool 

that allows users the opportunity to store a "bird’s eye view" of the environment, which is likely 

to change how they explore or navigate through that environment. Thus the tool an individual 

uses makes a difference in their behavior and in task performance. Darken and Sibert (1993) 

concluded that because their navigational tasks were 2D and performed on a 2D surface, 

cartographers’ design guidelines could be used to extend characteristics of the real world to the 

virtual world. This led them to suppose that if they had included a 3D task in their study that 

their 2D maps might have been less helpful. 

There are generally three types of knowledge about an environment: landmark 

knowledge, which is based on information about noticeable objects in an area; route knowledge, 

which is ego-referenced and acquired by personal travel through an area; and survey knowledge, 

which is exocentric and acquired through map memorization or exploration of an area using 

different routes. Using route knowledge allows one to successfully move from one known point 

to another known point along a specific route using landmarks and waypoints, but it doesn't 

allow for deviations from the route. Route knowledge allows one to know the approximate 

distance between landmarks along the route traveled. Route knowledge is formed by sequential 

travel, which results in better recall when provided in the direction the route was learned, as well 

as the ability to give directions to guide someone else along the path (Allen & Kirasic, 1985). 

3
Route knowledge does not allow for the creation of short cuts or alternate routes through an 

environment. 

Survey knowledge is typically acquired through multiple explorations of an environment 

while using different routes, through map learning, or from textual information about the 

environment. It is characterized by the ability to take an exocentric viewpoint which is then 

utilized in developing a mental representation of an area as seen from a birds’ eye point of view. 

This mental representation of a physical map is often referred to as a cognitive map (Goldin & 

Thorndyke, 1982). Survey knowledge built on personal experience gained through exploration 

of an area is a primary experience (Presson & Hazelrigg, 1984), while survey knowledge that is 

built through the study of maps or pictures is considered a secondary experience (Goldin & 

Thorndyke, 1982; Thorndyke & Hayes-Roth, 1982). Some studies indicate that learning survey 

data from paper maps is inferior to that learned through exploring the area (Presson & Hazelrigg, 

1984; Scholl 1993), which is based on the orientation and location of landmarks. Having both 

route and survey knowledge results in complete navigational knowledge, where the distances 

between, and location of, landmarks are known and routes can be inferred even though they have 

not been traveled before. 

This experiment compared the effectiveness of paper map based rehearsal, physical route 

rehearsal, and route rehearsal in an MR environment in achieving an acceptable level of 

proficiency. This was performed in a manner similar to Witmer et al. (1996), in which training 

based on rehearsal of the actual route was compared to training based on rehearsal of the route in 

a VE. Prior to their experiment there had been only a small number of studies conducted that 

examined training accomplished in VE, with initial work investigating how performance 

improved with practice but not how the training affected performance in real world settings. 

Resolution of detail and reduced fields of view were seen as having direct impact on the ability 

to use VE in training because of the resulting distance discrimination and spatial distortion issues 

inherent to the display devices available at that time. Locomotion was another factor that 

Witmer et al. considered, identifying a lack of proprioceptive feedback in VE as a situation that 

could cause difficulty in estimating distance traveled, as well as lead to symptoms of simulator 

sickness such as nausea, dizziness or eyestrain. 

Perceived personal abilities in navigation (Cevik, 1998; Banker, 1997) and/or spatial 

orientation were thought to have an effect on participants’ motivation and effort in learning the 

experimental task. Individual differences in feelings of presence or adverse reactions to 

computer-generated environments, such as motion sickness, were also considered as having a 

potential impact on participants’ acceptance of BARS as a training tool (Bernatovich, 1999; 

Stanney & Salvendy, 1997). An affinity for computers and other technology used in MR 

systems may also be a factor if participants engage in computer-based gaming; therefore data 

was captured on each of these items in addition to participants’ objective performance scores. 

4
METHOD 

Participants 

Participants for this study were 60 volunteers with 20 participants (10 males and 10 

females) randomly assigned to each practice condition. The participants were recruited through 

various on campus communications systems and received compensation in the form of class 

credit or cash in the amount of $20.00. Most participants were undergraduates, 47% of whom 

were in their first year of college and ranged in age from 18-52. The average age was 24, while 

50% were 18 or 19 years old. All participants reported their visual acuity as 20/20, including 

those using corrective lenses. None reported visual color deficiency. Only one participant 

reported being ill within the past week but felt capable of participating as the illness was a 

common cold that was not impairing any cognitive function. 

The number of hours spent each week using a computer ranged from 2 to 60, with a mean 

of 25 and a standard deviation of 13.36. In addition to time spent using a computer, participants 

reported an average of 2.89 hours per week spent playing video games, with a range of 0 to 35 

hours reported. On a scale of one to ten, one being never misoriented and ten meaning they 

always have trouble finding their way around, participants on average rated themselves as five, 

with a range that covered the entire ten-point scale. The largest group of participants indicated 

they used maps on a monthly basis (27 or 45%), while 9 reported map usage at once a year, and 

19 once a week. Five participants reported never using maps. When using a map, 55% (33) 

reported orienting the map with north always “up” or toward the top of the page. 

None of the participants were familiar with the office space used in the study. Each 

participant completed three spatial abilities tests, a survey of motion sickness history, a survey of 

simulator sickness history, and a simulator sickness inventory prior to starting the experimental 

task, and additional simulator sickness inventories at critical points, including the end of their 

practice sessions. Participants were informed that they were permitted to decline to participate at 

any point in the study process without penalty. 

Equipment and Materials 

The route used for this experiment is in a restricted area of the fourth floor of a five story, 

75,000 square foot office building in the Central Florida Research Park, Orlando, FL. The route 

designed for the experiment wound through approximately 7,000 square feet of an area of the 

building made up of cubicle office spaces. Fifteen survey flags were added as landmarks, 4 each 

blue, white and pink, and 3 orange. The cubicle area was situated on the south side of the 

building with a wall of windows on the south side of the space and a dividing walkway on the 

north side that was located in the approximate center of the building. The north side of the 

building was made up of hard-walled offices. The route was designed to be confined to the 

cubicle space except for one segment of the route that entered the walkway. The route included 

19 decision points: 12 turns without redundant coding, that is, only one cue given to identify the 

turn and seven intersections with no direction change. 

5
Clipboards were hung at two specific orientation localization assessment stations along 

the route. Station 1 was located at the approximate center of the route, and Station 2 was located 

in the aisle furthest from the starting point. Participants were instructed to stand facing the 

clipboard, which for station one placed them with their back to the start, while at station two they 

were positioned with both the start and end points in front of them. At neither position, however, 

were the participants able to see these points given the intervening office cubicle walls. Please 

see Appendix B for a diagram of the office space that shows the location of the landmarks and 

the orientation localization stations. Appendix C is a copy of the diagram that was posted at each 

orientation localization station. 

The diagram in Appendix D is a copy of the floor plan that shows the starting point and 

the locations of the survey flags that were used for the three practice trials by the paper map 

condition participants. Participants in the physical route practice condition were moved to the 

fourth floor cubicle space, within which the experimenter had located the survey flag landmarks. 

The participants were led to the starting point from which they traversed the route using the 

directions they had studied. 

To create the interactive VE used in the mixed reality condition, a unique combination of 

hardware, software, and virtual model was used. These components will be detailed in the 

following sections. Figure 1 provides a depiction of the overall configuration of the MR 

rehearsal space. 

Figure 1. MR rehearsal space and experimenter workstation. 

Hardware. The mixed reality condition required a wearable visualization system. The 

system used was the hardware component of the BARS, created by the Naval Research 

Laboratory. The BARS system consists of a Quantum 3D Thermite Tactical Visual Computer 

(TVC) for visual simulation and rendering (Figure 2), paired with a Sony Glasstron HMD 

(Figure 3). The Thermite computer was equipped with a 1GHz Transmeta Crusoe CPU, an 

NVIDIA GeForce 5200 GPU, and 480 MB of RAM. While underpowered for the complexity of 

6
the environment, this configuration was sufficient to render and visualize the VE at interactive 

frame rates of approximately 12 frames per second with latency at 0.02 seconds or less. The 

Glasstron HMD provides a monoscopic binocular view of the environment at 800x600 pixel 

resolution. While the Glasstron is capable of providing an optical see-through display, this 

feature was not used in this work, so the participant saw the virtual image on an opaque screen. 

A wireless keyboard and mouse provided input control to the Thermite. 

 

Figure 2. Quantum3D Thermite tactical visual computer. 

Figure 3. Sony Glasstron HMD. 

A Dell Precision 530n workstation was used as a base station. It was equipped with a 1.5 

GHz Pentium 4 CPU, an NVIDIA GeForce 4 Ti 4800, and 256 MB of RAM. This computer 

functioned as a host for the tracking system and provided the experimenter control, a stealth 

view, of the experimental environment. An InterSense IS-900VET tracking system was used for 

motion tracking (Figure 4). This system uses a hybrid of inertial and acoustic technologies to 

calculate a position and orientation for each sensor worn by the user. In this work, the user wore 

a single wireless motion tracker (Figure 5), mounted on the display visor portion of the HMD, 

thus tracking the position of the user’s head. The signal from the wireless sensor was transmitted 

to the InterSense base station, and the resulting tracking measurements were then sent back to the 

wearable computer via an ad-hoc 802.11b connection. A 10x10 foot area was used under the IS900 sensor strips suspended from the ceiling. The InterSense tracks the participant using six 

degrees of freedom (X, Y, and Z position plus yaw, pitch and roll orientation). 

7
Figure 4. InterSense IS-900 VET base station. 

 

Figure 5. InterSense wireless unit. 

Software. Although the BARS system hardware was used, the BARS software was not. 

The sim

hics 

 addition to the VE visualization capabilities, the software also included a module that 

collecte

he same software in a different configuration was used to drive the experimenter’s 

stealth 

ue to the Thermite’s limited capabilities and the complexity of the VE model, the 

system was not capable of updating at interactive frame rates. This problem was overcome 

ulation software was based on the Virtual Environment Software Sandbox (VESS) 

written by the University of Central Florida Institute for Simulation and Training. This 

particular VESS configuration made use of the Open Scene Graph as an underlying grap

library. VESS adds the capability to drive the InterSense tracking system and convert the 

tracking measurements into motion in the VE.

In

d the experimental data. The user’s position and orientation were captured at 0.1 second 

intervals and the total route traversal time was also captured. Data was collected directly on the 

Thermite wearable computer. 

T

display. Instead of the first-person viewpoint the user was given, the stealth display 

showed the environment from above in a top-down view. An avatar was positioned on the 

display, showing the user’s position and orientation, including the use of the previously 

described footprints. The correct route was drawn as an easy reference for the experimenter. 

