David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Topics in Cognitive Science 3 (3):579-608 (2011)
Often implicit in visual display design and development is a gold standard of photorealism. By approximating direct perception, photorealism appeals to users and designers by being both attractive and apparently effortless. The vexing result from numerous performance evaluations, though, is that increasing realism often impairs performance. Smallman and St. John (2005) labeled misplaced faith in realistic information display Naïve Realism and theorized it resulted from a triplet of folk fallacies about perception. Here, we illustrate issues associated with the wider trend towards realism by focusing on a specific current trend for high-fidelity perspective view (3D) geospatial displays. In two experiments, we validated Naïve Realism for different terrain understanding tasks, explored whether certain individuals are particularly prone to Naïve Realism, and determined the ability of task feedback to mitigate Naïve Realism. Performance was measured for laying and judging a concealed route across realistic terrain shown in different display formats. Task feedback was either implicit, in Experiment 1, or explicit in Experiment 2. Prospective and retrospective intuitions about the best display formats for the tasks were recorded and then related to task performance and participant spatial ability. Participants generally intuited they would perform tasks better with more realism than they actually required. For example, counter to intuitions, lowering fidelity of the terrain display revealed the gross scene layout needed to lay a well-concealed route. Individuals of high spatial ability calibrated their intuitions with only implicit task feedback, whereas those of low spatial ability required salient, explicit feedback to calibrate their intuitions about display realism. Results are discussed in the wider context of applying perceptual science to display design, and combating folk fallacies
|Keywords||Spatial fidelity Visual displays Realism Folk fallacies Metacognition Visual perception Intuition|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
References found in this work BETA
J. P. Frisby (1979). Seeing. Oxford University Press.
Daniel J. Simons & Ronald A. Rensink (2005). Change Blindness: Past, Present, and Future. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9 (1):16-20.
D. Alexander Varakin, Daniel T. Levin & Roger Fidler (2004). Unseen and Unaware: Implications of Recent Research on Failures of Visual Awareness for Human-Computer Interface Design. Human-Computer Interaction 19 (4):389-422.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
B. M. Arthadeva (1959). Naive Realism and Illusions of Refraction. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 37 (August):118-137.
Michael Sollberger (2007). The Causal Argument Against Disjunctivism. Facta Philosophica 9 (1):245-267.
George Graham & Terence E. Horgan (1988). How to Be Realistic About Folk Psychology. Philosophical Psychology 1 (1):69-81.
Thomas Raleigh (2009). Understanding How Experience "Seems&Quot;. European Journal of Analytic Philosophy 5 (2):67-78.
Matthew Kennedy (2011). Naïve Realism, Privileged Access, and Epistemic Safety. Noûs 45 (1):77-102.
Michael Sollberger (2008). Naïve Realism and the Problem of Causation. Disputatio 3 (25):1-19.
Berit Brogaard (2010). Disjunctivism. Oxford Annotated Bibliographies Online.
Keith Allen (2011). Revelation and the Nature of Colour. Dialectica 65 (2):153-176.
M. D. Conduct (2011). Naïve Realism and Extreme Disjunctivism. Philosophical Explorations 13 (3):201-221.
Added to index2010-08-20
Total downloads10 ( #120,393 of 1,088,810 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #69,666 of 1,088,810 )
How can I increase my downloads?