D

8
through h 

cause of the 

n 

Design (CAD) designs for the building as a basis. In addition to providing floor plans for the 

buildin

f the 

everal of the CAD furniture models (those with curved surfaces) had a very high 

triangle count. In an effort to improve the frame rate, these heavyweight models were manually 

decima detail. 

e were additional pieces 

of furniture and appliances, such as armchairs, copiers, laser printers, and water fountains, 

position

nd 

evise a way to allow a 10x10 foot tracking area to provide a 

realistic walking interface for a VE that was much larger. This challenge was addressed with 

two tec VE. 

t at a 

t the top of 

the right quadrant and end in the bottom left quadrant. 

 application of a technique known as occlusion culling. The cubicle walls along eac

row, as well as the walls at the ends of each row, were identified as occluders in the 

environment. These occluders were compared with the viewpoint at each update cycle. Any 

geometry that was determined to be behind the occluder surfaces was not drawn. Be

nature of the environment, occlusion culling significantly reduced the number of triangles draw

during each frame, thus helping to bring the simulation’s frame rate up to interactive rates. 

Model. The bulk of the virtual model was created using the original Computer Aided

g and showing where each row of cubicles was positioned, actual 3D cubicle furniture 

was provided in the CAD drawings. The AutoCAD drawings were converted into the 

OpenFlight format used by MultiGen Creator. After converting and assembling the various 

CAD models and creating the remaining building geometry, digital photos were taken o

actual building environment and converted to texture maps. These were then applied to the 

models.

S

ted (by selectively removing or combining triangles) without an appreciable loss of

After this was done, some of them were further decimated to create a lower level of detail that 

was used when the user’s viewpoint was relatively far from the object. 

After the basic environment was complete, it was noted that ther

ed at the ends of the cubicle rows. Since the participants could conceivably use these 

objects as positional cues, the most noticeable objects were modeled using measurements a

digital photos as a reference. When complete, the VE resembled the actual test environment 

with a high degree of fidelity. 

One challenge was to d

hniques. First, the user’s real-world motion was scaled up by a factor of three in the 

This means that one step by the user translated into the equivalent of three steps in the VE. 

However, the VE was still larger than 30x30 feet. To address this, the software included a tiling 

system that allowed the user to move about in a single 30x30 foot section of the environmen

time. When the user moved outside the 10x10 foot tracking area, he or she implicitly left the 

current 30x30 foot tile in the VE. When this happened, the user’s display was blanked, and a 

spotter physically walked the user to the opposite edge of the tracking area. Once repositioned, 

the display was reactivated, and the user was free to move in the next tile of the VE. 

For example, as shown in Figure 6, the route through the first tile might start a

9
Start 2 Start 1 

Figure 6. Moving between two sections of the route. 

As a visual aid, the user left “footprints” in the VE, showing where he or she had already 

walked. The footprints were shown as a texture resembling black shoe impressions drawn on the 

floor wherever he or she had previously been. 

Tests of Spatial Abilities 

Each participant completed three tests of spatial abilities. The first was the Cube 

Comparison test from the Manual for Kit of Factor-Referenced Cognitive Tests, (Ekstrom et al., 

1976), which is intended to measure the participants’ ability to see spatial patterns or maintain 

their own orientation with relation to objects in space. This test, which was based on L.L. 

Thurstone’s work (Ekstrom et al., 1976) on intelligence testing, required the participant to 

compare two cubes and determine if they were the same cube in two orientations or two different 

cubes. 

The second test (known as the Surface Development test) was also from the Manual for 

Kit of Factor-Referenced Cognitive Tests (Ekstrom, et al., 1976) and was intended to measure 

the participants’ ability to mentally manipulate or transform a diagram into another arrangement. 

For this test participants were presented with a drawing of a solid object that could be created by 

folding paper, while next to it was a drawing of an unfolded piece of paper, which might be 

folded to create the solid object. The unfolded diagram had one marking that corresponded to a 

mark on the solid object and several edges of the diagram were numbered. The task was to show 

which of those numbered edges corresponded to the lettered edges of the solid object. 

The third spatial abilities test was the spatial orientation test from the GuilfordZimmerman Aptitude Survey (Guilford, 1948), which was based on work done with aircrew 

members during World War II. The intent of this test is to measure participants’ awareness of 

10
spatial relationships, emphasizing direction of movement by using pictures of boats and 

relationships with the surrounding environment and the visible horizon. Two pictures are 

presented, the second of which shows the result of some change of position, which the 

participant is to describe by choosing among the five options presented. 

Questionnaires 

Participants completed three questionnaires. The first captured demographic information. 

The second, the Motion History Questionnaire (MHQ; RSKA Form MHQ-1, Rev. 5/01; 

Kennedy et al., 2001), captured participants’ past experience with motion sickness. It asked them 

to compare themselves to others by estimating the likelihood of them becoming motion sick in 

situations where various percentages of other people might get motion sick, and asked if they 

would volunteer for an experiment where various percentages of other people did get motion 

sick. A matrix presented on a separate page listed 14 situations in which one would experience 

motion, from aircraft through motorcycles. The participants were asked to list their preference 

for these situations (Like, Neutral or Dislike), and to mark any symptoms they had experienced 

in any of these situations. This was scored as described by Kennedy, et al. with each scale that 

was anchored with a “never” condition scored as 0 points and “always” or “extremely” scored as 

4. Questions with “yes” or “no” answers were scored 1 or 0 respectively. The situations from 

question 15 that were used in the data analyses were scored as 1 if marked by the participants 

and 0 if not marked, and limited to the following, as described by Kennedy et al. (2001). See 

Table 1. 

Table 1. Situational Data Taken from Question 15 of MHQ 

Situation Like Neutral Dislike Vomited Nausea No Symptoms 

Aircraft 1/0 1/0 1/0 1/0 1/0 1/0 

Flight Simulator 1/0 1/0 1/0 1/0 1/0 1/0 

Roller Coaster 1/0 1/0 1/0 1/0 1/0 1/0 

Other Carnival Device 1/0 1/0 1/0 1/0 1/0 1/0 

Long train or bus trip N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1/0 

TOTAL 0-4 0-4 0-4 0-4 0-4 0-5 

The Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ), also developed by Kennedy (Kennedy et 

al., 1992), was used as a screening tool to be certain that participants were not experiencing any 

symptoms of illness that might cause them to experience simulator sickness while in the MR 

environment, and as a monitoring tool throughout the rehearsal and transfer of training testing. 

The SSQ is a checklist of 16 symptoms, which are scored on the basis of the participants' 

experience of the degree of severity of each symptom (none, slight, moderate, severe, scored as 

0, 1, 2, and 3, respectively). A weighted scoring procedure is used to obtain the global score 

intended to reflect the overall discomfort, or Total Severity (TS), in addition to three subscales 

representing separable dimensions of simulator sickness (i.e., nausea, oculomotor disturbances, 

and disorientation). Score values were calculated using both the original unit weighting 

procedure as described by Kennedy et al. (1992), and an un-weighted procedure used by Knerr et 

al. (1998). The SSQ was administered to participants upon arrival, after each MR training 

session, and prior to departure from the experimental area. 

11
Experimental Design 

Research Questions. The consideration of a MR environment as a training system 

generated a series of research questions, some of which have to do with the effectiveness of such 

a training tool as measured through transfer of training testing, while others are concerned with 

the experience of the individuals interacting with the MR including the possible occurrence of 

simulator sickness. The major questions were as follows:

1. How does the effectiveness of rehearsing a wayfinding task using MR compare with 

that of drawing a route on a floor plan (a paper map) or rehearsal in the actual test environment 

in terms of route and or survey knowledge? 

2. Are spatial abilities test scores (Cube Comparison, and Surface Development from the 

Manual for Kit of Factor-Referenced Cognitive Tests, (Ekstrom et al., 1976), and the GuilfordZimmerman Aptitude Survey test of spatial orientation (Guilford, 1948)) correlated with 

participants’ performance on the three performance measurement tasks of time to traverse the 

learned route, number of errors committed in the timed trial of route traversal, and the ability to 

be oriented enough to locate the position of the beginning and ending of the route from two 

separate locations along the route? 

3. Is rehearsal of route traversal in the mixed reality environment successful as a training 

tool as evidenced by the improved performance, measured by decreased total time for each 

successive trial in the mixed reality environment? 

4. Will participation in route rehearsal in the MR environment cause greater 

symptomology of simulator sickness than in the non-MR environments? 

 

Task and Procedure. The experimental task was to train participants through the use of 

three different rehearsal conditions to traverse a specific path through a complex area as quickly 

and accurately as possible, while also demonstrating an exocentric, or survey knowledge of the 

surrounding environment. A direct comparison between the three rehearsal conditions (drawing 

the studied route on a floor plan, walking through the physical route as rehearsal and MR 

rehearsal) was undertaken by capturing participants’ route traversal time, and by counting errors 

in route traversal, (i.e., wrong turns). In addition, error data was collected concerning 

participants’ localization orientation; that is their ability to identify the location of the start and 

end of the route in reference to their current position. 

Participants in each condition were greeted and randomly assigned to one of the three 

rehearsal conditions. Detailed procedures and instructions to participants are included in 

Appendix E. Each of the 60 participants was assigned a participant number for use in tracking 

data while maintaining participants' anonymity. After reading and completing an informed 

consent form, each participant was asked to complete each of the following items in turn: 

Demographics Questionnaire, MHQ, and SSQ with Baseline Exposure Symptom Checklist. 

Demographic information that was gathered included gender, age, own belief of spatial 

orientation and time spent using computers and maps. A sample of this questionnaire can be 

found in Appendix F. Each participant then completed three tests of spatial abilities, as follows: 

12
Cube Comparison, Surface Development, and the Guilford-Zimmerman Spatial Orientation 

subtest. Upon completion of all of the above each participant was presented with a short 

description of the experiment that varied according to which of the three rehearsal conditions 

they had been assigned. Once the participant indicated that they understood the rest of the 

experiment and that they were willing to proceed, they were presented with written directions 

that described the route they were to learn. Each participant was allotted 15 minutes to study 

these directions, after which the directions were removed. Participants were not permitted any 

aids for memorization and were not to write out the directions or draw what they believed the 

route to be. 

Paper Map Condition: Participants in the paper map practice condition rehearsed the 

route by drawing the route they had learned through memorizing the directions on a printed floor 

plan of the office space environment that showed walkways, landmarks and waypoints. The 

participants were allotted three practice trials under the supervision of the experimenter who 

identified errors as they were committed by saying "Stop". Errors were identified as soon as it 

was clear that the participant was committed to a particular movement. For example, if the 

participant turned right at an intersection instead of left, the experimenter would wait until the 

participant had started to draw the line that would connect them to what they thought the next 

landmark was before stopping the participant. The participant returned their pencil to the last 

known correct point and attempted a different strategy, without being told what the next move 

should be by the experimenter. This procedure was repeated as necessary to move the 

participant through the rehearsal phase, after which the participant was moved to the actual 

office space, to perform a single timed and scored traversal of the actual physical route. 

 

Walking condition: Participants in this rehearsal condition, known as “walkers,” executed 

three practice traversals of the route in the actual facility. During this rehearsal phase any errors 

committed by the participant were identified to the participant by the experimenter saying, 

“Stop,” after it was clear that the participant was committed to a particular erroneous movement. 

For example, if the participant turned right at an intersection instead of left, the experimenter 

would wait until the participant had taken two steps in the wrong direction before stopping them. 

At that point the participant was moved back to their last correct position and instructed to 

proceed from there, repeating this procedure as necessary to move the participant through the 

three practice traversals of the route. After the third rehearsal of the route with corrections, the 

participant performed a single timed and scored traversal of the route. 

MR condition: Participants in the MR condition also executed three practice traversals of 

the identified route as it was presented in the third floor laboratory space. The Sony Glasstron 

provided the participant a three dimensional recreation of the office space showing cubicle walls, 

office furniture, landmarks, waypoints and virtual footprints. Virtual footprints are a “you were 

there” display that leaves a visible trail of footprints that the participant can see through the 

display showing their own movement to assist in orientation. (Grammenos, Filou, Papadakos, 

and Stephanidis, 2002). 

 

Participants’ location in the training area was tracked using IS-900 tracking system, to 

provide data to the Thermite computer, which presented the appropriate display to the participant 

while also providing data to the Dell computer which provided a display for the experimenter to 

13
monitor the participants’ movement. The stealth view is the floor plan shown on a 17-inch 

computer monitor with the tiles indicated with black lines and the route shown with a white line. 

An avatar in the stealth view shows the participant's location and the virtual footprints show 

where they have walked. 

To familiarize participants with the MR environment, a familiarization session was 

conducted prior to their memorization period so as to avoid any MR environment specific 

learning impact on participants’ rehearsal time. Two tiles that had been modeled but were 

beyond the periphery of the tiles through which the test route passed were used in this 

familiarization session. Each participant donned and was fitted with the BARS ensemble, then 

led to a starting point in the training area that did not correspond to the starting point of the test 

route. While standing on the edge of the space that defined each tile, the participant was oriented 

to the boundaries of the tiles by identifying the four corners of the tile shown with blue tape on 

the beige colored carpet. They were instructed on the specifics of the scaling factor, that each 

step they took in the rehearsal space was worth three steps in the actual space and that the actual 

space would be represented by six tiles that worked like pages in an atlas. It was pointed out that 

while it was possible to walk through walls and furniture in this environment, there was no 

advantage to doing so. Finally they were told that to successfully complete the route they were 

about to learn, they would have to walk outside the bounds of the tile, past the blue lines, and 

within three seconds of doing so, the Glasstron display would turn black. They were to stop 

moving until instructed as to where they should move to pick up the continuation of the route. 

For this familiarization however, they were free to roam through the space to become familiar 

with the look and feel of the environment. When they indicated that they understood the concept 

and felt familiar with it, a process accomplished in a span of 15 minutes on average, the MR 

participant was removed from the rehearsal area, completed a simulator sickness inventory, and 

doffed the BARS ensemble, after which they were given 15 minutes to study the route as in the 

other two conditions. 

At the end of the 15 minute study period the participant donned the BARS ensemble and 

moved into the rehearsal space with the spotter. After each rehearsal trial, the participant was 

asked to complete a simulator sickness inventory, and after the third rehearsal also doffed the 

BARS ensemble and moved to the actual office space where they performed a single scored 

traversal of the route. 

The MHQ and the SSQ were used to evaluate participants’ possible susceptibility to 

sickness in VEs, as well as to monitor symptoms that might appear during MR exposure. 

Participants’ responses to the SSQ Exposure Checklist were captured at various times throughout 

the course of the experiment, dependent upon the assigned experimental condition. Those 

participants who drew the route on a floor plan for rehearsal and those who walked through the 

actual office space each completed the checklist at the end of their rehearsal period, before 

performing the transfer of training tests of route traversal and orientation localization. MR 

condition participants completed the checklist after the familiarization exposure to the MR 

environment, after each of the three rehearsal trials in the environment, and after performing the 

transfer of training tests, which was typically 10 minutes after their exposure to the MR 

environment. 

14
The effectiveness of the training was assessed using data gathered during the traversal of 

the actual route without using the paper map, correction from the experimenter or the BARS 

ensemble. Participants were instructed that speed and accuracy in traversal of the path were of 

equal importance. At two points along the route, from which participants could not see either the 

beginning or end of the route, the participants were stopped in front of a clipboard hanging from 

a cubicle wall, on which was posted an 8.5” x 11” piece of paper showing a circle with an X in 

the center and the numbers 12, 3, 6, and 9 around the edge for orientation points (See Appendix 

C). They were asked to imagine themselves standing on the X facing the 12 and to mark where 

they believed the starting point of the route was in relation to where they were standing, by 

writing an S on the circle, and to mark where they believed the end of the route was by writing 

an E on the circle. 

Four performance variable data sets were gathered, with the first two variable sets used to 

measure route knowledge, which included total time to traverse the route, and number of 

traversal errors (wrong turns). The second two variable sets, used to measure survey knowledge, 

included data from the participants’ input on each of the orientation localization tasks located at 

two reporting stations along the route. This survey knowledge was based on the absolute error 

between the actual location of the start and end points of the route from each of the two reporting 

stations, and the participants’ input as to where they believed the start and end points of the route 

to be located. The location of the two orientation localization stations and the start and end 

points of the route are illustrated in Appendix B. 

15
RESULTS 

This section describes the data analysis for the experiment. The first section outlines the 

experimental variables, self-report measures, and demographics collected. The second section 

presents the data for the three experimental conditions on the performance measures examined. 

Description of Variables and Measures 

Prior to analysis, descriptive statistics were examined for each experimental variable, and 

all variables were screened for normality, outliers and missing values, and appropriate 

transformations applied. Each of the performance variables, that is Number of traversal errors, 

Total time to complete route, and the variables that captured the value in degrees of error from 

each orientation localization station (Error to Start Station 1, Error to End Station 1, Error to 

Start Station 2 and Error to End Station 2) were transformed by using the mean to replace any 

missing data and the top five univariate outliers. SPSS version 11.5 was used, with alpha set to 

.05 unless otherwise specified. 

Effectiveness of MR on Performance Measures 

Route knowledge. A between subjects analysis of variance was conducted, in which the 

independent variable was rehearsal condition (paper map, walker, mixed reality). As can be 

seen in Table 3, the analysis of variance was significant for Total Number of Errors in Route 

Traversal, with F (2, 57) = 6.24, p < .001, with a partial η2 of 0.18. Participants in the walker 

condition averaged 0.85 errors, the MR participants 3.47 errors, and the paper map participants 

committed an average of 4.39 errors. Post hoc tests using a Scheffe adjustment for multiple 

comparisons, shows that participants in the walker condition, that is those that rehearsed the 

route in the actual office space, consistently performed better than those in either the paper or 

mixed reality conditions. 

Table 2. Analysis of Variance for Traversal Errors

Source df F η

2

p

Total Traversal Errors 2 6.24 .18 .000 

Error 57

 

Table 3. Post Hoc with Scheffe adjustment for Traversal Errors 

Condition Condition Mean Difference p

Walker Paper Map -3.545 .005 

Mixed Reality -2.6186 .050 

Mixed Reality Paper Map -.9271 .675 

 

A between subjects ANOVA was conducted using the rehearsal conditions and the 

dependent variable Total Time to Complete the Route. The Total Time was significant at F (2, 

57) = 9.42, p < .001, and a partial η

2

 of .25. Participants in the walker condition averaged 1.99 

minutes to complete the route, MR participants averaged 3.25 minutes, and paper map 

participants 3.77 minutes. 

16
Table 4. Analysis of Variance for Time to Complete Route

Source df F η

2

p

Total Time to Complete 2 9.416 .18 .000 

Error 57

Post hoc tests using a Scheffe adjustment for multiple comparisons shows that 

participants in the walker condition, that is those that rehearsed the route in the actual office 

space, consistently performed better than those in either the paper or mixed reality conditions. 

Table 5. Post Hoc with Scheffe adjustment for Time to Complete 

Condition Condition Mean Difference p

Walker Paper Map -1.786 .000 

Mixed Reality -1.264 .004 

Paper Map Mixed Reality .523 .222 

Survey knowledge. A between subjects analysis of variance of the pointing error data 

was conducted using rehearsal condition (paper map, walker, mixed reality) as the independent 

variable. The data analyzed were the error in degrees made in pointing from each of the location 

stations to the start and end positions of the route. The analysis of variance was not significant 

for the any of these measures. 

Comparison of Spatial Abilities Tests to Performance Measures 

To examine the relationship between tests of spatial abilities and route knowledge test 

performance measures, a correlational analysis was conducted using SPSS. Specifically the 

variables were: Cube Comparison Test, Surface Folding Test, Guilford-Zimmerman Spatial 

Orientation Test, Total Time to Complete Route, and the Number of Traversal Errors with 

adjustment for outliers as described above. Table 8 shows the descriptive statistics that describe 

the performance of participants on the spatial abilities tests, while Table 9 displays the 

correlations among the variables. 

Table 6. Descriptive Statistics of Spatial Abilities Tests 

 Test Mean Standard Error M Median 

Cube Comparison 17.78 1.45 18.5 

Surface Development 36.15 1.89 35.5 

Guilford-Zimmerman 11.81 1.19 11.25 

Cube Comparison 17.78 1.45 18.5 

Surface Development 36.15 1.89 35.5 

The specific hypothesis that the three tests of spatial abilities would be related is only 

supported for the relationship between Surface Development and Cube Comparison, r = 0.381, p 

< 0.01, and between Surface Development and the Guilford-Zimmerman task where the r = 

17
0.451, p < 0.01. A relationship between the Cube Comparison and the Guilford-Zimmerman 

tests was not established in this study. 

Route knowledge. Neither of the performance variables correlated with the tests of 

spatial abilities. However, the Total Number of Errors made during route traversal was positively 

correlated with the time to complete the route, r = 0.639, significant at the 0.01 level. Logically, 

this indicates that as the number of errors increased, so did the amount of time required to 

complete the route. 

Table 7. Correlation of Spatial Abilities Tests and Route Knowledge 

Variables Cube Surface G-Z Time Errors 

Cube Comparison 1.00 

Surface Development 0.381** 1.00 

Guilford-Zimmerman 0.214 0.451** 1.00 

Total Time to Complete -0.105 -0.031 -0.174 1.00 

Traversal Error 0.044 -0.201 -0.146 0.639** 1.00 

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2 tailed) 

Survey knowledge: To examine the relationship between the tests of spatial abilities and 

survey knowledge performance measures, a separate correlation analysis was conducted using 

SPSS. Specifically the variables were: Cube Comparison Test, Surface Folding Test, GuilfordZimmerman Spatial Orientation Test, Error Start 1, Error End 1, Error Start 2 with outliers and 

missing data transformed as described above. Table 10 displays the correlations between the 

variables, where the correlations among the three spatial abilities tests are again apparent. The 

Cube Comparison test is negatively correlated with the Error to End from Station 2, (r=-.249, 

p<.05), while the Guilford-Zimmerman Test is negatively correlated with the Error to Start from 

Station 2, (r=-.260, p<.05). The Surface Development Test is negatively correlated with Error to 

Start from Station 1 (r=-.275, p <.05) and Error to End from Station 1 (r=-.294, p< 0.05), and 

Error to Start from Station 2 (r= -.364, p<.0.01). The Error to the End of the Route from Station 

1 is positively related to the Error value for identifying the location of the End of the Route from 

Station 2 (r= .255, p< 0.05). 

Table 8. Correlation between Spatial Abilities and Survey Knowledge Performance 

Variables Cube Surface G-Z Start 1 End 1 Start 2 End 2

Cube Comparison 1.00 

Surface Development .381** 1.00 

Guilford-Zimmerman .214 .451** 1.00 

Error Start Station 1 -.054 -.275* -.208 1.00 

Error End Station 1 -.194 -.294* -.181 .437** 1.00 

Error Start Station 2 -.248 -.364** -.260* .077 .195 1.00 

Error End Station 2 -.259* -.165 -.081 -.061 .255* .122 1.00 

 * correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2 tailed) 

**correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2 tailed) 

It would appear that as scores on the Surface Development test increase, so do the scores 

on the Cube Comparison and Guilford-Zimmerman tests, so that higher scores on Surface 

Development, which indicates greater ability in this type of spatial task, is related to greater 

18
ability in comparison of cubes and in spatial orientation as measured by the GuilfordZimmerman test. As these scores on standardized tests of Spatial Abilities increase, participants' 

localization scores decrease significantly. As the ability in spatial tasks improves, so does the 

ability to localize the beginning and end of the route. Since these values are difference error 

values between the actual location of the point of interest and the location the participant 

expected the point to be, the lower score is more desirable. As the amount of Error to the End of 

the Route from Station 1 increases, so does the amount of Error to the End of the Route from 

station 2 increase, showing some consistency in the participants' perceptions of the route and the 

layout of the environment through which it passed. 

Learning in Mixed Reality 

As has been described previously, the model of the office space was broken into tiles, and 

the tiles were explained to participants as being similar to the pages of an atlas so that when they 

ended a route segment at the edge of one tile they would start the route again from that same 

point at the edge of the next tile. While the participants were never shown a drawing of the 

environment or the tiles, the experimenter, to monitor the participants' current position and 

progress through the environment, used the diagram of the environment presented on the second 

computer. With a sampling rate of approximately once per second, data was captured that was 

saved to a file with a time stamp, an X coordinate, which was the participant’s head pitch, a Y 

coordinate, which was the head roll, and a Z coordinate, that was the head yaw, and the tile 

coordinate number. That position data was also used to generate an avatar, which showed the 

experimenter where the participant was in the environment. The graphic below shows the 

environment with black lines that indicate the boundaries of the tiles, a white line that describes 

the route, and the coordinate names for each of the tiles. 

To determine whether learning occurred over the three rehearsal trials, an analysis of 

variance was performed using SPSS, with an alpha level of .05. Because of an unequal number 

of participants in gender, which occurred when the data for the first male subject was 

inadvertently over-written on the Thermite computer, the data for the first female participant was 

removed from further analysis, chosen on the basis of matching the first male participant. The 

grouping variable was rehearsal trial (1, 2 and 3) and all variables were screened for normality, 

outliers and missing values. There were 18 participants (nine female and nine male), each of 

which performed three rehearsal trials. As can be seen in Table 11, the analysis of variance 

showed a significant effect of rehearsal trial on the total time spent on each tile, except Tile 1,1. 

19
Figure 7. Model diagram showing tiles, tile coordinates and route 

Table 9. ANOVA for Time spent in each Tile over 3 Trials 

Source df F p

Tile 0,1 2 9.161** .000

Error 51

Tile 0,0 2 23.64** .000

Error 51

Tile 1,0 2 3.58* .035

Error 51

Tile 1,1 2 .893 .416

Error 51

Tile 2,1 2 5.970** .005

Error 51

Tile 2,0 2 7.187** .000

Error 51

 * p<.05 

 ** p<.01 

Post hoc comparisons, with a Scheffe adjustment, compared the three trials to find if 

there was a significant difference between the first, second and third trials in each tile. While the 

difference between adjacent trials for each tile were not always significant, there was overall 

20
significant improvement on five of the six tiles. Tiles 0,1 and 0,0 showed significant 

improvement between Trials 1 and 2, 2 and 3, and 1 and 3. Tiles 1,0, 2,1, and 2,0 showed 

significant improvement between Trials 1 and 3. There were no significant differences among 

the three trials in Tile 1,1. Times are shown in Table 11. 

Table 10. Means of Three Rehearsal Trial Times by Tile

Trial 

No. 

1 2 3 Total 

Tile Mean Std. 

Deviation 

Mean Std. 

Deviation

Mean Std. 

Deviation 

Mean Std. 

Deviation 

Tile 0,1 101.13 68.48 58.03 37.96 36.71 14.75 65.29 52.61 

Tile 0,0 170.37 94.09 65.34 32.19 46.84 15.77 94.18 79.16 

Tile 1, 0 37.00 17.39 29.12 10.81 26.57 5.10 30.90 12.76 

Tile 1, 1 39.96 20.19 36.87 22.37 31.32 15.85 36.05 19.62 

Tile 2, 1 158.44 117.05 94.92 66.01 66.91 42.84 106.75 88.74 

Tile 2, 0 61.19 32.08 45.71 13.8 34.43 11.66 47.11 23.61 

MR and Simulator Sickness 

An analysis was conducted of participants' past experience with motion and motion 

sickness, as well as their perception of the likelihood of experiencing motion sickness and the 

occurrence of simulator sickness symptoms during or after exposure to the MR. There was no 

difference among the participants of the three rehearsal conditions with respect to the prediction 

or expectation of motion sickness, and therefore simulator sickness while in the MR rehearsal 

condition (F (20, 86) = .641, p> .05, partial η

2 = .13). 

Participants' perceptions of their own susceptibility to motion sickness were then 

compared to weighted and un-weighted simulator sickness scores calculated from participants' 

responses to the simulator sickness inventories completed throughout their experimental trial. A 

multivariate analysis of variance was conducted using SPSS version 11.5, with an alpha level of 

.05 unless otherwise stated. With the use of Wilks’ criterion, the combined dependent variables 

(DVs) were not significantly effected by participants' beliefs concerning their susceptibility of 

motion sickness, with F (16, 100) = .559, p> .05, and a partial η

2 of .08. This lack of 

significance was taken as an indication that there was no connection between participants' 

expectations about motion sickness and actual ratings of simulator sickness throughout the three 

conditions of the experiment. 

The tendency for participants to experience symptoms of simulator sickness with 

exposure to the MR was examined through analysis of variance using SPSS version 11.5, and an 

alpha level of .05. All participants had completed pre and post test SSQ inventories. This 

procedure resulted in a maximum of two reports from the walkers and the paper map rehearsal 

participants, and a maximum of six from the MR participants. Therefore, for this analysis to 

examine simulator sickness while comparing MR to the non-MR conditions, only the single post 

test inventory from the walkers and paper map participants were used, while the post third 

rehearsal inventories from the MR participants were used. Given the cumulative properties of 

21
simulator sickness, this was considered to be the worse case for the MR participants. There were 

no outliers, and the results of the evaluation of assumptions of normality were satisfactory. 

Table 11. ANOVA Post Test SSQ (W) Inventory 

Source df F p

SSQ TS W 2 .136 .873 

Error 57 

SSQ N W 2 .019 .982 

Error 57 

SSQ O W 2 .626 .538 

Error 57 

SSQ D W 2 1.702 .191 

Error 57 

Table 12. ANOVA Post Test SSQ (R) Inventory 

Source df F p

SSQ TS R 2 .128 .880 

Error 57 

SSQ N R 2 .019 .982 

Error 57 

SSQ O R 2 .626 .538 

Error 57 

SSQ D R 2 1.702 .191 

Error 57 

With the use of weighted SSQ values, there was no difference among the three rehearsal 

conditions. Total Severity of sickness was not significant with F (2, 57) = .136, p> .05, nor was 

Nausea with F (2, 57) = .019, p> .05, or Oculomotor with F (2, 57) = .626, p> .05, or 

Disorientation with F (2, 57) = 1.702, p> .05. 

A separate analysis was conducted using the un-weighted SSQ values, and there were no 

differences among the three rehearsal conditions in symptomology. Total Severity of sickness 

was not significant with F (2, 57) = .128, p> .05, nor was Nausea with F (2, 57) = .019, p> .05, 

or Oculomotor with F (2, 57) =.626, p> .05, or Disorientation with F (2, 57) = .191, p> .05. The 

results of these analyses would indicate that rehearsal conducted in this type of MR does not 

produce significant symptoms of simulator sickness. 

22
DISCUSSION 

This research was exploratory in nature, to determine if training in an MR environment, 

as provided by the BARS, was effective. If so, BARS or similar technologies could be a solution 

for multiple training situations with needs that are met either partially, or not at all, by current 

technologies. An effective mission rehearsal tool for dismounted infantry to use as they learn 

their way through an unknown environment has the potential to enhance Soldiers’ capabilities 

and improve survivability rates. Given current technology in information acquisition in the form 

of cartography, and imagery from multiple sources, there are multiple methods for gathering the 

data to input to this potential mission rehearsal tool, as well as the software and hardware to 

construct it. 

This experiment has addressed the following questions: 

1. How does the effectiveness of rehearsing a wayfinding task using MR compare with 

that of drawing a route on a floor plan (a paper map), or rehearsal in the actual test environment 

in terms of route and or survey knowledge? 

Rehearsal of the wayfinding task in the actual office space was the most effective in 

decreasing the time and errors of the participants on the transfer task. This result should not be 

surprising, but it is also an option that is usually not available for mission rehearsal, given a 

remote and or hostile environment, where the area may be under threat. Participants who 

rehearsed the route by drawing it on a floor plan performed at a level that was indistinguishable 

from those who rehearsed in the MR environment. It was expected that the kinesthetic learning 

inherent to walking through the route, whether in the actual space or in the MR, would improve 

performance. This was not supported in the MR condition. The experimental conditions that 

were not addressed include map study, and the combined effect of map study and MR, which is 

likely to be the more realistic case for mission rehearsal. Soldiers will likely have maps 

available, but to have walked through the environment beforehand can only enhance the 

Soldiers’ understanding of their surroundings. The repeated comments gathered from 

participants in the MR condition such as “This looks like I was just here” and “There’s that pole 

I kept having trouble with,” suggest that this is a tool to continue to explore and apply. 

The minimal difference among the survey knowledge measurements shows that MR was 

as good as walking through the actual facility or drawing the route on a map. The mean 

difference between MR and walking in locating the end of the route from the orientation 

localization station number one was about 29 degrees. This type of knowledge might have been 

enhanced in either of these conditions if participants had been given the opportunity to divert 

from the learned route to develop a better cognitive map of their surroundings, creating short cuts 

that might later turn to escape routes. With the addition of a map of the environment Soldiers 

would likely learn the ins and outs of an environment thoroughly before arriving at the actual 

location. 

 

The lack of a significant difference between the map and MR groups and the superiority 

of the walker condition to both in terms of transfer task performance is not inconsistent with 

previous research. Darken, Allard, and Achille (1999), in discussing VR research results in the 

23
area of wayfinding, observed that VEs have been shown to be effective for acquiring spatial 

knowledge, a conclusion confirmed using MR in this experiment. They further noted that mixed 

results had been obtained when comparing VE with the real world. They attributed these 

inconsistencies to differences in the VE systems, environments, and training methods used. 

Likewise, as reviewed by Koh, Wiegand, Garnett, Durlach, and Shinn-Cunningham (1999), 

comparisons of map and VE training have produced mixed results in terms of real-world 

performance, with map training better in some experiments, and VE training better than others. 

Two factors may have reduced the potential differences between the map and MR groups 

in this experiment. First, consider that MR has the capability to present visual representations of 

landmarks from the perspective of the trainee, while a map does not. In the initial training 

session, prior to MR or map practice, all groups studied the route they were to take using a 

combination of textual directions and photographs of the route from their perspective. While the 

MR trainees received more exposure to the visuals of the route than did the map trainees, all 

trainees received some exposure to them, and this may have improved the performance of the 

map group. Second, the change of scale and tiling used in the MR condition to meet physical 

space constraints may have confounded and reduced the effectiveness of the kinesthetic and 

proprioceptive cues the trainees would otherwise have received. The use of these scaling and 

tiling techniques requires further research. It would be premature to conclude that training with 

maps is equivalent to training with MR or VE. 

It is possible that some dominant visual characteristics of the space helped prevent 

participants from making large errors when indicating the start or end point. The start and end 

point were both located along a window wall, with corridors running at right angles either 

perpendicular to or parallel to that wall. As long as a participant recognized those features and 

thought about what they were doing, it was hard to make a very large error when indicating the 

start or end point. It may be that there was a ceiling effect limiting error which precluded finding 

any significant differences. 

Walking through the real environment provides vestibular and kinesthetic cues about 

direction and distance. In the MR environment these cues were altered by the 3:1 scaling factor 

and the tiling procedure which added turns and walking distance, as well as disrupted the 

continuity of the walking process. The individual and combined impact of these factors is 

unknown. Future research should explore these same issues in an MR space the same size as the 

actual space, and train without scaling and tiling. 

 During the design stages of this project, there were two concerns that prompted the use 

of the spotter within the MR space. One was the chance that a participant might become 

disoriented or have difficulty maintaining balance as they walked through the MR environment. 

The other concern was that participants would have difficulty with the tiling concept and need 

active assistance in moving from one tile to the next. Neither concern was warranted. After 

having experienced the familiarization trail, participants appeared quite comfortable in the 

environment, walking through the space without self-protective actions such as searching the 

area with their hands as they walked. In addition, participants overall were quick to pick up on 

the tiling procedure, automatically moving to the start of the next tile without specific instruction 

within the first two to three tile changes. 

24
2. Are spatial abilities test scores (Cube Comparison, and Surface Development from the 

Manual for Kit of Factor-Referenced Cognitive Tests, (Ekstrom et al., 1976), and the GuilfordZimmerman Aptitude Survey test of spatial orientation (Guilford, 1948)) correlated with 

participants’ performance on the three performance measurement tasks of time to traverse the 

learned route, number of errors committed in the timed trial of route traversal, and the ability to 

be oriented enough to locate the position of the beginning and ending of the route from two 

separate locations along the route? 

In correlation analyses the Surface Development test was found to correlate with the 

Cube Comparisons test and the Guilford-Zimmerman spatial orientation test, but there was no 

relationship between the Guilford-Zimmerman and the Cube Comparison test, or between any of 

these three tests of spatial abilities and the participants’ performance on total time to complete 

the route, or the number of errors made while traversing the route. There was a positive 

relationship between the time required to complete the route and the number of errors made. The 

correlation of localization performance scores with the spatial abilities tests were negative, 

showing that the higher one scored on the standardized tests, the lower their error scores (that is, 

the better they were at locating the beginning and end of the route at locations from which they 

could not see either the beginning or the end). There was a positive correlation between the 

ability to locate the end of the route at the first station from the second station, showing 

consistency in performance. 

3. Is rehearsal of route traversal in the MR environment successful as a training tool as 

evidenced by the improved performance, measured by decreased total time for each successive 

trial in the MR environment? 

This hypothesis was generally supported by the data, with the time to complete each MR 

rehearsal decreasing significantly over time. In addition 5 of 6 tiles showed a significant 

decrease in the amount of time required to traverse that tile between the first and third trials. 

Time spent in learning the route in this condition varied widely from a maximum first trail of 25 

minutes to a minimum first trial of 3.2 minutes, and a maximum third trial of 8.5 minutes to a 

minimum of 2.2 minutes. 

4. Will participation in route rehearsal in the MR environment cause greater 

symptomology of simulator sickness than in the non-MR environments? 

The data gathered using the SSQ and processed by using both the weighted values 

developed by Kennedy et al. (1993), and the non-weighted values as per Knerr et al. (1998) both 

indicated that it did not. 

The presence of proprioceptive feedback in the MR condition was expected to produce 

performance scores that were better than paper map rehearsal, and the same as walking through 

the actual facility. Although that hypothesis was not supported completely, it is very likely that 

proprioceptive feedback is what led to the lack of simulator sickness among the MR participants. 

Future research might include a direct comparison of learning route and survey knowledge 

through this type of MR and through a VE system through which users move by manipulating an 

25
input device such as a mouse or joystick, while physically remaining stationary. Another 

possible contributing factor is that participants could see a portion of the real world around the 

bottom and side of the Sony Glasstron. This provided them with a real world visual reference 

that was consistent with the kinesthetic and vestibular cues they were receiving. 

The exploration and confirmation of the training capabilities of MR as implemented 

using BARS is an important step in the development and application of the system to the U.S. 

Army training mission. This experiment was designed to examine one potential training area in 

a small controlled environment, which can be used as the foundation for experimentation with 

more complex tasks such as wayfinding through an urban environment, and/or in direct 

comparison to more established VEs to determine strengths and areas for improvement as BARS 

is considered as an addition to the training mission. 

As the power of electronics increases with reductions in cost over time, the utility and 

affordability of augmented, virtual and MR environments will also increase. The possibility of 

having small, easy-to-configure mobile units would expand the ability of the Army to enhance its 

training efforts in the future. To continue this line of research has the potential to expand 

training opportunities into scenarios not previously thought possible, improve Soldier 

performance, safety and survivability. 

26
REFERENCES 

Allen, G.L., & Kirasic, K.C. (1985). Effects of the Cognitive Organization of Route Knowledge 

on Judgments of Macrospatial Distances. Memory & Cognition, (3) 218-227 

Arthur, E.J., & Hancock, P.A., (2001). Navigation training in virtual environments, 

International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, Lawrence Erlbaum, 5(4), 387-400. 

Bailey, J.H. (1994). Spatial Knowledge Acquisition in a Virtual Environment. Unpublished 

doctoral dissertation, University of Central Florida, Orlando. 

Banker, W.P., (1997). Virtual Environments and Wayfinding in the Natural Environment, Naval 

Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA. 

Bernatovich, D., (1999). The Effect of Presence on the Ability to Acquire Spatial Knowledge in 

Virtual Environments, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA. 

Cevik, H., (1998). Map Usage in Virtual Environments. Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, 

CA. 

Columbia University, (2004) http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/graphics/ New York, NY. Retrieved 

from the Internet, July 21, 2004. 

Conroy, R., (2001). Spatial Navigation in Immersive Virtual Environments. Doctoral 

Dissertation, University College London, London, England. 

Darken, R.P., & Sibert, J.L. (1993). A toolset for navigation in virtual environments. 

Proceedings of the 6th Annual ACM symposium on User interface software and 

technology, Atlanta, GA., 157-165. 

Darken, R.P., Allard, T., & Achille, L.B. (1999). Spatial orientation and wayfinding in largescale virtual spaces II: Guest editors’ introduction. Presence, 8(6), iii-vi. 

 

Ekstrom, R.B., French, J.W., Harman, H.H., & Dermen, D. (1976). Manual for Kit of FactorReferenced Cognitive Tests 1976. Education Testing Service, Princeton, NJ. 

Guilford, J.P., (1948). The Guilford-Zimmerman aptitude survey. Journal of Applied 

Psychology, 32(1) 24-34. 

Goldin, S.E., & Thorndyke, P.W. (1982). Simulating Navigation for Spatial Knowledge 

Acquisition. Human Factors, 24(4), 457-471. 

Grammenos, D. Filou, M., Papadakos, P., & Stephanidis, C., (2002). Virtual Prints: Leaving 

trails in virtual environments. Eighth Eurographics Workshop on Virtual Environments, 

the Eurographics Association, Aire-la-Ville, Switzerland. 131-138. 

27
InterSense IS-900 VET, VWT & SimTracker Manual Doc. No. 072-00060-0F00 Revision 2.1, 

InterSense, Inc., Burlington, MA. 

Kennedy, R.S., Lane, N.E., Berbaum, K.S., & Lilienthal, M.G. (1993). Simulator sickness 

questionnaire: An enhanced method for quantifying simulator sickness. The International 

Journal of Aviation Psychology, 3(3), 203-220. 

Kennedy, R.S., Stanney, K.M., Lane, N.E., Lanham, S., & Kingdon, K. (2001). Use of a motion 

experience questionnaire to predict simulator sickness. Proceedings of HCI International 

2001, New Orleans, LA. 

Knerr, B.W., Lampton, D.R., Singer, M.J., Witmer, B.G., Goldberg, S.L., Parson, K.A. & 

Parsons, J. (1998). Virtual environments for dismounted Soldier training and 

performance: Results, recommendations and issues (ARI Technical Report 1089). 

Alexandria, VA: Army Research Institute. 

Koh, G., von Wiegand, T.E., Garnett, R.L., Durlach, N.I., & Shinn-Cunningham,B. (1999). Use 

of virtual environments for acquiring configurational knowledge about specific real-world 

spaces: I. Preliminary experiment. Presence, 8(6), 632-656. 

Livingston, M.A., Brown, D., Gabbard, J.L., Rosenblum, L.J., Yohan, B., Julier, S.J., Swan II, 

J.E., & Hix, D., (2002). An Augmented Reality System for Military Operations in Urban 

Terrain. Proceedings of the I/ITSEC Conference, 2002, Orlando, FL. 

Milgram, P., Takemura, H., Utsumi, A., & Kishino, F., (1994). Augmented reality: a class of 

displays on the reality-virtuality continuum. SPIE Vol. 2352, Telemanipulator and 

Telepresence Technologies, 1994. 

Moeser, S.D., (1988). Cognitive Mapping in a Complex Building. Environment and Behavior, 

20, 21-49. 

Nemire, K., (1998). Immersive virtual environment for dismounted infantry tactics training and 

mission rehearsal. Proceedings of the I/ITSEC Conference, 1998, Orlando, FL. 

Presson, C.C., & Hazelrigg, M.D., (1984). Building Spatial Representations through Primary 

and Secondary Learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and 

Cognition, 10, 716-222. 

Schlender, D., Peters, O.H., & Wienhofer, M., (2002). The effects of maps and textual 

information on navigation in a desktop virtual environment. Spatial Cognition and 

Computation 2: 421-433. 

Scholl, M.J., (1993). Cognitive Maps as Orienting Schemata. Cognition, 4, 615-628. 

28
Stanney, K., & Salvendy, G., (1997). Aftereffects and Sense of Presence in Virtual 

Environments: Formulation of a Research and Development Agenda. HCI International 

’97, Seventh International Conference on Human Computer Interaction, San Francisco, 

CA. 

Swan II, J.E., Gabbard, J.L., Hix, D., Schulman, R.S., & Kim, K., (2003). A comparative study 

of user performance in a map-based virtual environment. Proceedings of IEEE Virtual 

Reality 2003, IEEE Computer Society. 259-266. 

Thorndyke, P.W., & Hayes-Roth, B., (1982). Differences in Spatial Knowledge from Maps and 

Navigation. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 560-589. 

Unguder, E., (2001). The Effects of Natural Locomotion on Maneuvering Task Performance in 

Virtual and Real Environments, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA. 

Vinson, N.G., (1999). Design Guidelines for Landmarks to Support Navigation in Virtual 

Environments, National Research Council Canada, Institute for Information Technology, 

Proceedings of CHI ’99, Pittsburgh, PA. 

Witmer, B.G., Bailey, J.H. & Knerr, B.W., (1996). Virtual spaces and real world places: transfer 

of route knowledge, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies

Wothke, W., Bock, R.D., Curran, L.T., Fairbank, B.A., Augustin, J.W., Gillet, A.H., & Guerrero, 

C. (1991). Factor Analytic Examination of the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude 

Battery (ASVAB) and the Kit of Factor-Referenced Tests. Air Force Human Resources 

Laboratory Technical Report 90-67, Brooks Air Force Base, Texas. 

29
 30
APPENDIX A

LIST OF ACRONYMS 

AR Augmented Reality 

BARS Battlefield Augmented Reality System 

CAD Computer Aided Design 

DV Dependent Variable 

Eds Editors 

EISA Extended Industry Standard Architecture 

GPS Global Positioning System 

GLONASS Global Navigation Satellite System 

HMD Head Mounted Display 

IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers 

LCD Liquid Crystal Display 

MARS Mobilr Augmented Reality System 

MHQ Motion History Questionniare 

MOUT Military Operations in Urban Terrain 

MR Mixed Reality 

NAVAIR Naval Air Station 

NRL Naval Research Laboratory 

PCI Peripheral Component Interconnect 

TVC Tactical Visual Computer 

U.S. United States 

UAV Unmanned Aerial Vehicle 

UCF University of Central Florida 

USMC United States Marine Corps 

VE Virtual Environment 

VESS Virtual Environment Software Sandbox 

VR Virtual Reality 

A- 1
A- 2
APPENDIX B 

FLOOR PLAN: ROUTE, LANDMARKS AND LOCALIZATION 

 299o 145o 329o 209o 

Figure B-1. Diagram of environment showing all information.

B- 1
B- 2
APPENDIX C 

ORIENTATION LOCALIZATION 

C- 1
Figure C-1 Orientation Localization Page 

12 

 6 

9 3 

1. Stand facing the wall where the clipboard is hanging. 

2. Imagine yourself standing at the X facing the 12. 

3. Use the pen to place an S on the circle where the start of the 

route is located in reference to the X. 

4. Use the pen to place an E on the circle where the end of the 

route is located in reference to the X. 

X 

Orientation Localization 

Location 1 

C- 2
APPENDIX D 

FLOOR PLAN USED FOR PAPER MAP REHEARSAL 

Figure D-1. Floor Plan Used for Paper Map Rehearsal 

D- 1
D-2 
APPENDIX E 

EXPERIMENTER SCRIPTS AND PROCEDURES 

E- 1
Experimental Procedures 

(Read this to each MR condition participant) 

The Experimenter: “Thank you for participating in this experiment. This experiment is part of 

an Augmented Reality research project sponsored by the Army Research Institute. In general, 

augmented reality systems add information to the real world using a computer. You will be 

wearing a vest with a mobile augmented reality system that weighs about 5 pounds. There is a 

display that is attached to an adjustable headband. The display is designed to adjust to fit over 

most eyeglasses. The display’s position is adjustable and we will help you in adjusting it to a 

comfortable position. The entire test should take less than three hours. 

 Your task involves learning to navigate a specific route through an office area. Before 

putting on the equipment, learning the route and performing the task, you will be asked to fill out 

an informed consent form, a demographics sheet and take two surveys concerning the way you 

experience motion. You will then be asked to complete three tests that are used to evaluate your 

spatial abilities. Do your best on the tests, go in sequence through the questions, and do not go 

back and redo questions unless you have finished before time is called. 

 Throughout the training portion of the experiment using the augmented reality 

equipment, you will be asked to fill out one page surveys concerning your experience in using 

the system. 

If at any time you feel uncomfortable with the situation and want to stop the experiment, 

please verbalize your intent and we will stop the experiment. Otherwise, we will not respond to 

questions or comments during your completion of surveys, training in the MR environment, 

testing the actual office space, or any other tasks. 

Do you have any questions so far?” 

ACTION: Give the participant the Informed Consent Form and the demographics sheet. 

Experimenter: “Please fill out the Informed Consent Form and the demographics sheet”. 

ACTION: After the participant is done with filling out the consent form and the demographics 

sheet, administer Motion History Questionnaire. 

Experimenter: “Please complete the Motion History Questionnaire.” 

ACTION: After the participant is done with the motion history questionnaire, administer the 

Simulator Sickness Questionnaire. 

Experimenter: “Please complete the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire.” 

ACTION: After the participant is done with the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire, administer 

the Spatial Orientation Test. 

Experimenter: “Please complete the following Cube Comparison Test. Read over the 

instructions on the first page carefully and complete the practice session. You should mark your 

answers on the test page. Do not turn the page until you are told to do so. Please indicate when 

you have finished with the first page.” 

ACTION: When participant has indicated they are prepared to continue... 

Experimenter: “You will have 3 minutes to complete one page of cube comparisons. Work as 

quickly and accurately as possible. Are you ready?” 

ACTION: When the participant indicates they’re ready, start the stopwatch as you say: 

Experimenter: “Go” 

ACTION: When 3 minutes have passed say: 

Experimenter: “Stop” “You will have 3 minutes to complete one more page of cube 

comparisons. Work as quickly and accurately as possible. Are you ready?” 

ACTION: When the participant indicates they’re ready, start the stopwatch as you say: 

E- 2
Experimenter: “Go” 

ACTION: When 3 minutes have passed say: 

Experimenter: “Stop” 

ACTION: After the participant is done with the Cube Comparison test, administer the 

Visualization test. 

Experimenter: “Please complete the following Visualization Test. Read over the instructions 

on the first page carefully and complete the practice session. You should mark your answers on 

the test page. Do not turn the page until you are told to do so. Please indicate when you have 

finished with the first page.” 

ACTION: When participant has indicated they are prepared to continue... 

Experimenter: “You will have 6 minutes to complete 2 pages of the visualization test. Work as 

quickly and accurately as possible. Are you ready?” 

ACTION: When the participant indicates they’re ready, start the stopwatch as you say: 

Experimenter: “Go” 

ACTION: When 6 minutes have passed say: 

Experimenter: “Stop. You will have 6 minutes to complete 2 more pages of the visualization 

test. Work as quickly and accurately as possible. Are you ready?” 

ACTION: When the participant indicates they’re ready, start the stopwatch as you say: 

Experimenter: “Go” 

ACTION: When 6 minutes have passed say: 

Experimenter: “Stop 

ACTION: Remove the visualization test, and present the participant the Spatial Orientation test 

book. BE SURE TO GIVE THEM A SCANTRON 

Experimenter: “Please complete the following exercise. Read over the instruction page 

carefully and complete the practice session on pages 1, 2, and 3. Please do NOT record your 

responses to the practice items. When you have finished the practice session and are ready to 

begin, please let me know. Please do NOT begin working on the remainder of the exercise until 

instructed to do so”. 

ACTION: Make sure that you tell them NOT TO WRITE IN THE BOOKLET and record their 

answers ONLY on the scantron provided! After they let you know that they are done going over 

the sample items give them a scantron and ask them again to record their answers on the scantron 

ONLY! Hand them the scantron. 

Experimenter: “Please record your answers on the scantron only. Be sure to mark your answer 

to Test question #8 on the scantron as #1 and continue from there. You have 10 minutes to work 

on the test. Do not spend too much on one item. If you are finished before the time is called, 

you may go back and check your work. If you are not sure about the answer to any item, you 

may guess, but avoid wild guessing. Your score will be the number of correct answers minus a 

fraction of the number wrong. Are you ready? 

ACTION: When the participant indicates they’re ready, start the stopwatch as you say: 

Experimenter: “Go” 

ACTION: At the end of 10 minutes: 

Experimenter: “Stop.” 

ACTION: Collect the scantron and test booklet. 

Experimenter: “Please listen carefully to the following instructions. Your task is to study a set 

of directions, then practice traversing the route that those directions describe. You will have 15 

minutes to study those directions. Do you have any questions?” 

E- 3
ACTION: If the participant has no questions, hand them their booklet with the proper Pre-brief 

statement and directions. 

Experimenter: “Please read the Pre-brief statement. When you are finished please let me 

know.” 

ACTION: When the participant has read the pre-brief statement, have them don the BARS 

system and conduct the familiarization task. (See separate instruction.) When the 

familiarization is complete have the participant return to the testing area, and when they are 

ready, start the stopwatch as you say: 

Experimenter: “You have 15 minutes to study these directions, starting now.” 

ACTION: When 15 minutes are up, stop the watch, and retrieve the notebook. 

Experimenter: “Your practice session will be conducted using an augmented reality system to 

project a virtual model of the office space through which you will walk using the directions 

you've studied. Remember each step you take in the model is equal to 3 steps in the real office 

space. You will have 3 opportunities to walk through the entire route. Remember that when you 

get to the edge of an area the screen will turn gray or black. When that happens please let us 

know so we can move you to the next proper position. In addition to the intersections and aisles 

of office space, you will see the survey flags to use as cues and you will be able to monitor your 

own movement through the model by the footprints you leave behind you. 

 If you make a mistake you will be asked to stop, and will have to discover the correct 

move without instruction and try again. This will be repeated until you make the proper move 

and have progressed completely through the model. 

Please put on the augmented reality system and get comfortable with it”. 

ACTION: Assist the participant to put on the equipment and adjust the display. When 

comfortable, move them to the starting point of the first chunk of the route. 

Experimenter: “You are about to begin. Do you have any questions?” 

ACTION: Perform 3 practice runs through the model. At the end of each practice trial present 

the POST TEST Symptom Checklist. When finished – 

Experimenter: “This completes the practice portion of the experiment. Please remove the 

augmented reality system.” 

ACTION: When the equipment has all been removed and stowed give an additional POST 

TEST Symptom Checklist to complete. Retrieve the form when finished then - 

Experimenter: “We will now move to the test environment on the 4th floor of this building.” 

ACTION: Move to the 4th floor and to the starting point. Be sure the survey flags and 

clipboards are in place prior to the participant’s arrival to the area. Lead the participant to the 

starting point by the most direct route. 

Experimenter: “You will now perform 1 timed trial of the route you practiced previously. At 2 

points along the route you will find a clipboard hanging from the wall. You must stop at each, 

and without removing the clipboard from the wall; imagine yourself standing at the center of the 

circle on the X, with your nose pointed toward the 12. Without looking around the room, write 

an S on the circle where you think the start of the route is in relation to your current position, and 

an E on the circle where you think the end of the route is in relation to your current position. Do 

you have any questions?” 

ACTION: When there are no further questions 

Experimenter: “You may begin.” START THE STOP WATCH 

ACTION: Follow the participant and count the number of errors the make. Be sure they stop 

and perform the localization task properly. When they reach the end STOP THE STOP WATCH 

E- 4
Experimenter: “This completes the test portion of the experiment. We will now return to the 

practice area.” 

ACTION: When you have returned to the training area, be sure to pay them if they are 

participating for cash payment, then give them a copy of the Debrief Statement along with the 

Psychology Research Experience Evaluation Form for Participants, and thank them for their 

participation. 

E- 5
Instructions for Experimenter to Read for BARS Familiarization 

First we will help you don the BARS system. Please let the technicians assist you in 

donning the vest, and the head mounted display. The vest is adjustable using the three straps 

across the front. Please feel free to request help in adjusting the straps. The head mounted 

display is also adjustable, but the band must be snug around your head to keep the display from 

moving while in use. 

Please be careful not to catch any of the cables with your hands or pull on them. 

Anytime the display presents an empty gray field please tell the technicians. 

You will be able to see the floor by looking under the bottom edge of the display. 

The image you will see is a model of an office environment made up of cubicles. You 

should be able to see walls, ceiling, floor, and office furniture along with survey flags, small 

colored squares hanging from thin sticks that protrude from the walls of the cubicle aisles. If you 

want to see where you’ve been, look at the floor through the display directly behind you and you 

will see your own footprints. 

Your movement through this environment will be 3 times faster than in the real world. 

Each step you take in the model is worth 3 steps in the real world.

The model is broken into sections. When you reach the end of a section the display will 

turn a solid gray and you should stop walking. You will then be directed to move to one of the 

yellow spots on the floor identified with a black letter. 

When the display appears and you can see it clearly, look straight ahead, take 2 steps 

straight forward and stop. Turn your head slowly to the left. (Pause) Now turn slowly to the 

right. (Pause). Return slowly to looking forward. 

Now, turn your head quickly to the left, quickly to the right, and return quickly to center. 

Note the difference in the appearance of the model depending on the speed with which you move 

your head. Look at the floor through the display and turn around to see your own footprints 

directly behind you. 

Please take a few minutes to walk through this space. Be careful to stay in the aisles 

because there is nothing to stop you from walking through a wall, which is likely to be 

disorienting. Be sure to turn left and right to walk into cubicles and see the furniture in them. 

Note the presence of survey flags. 

When you have reached the edge of the section the display will look gray. Please let the 

technician know when that happens so you can be directed to your next starting point. 

When you have been repositioned and the office model appears in the display you will be 

in the same position as you were before the display turned gray. Please use this section to 

explore the area, as you like. When you feel familiar with moving through the model please let 

us know so we may continue with the next part of the experiment. 

Do you have any questions? 

E- 6
MR Rehearsal Instructions 

You will be positioned at the starting point of the route, with your back to the windows. 

Please walk the route that you have learned. 

If you make an error, you will be told to stop, and must determine how to correct your movement 

without input from the technician. 

When the display shows a solid gray please stop and allow the technician to re-position you at 

the starting point of the next tile. 

You will perform 3 practice trials of the entire route through the model. 

Do you have any questions? 

E- 7
Walking Rehearsal Instructions 

(Read this to each WALKING condition participant) 

The Experimenter: “Thank you for participating in this experiment. This experiment is part of 

an Augmented Reality research project sponsored by the Army Research Institute. In general, 

augmented reality systems add information to the real world using a computer. The entire test 

should take less than two hours. 

 Your task involves learning to navigate a specific route through an office area. Before 

learning the route and performing the task, you will be asked to fill out an informed consent 

form, a demographics sheet and take two surveys concerning the way you experience motion. 

You will then be asked to complete three tests that are used to evaluate your spatial abilities. Do 

your best on the tests, go in sequence through the questions, and do not go back and redo 

questions unless you have finished before time is called. 

If at any time you feel uncomfortable with the situation and want to stop the experiment, 

please verbalize your intent and we will stop the experiment. Otherwise, we will not respond to 

questions or comments during your completion of surveys, training, or testing. 

Do you have any questions so far?” 

ACTION: Give the participant the Informed Consent Form and the demographics sheet. 

Experimenter: “Please fill out the Informed Consent Form and the demographics sheet”. 

ACTION: After the participant is done with filling out the consent form and the demographics 

sheet, administer Motion History Questionnaire. 

Experimenter: “Please complete the Motion History Questionnaire.” 

ACTION: After the participant is done with the motion history questionnaire, administer the 

Simulator Sickness Questionnaire. 

Experimenter: “Please complete the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire.” 

ACTION: After the participant is done with the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire, administer 

the Spatial Orientation Test. 

Experimenter: “Please complete the following Cube Comparison Test. Read over the 

instructions on the first page carefully and complete the practice session. You should mark your 

answers on the test page. Do not turn the page until you are told to do so. Please indicate when 

you have finished with the first page.” 

ACTION: When participant has indicated they are prepared to continue... 

Experimenter: “You will have 3 minutes to complete one page of cube comparisons. Work as 

quickly and accurately as possible. Are you ready?” 

ACTION: When the participant indicates they’re ready, start the stopwatch as you say: 

Experimenter: “Go” 

ACTION: When 3 minutes have passed say: 

Experimenter: “Stop” “You will have 3 minutes to complete one more page of cube 

comparisons. Work as quickly and accurately as possible. Are you ready?” 

ACTION: When the participant indicates they’re ready, start the stopwatch as you say: 

Experimenter: “Go” 

ACTION: When 3 minutes have passed say: 

Experimenter: “Stop” 

ACTION: After the participant is done with the Cube Comparison test, administer the 

Visualization test. 

E- 8
Experimenter: “Please complete the following Visualization Test. Read over the instructions 

on the first page carefully and complete the practice session. You should mark your answers on 

the test page. Do not turn the page until you are told to do so. Please indicate when you have 

finished with the first page.” 

ACTION: When participant has indicated they are prepared to continue... 

Experimenter: “You will have 6 minutes to complete 2 pages of the visualization test. Work as 

quickly and accurately as possible. Are you ready?” 

ACTION: When the participant indicates they’re ready, start the stopwatch as you say: 

Experimenter: “Go” 

ACTION: When 6 minutes have passed say: 

Experimenter: “Stop. You will have 6 minutes to complete 2 more pages of the visualization 

test. Work as quickly and accurately as possible. Are you ready?” 

ACTION: When the participant indicates they’re ready, start the stopwatch as you say: 

Experimenter: “Go” 

ACTION: When 6 minutes have passed say: 

Experimenter: “Stop 

ACTION: Remove the visualization test, and present the participant the Spatial Orientation test 

book. BE SURE TO GIVE THEM A SCANTRON 

Experimenter: “Please complete the following exercise. Read over the instruction page 

carefully and complete the practice session on pages 1, 2, and 3. Please do NOT record your 

responses to the practice items. When you have finished the practice session and are ready to 

begin, please let me know. Please do NOT begin working on the remainder of the exercise until 

instructed to do so”. 

ACTION: Make sure that you tell them NOT TO WRITE IN THE BOOKLET and record their 

answers ONLY on the scantron provided! After they let you know that they are done going over 

the sample items give them a scantron and ask them again to record their answers on the scantron 

ONLY! Hand them the scantron. 

Experimenter: “Please record your answers on the scantron only. Be sure to mark your answer 

to Test question #8 on the scantron as #1 and continue from there. You have 10 minutes to work 

on the test. Do not spend too much on one item. If you are finished before the time is called, 

you may go back and check your work. If you are not sure about the answer to any item, you 

may guess, but avoid wild guessing. Your score will be the number of correct answers minus a 

fraction of the number wrong. Are you ready? 

ACTION: When the participant indicates they’re ready, start the stopwatch as you say: 

Experimenter: “Go” 

ACTION: At the end of 10 minutes: 

Experimenter: “Stop.” 

ACTION: Collect the scantron and test booklet. 

Experimenter: “Please listen carefully to the following instructions. Your task is to study a set 

of directions, then practice traversing the route that those directions describe. You will have 15 

minutes to study those directions. Do you have any questions?” 

ACTION: If the participant has no questions, hand them their booklet with the proper Pre-brief 

statement and directions. 

Experimenter: “Please read the Pre-brief statement. When you are finished please let me 

know.” 

E- 9
ACTION: When the participant has read the pre-brief statement, and when they are ready, start 

the stopwatch as you say: 

Experimenter: “You have 15 minutes to study these directions, starting now.” 

ACTION: When 15 minutes are up, stop the watch, and retrieve the notebook. 

Experimenter: “Your practice session will be conducted by walking through the actual office 

space. You will have 3 opportunities to walk through the entire route. In addition to the 

intersections and aisles of office space, you will see the survey flags to use as cues. 

 If you make a mistake you will be asked to stop, and will have to discover the correct 

move without instruction and try again. This will be repeated until you make the proper move 

and progressed completely through the route. We will now move to the test environment on the 

4th floor of this building.” 

ACTION: Move to the 4th floor and to the starting point. Be sure the survey flags and 

clipboards are in place prior to the participant’s arrival to the area. Lead the participant to the 

starting point by the most direct route. 

Experimenter: “You will now perform 3 practice trials of the route you have studied as 

previously described.” 

ACTION: Perform 3 practice runs through the space. At the end of the practice session present 

the POST TEST Symptom Checklist. When finished – 

Experimenter: “This completes the practice portion of the experiment. 

 You will now perform 1 timed trial of the route you practiced previously. At 2 points along the 

route you will find a clipboard hanging from the wall. You must stop at each, and without 

removing the clipboard from the wall; imagine yourself standing at the center of the circle on the 

X, with your nose pointed toward the 12. Without looking around the room, write an S on the 

circle where you think the start of the route is in relation to your current position, and an E on the 

circle where you think the end of the route is in relation to your current position. Do you have 

any questions?” 

ACTION: When there are no further questions 

Experimenter: “You may begin.” START THE STOP WATCH 

ACTION: Follow the participant and count the number of errors the make. Be sure they stop 

and perform the localization task properly. When they reach the end STOP THE STOP WATCH 

Experimenter: “This completes the test portion of the experiment. We will now return to the 

practice area.” 

ACTION: When you have returned to the training area, be sure to pay them if they are 

participating for cash payment, then give them a copy of the Debrief Statement along with the 

Psychology Research Experience Evaluation Form for Participants, and thank them for their 

participation. 

E- 10
Route Drawing Rehearsal Instructions 

(Read this to each MAP condition participant) 

The Experimenter: “Thank you for participating in this experiment. This experiment is part of 

an Augmented Reality research project sponsored by the Army Research Institute. In general, 

augmented reality systems add information to the real world using a computer. The entire test 

should take less than two hours. 

 Your task involves learning to navigate a specific route through an office area. Before 

learning the route and performing the task, you will be asked to fill out an informed consent 

form, a demographics sheet and take two surveys concerning the way you experience motion. 

You will then be asked to complete three tests that are used to evaluate your spatial abilities. Do 

your best on the tests, go in sequence through the questions, and do not go back and redo 

questions unless you have finished before time is called. 

If at any time you feel uncomfortable with the situation and want to stop the experiment, 

please verbalize your intent and we will stop the experiment. Otherwise, we will not respond to 

questions or comments during your completion of surveys, training, or testing. 

Do you have any questions so far?” 

ACTION: Give the participant the Informed Consent Form and the demographics sheet. 

Experimenter: “Please fill out the Informed Consent Form and the demographics sheet”. 

ACTION: After the participant is done with filling out the consent form and the demographics 

sheet, administer Motion History Questionnaire. 

Experimenter: “Please complete the Motion History Questionnaire.” 

ACTION: After the participant is done with the motion history questionnaire, administer the 

Simulator Sickness Questionnaire. 

Experimenter: “Please complete the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire.” 

ACTION: After the participant is done with the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire, administer 

the Spatial Orientation Test. 

Experimenter: “Please complete the following Cube Comparison Test. Read over the 

instructions on the first page carefully and complete the practice session. You should mark your 

answers on the test page. Do not turn the page until you are told to do so. Please indicate when 

you have finished with the first page.” 

ACTION: When participant has indicated they are prepared to continue... 

Experimenter: “You will have 3 minutes to complete one page of cube comparisons. Work as 

quickly and accurately as possible. Are you ready?” 

ACTION: When the participant indicates they’re ready, start the stopwatch as you say: 

Experimenter: “Go” 

ACTION: When 3 minutes have passed say: 

Experimenter: “Stop” “You will have 3 minutes to complete one more page of cube 

comparisons. Work as quickly and accurately as possible. Are you ready?” 

ACTION: When the participant indicates they’re ready, start the stopwatch as you say: 

Experimenter: “Go” 

ACTION: When 3 minutes have passed say: 

Experimenter: “Stop” 

ACTION: After the participant is done with the Cube Comparison test, administer the 

Visualization test. 

E- 11
Experimenter: “Please complete the following Visualization Test. Read over the instructions 

on the first page carefully and complete the practice session. You should mark your answers on 

the test page. Do not turn the page until you are told to do so. Please indicate when you have 

finished with the first page.” 

ACTION: When participant has indicated they are prepared to continue... 

Experimenter: “You will have 6 minutes to complete 2 pages of the visualization test. Work as 

quickly and accurately as possible. Are you ready?” 

ACTION: When the participant indicates they’re ready, start the stopwatch as you say: 

Experimenter: “Go” 

ACTION: When 6 minutes have passed say: 

Experimenter: “Stop. You will have 6 minutes to complete 2 more pages of the visualization 

test. Work as quickly and accurately as possible. Are you ready?” 

ACTION: When the participant indicates they’re ready, start the stopwatch as you say: 

Experimenter: “Go” 

ACTION: When 6 minutes have passed say: 

Experimenter: “Stop 

ACTION: Remove the visualization test, and present the participant the Spatial Orientation test 

book. BE SURE TO GIVE THEM A SCANTRON 

Experimenter: “Please complete the following exercise. Read over the instruction page 

carefully and complete the practice session on pages 1, 2, and 3. Please do NOT record your 

responses to the practice items. When you have finished the practice session and are ready to 

begin, please let me know. Please do NOT begin working on the remainder of the exercise until 

instructed to do so”. 

ACTION: Make sure that you tell them NOT TO WRITE IN THE BOOKLET and record their 

answers ONLY on the scantron provided! After they let you know that they are done going over 

the sample items give them a scantron and ask them again to record their answers on the scantron 

ONLY! Hand them the scantron. 

Experimenter: “Please record your answers on the scantron only. Be sure to mark your answer 

to Test question #8 on the scantron as #1 and continue from there. You have 10 minutes to work 

on the test. Do not spend too much on one item. If you are finished before the time is called, 

you may go back and check your work. If you are not sure about the answer to any item, you 

may guess, but avoid wild guessing. Your score will be the number of correct answers minus a 

fraction of the number wrong. Are you ready? 

ACTION: When the participant indicates they’re ready, start the stopwatch as you say: 

Experimenter: “Go” 

ACTION: At the end of 10 minutes: 

Experimenter: “Stop.” 

ACTION: Collect the scantron and test booklet. 

Experimenter: “Please listen carefully to the following instructions. Your task is to study a set 

of directions, then practice the route that those directions describe. You will have 15 minutes to 

study those directions. Do you have any questions?” 

ACTION: If the participant has no questions, hand them their booklet with the proper Pre-brief 

statement and directions. 

Experimenter: “Please read the Pre-brief statement. When you are finished please let me 

know.” 

E- 12
ACTION: When the participant has read the pre-brief statement, and when they are ready, start 

the stopwatch as you say: 

Experimenter: “You have 15 minutes to study these directions, starting now.” 

ACTION: When 15 minutes are up, stop the watch, and retrieve the notebook. 

Experimenter: “Your practice session will be conducted by drawing the route on a floor plan of 

the actual office space. You will have 3 opportunities to draw the entire route. In addition to the 

intersections and aisles of office space, you will see the survey flags to use as cues. 

 If you make a mistake you will be asked to stop, and will have to discover the correct 

move without instruction and try again. This will be repeated until you make the proper move 

and have progressed completely through the route.” 

ACTION: Perform 3 practice drawings through the space. At the end of the practice session 

present the POST TEST Symptom Checklist. When finished – 

Experimenter: “This completes the practice portion of the experiment. We will now move to the 

test area on the 4th floor of this building. 

ACTION: Move to the 4th floor and to the starting point. Be sure the survey flags and 

clipboards are in place prior to the participant’s arrival to the area. Lead the participant to the 

starting point by the most direct route. 

Experimenter: “You will now perform 1 timed trial of the route you practiced previously. At 2 

points along the route you will find a clipboard hanging from the wall. You must stop at each, 

and without removing the clipboard from the wall; imagine yourself standing at the center of the 

circle on the X, with your nose pointed toward the 12. Without looking around the room, write 

an S on the circle where you think the start of the route is in relation to your current position, and 

an E on the circle where you think the end of the route is in relation to your current position. Do 

you have any questions?” 

ACTION: When there are no further questions 

Experimenter: “You may begin.” START THE STOP WATCH 

ACTION: Follow the participant and count the number of errors the make. Be sure they stop 

and perform the localization task properly. When they reach the end STOP THE STOP WATCH 

Experimenter: “This completes the test portion of the experiment. We will now return to the 

practice area.” 

ACTION: When you have returned to the training area, be sure to pay them if they are 

participating for cash payment, then give them a copy of the Debrief Statement along with the 

Psychology Research Experience Evaluation Form for Participants, and thank them for their 

participation. 

E- 13
E- 14 
APPENDIX F 

DEMOGRAPHICS QUESTIONNAIRE 

Demographics Questionnaire 

Participant number: ___________ Date: __________ 

Male _____ Female _____ Age: _____ 

Year in School: _______________________ Major: _________________________ 

Is your vision corrected to 20/20? YES NO 

Do you have any color vision deficiency? YES NO 

 If yes, please describe: 

How many hours a week do you spend using a computer? _____ 

How many hours a week do you spend playing video games? _____ 

On a scale of 1 to 10, with one meaning you are never misoriented and 10 meaning you 

always have trouble finding your way around, how would you rate your sense of direction?

 _____ 

How often do you use a map? 

 Never _____ Once a week _____ Once a month _____ Once a year _____ 

When you use a map do you always orient the map with north up, or do you rotate the map 

based on your direction of travel? 

F- 1
 

F- 2
APPENDIX G 

ROUTE DIRECTIONS FOR MEMORIZATION 

G- 1
Route Directions 

Please study the following directions to walk from one point to another along this specific route. 

Stand with your back to the windows 

Walk forward past the pink flag 

Turn right and walk to the next intersection 

Turn left and walk past the white flag 

Turn left and walk to the intersection 

Turn left and walk toward the blue flag 

G- 2
Turn right and walk to the next intersection 

Turn left and walk past 2 blue flags 

Turn right and walk to the next intersection 

Turn right and walk past the white flag 

Turn left and walk to the next intersection 

Turn left and walk past the blue flag to the next intersection 

Turn left and walk to the next intersection 

G- 3
Turn right and end facing the window 

G- 4