Citation: Azarby, S.; Rice, A.
Understanding the Effects of Virtual
Reality System Usage on Spatial
Perception: The Potential Impacts of
Immersive Virtual Reality on Spatial
Design Decisions. Sustainability 2022,
14, 10326. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su141610326
Academic Editors: Zhihan Lv, Kai Xu
and Zhigeng Pan
Received: 30 June 2022
Accepted: 16 August 2022
Published: 19 August 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Article
Understanding the Effects of Virtual Reality System Usage on
Spatial Perception: The Potential Impacts of Immersive Virtual
Reality on Spatial Design Decisions
Sahand Azarby * and Arthur Rice
College of Design, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27607, USA
* Correspondence: sazarby@ncsu.edu
Abstract:
The main component of any Virtual Reality (VR) system is the human user. The ways in
which a VR system shapes human experience can affect design outcomes. This research explores
the differences in spatial perception between an immersive Virtual Reality Interactive Environment
(IVRIE) and traditional Virtual Reality (also known as a desktop-based Virtual Reality system,
abbreviated herein as the DT system). Spatial perception and the cognition of the spatial factors of
virtual spaces were studied based on different features of the two systems, including the sense of
immersion, forms of interaction, experience of human scale, and movement through virtual spaces.
This study focused on determining how users’ spatial decision making and performance were affected
by differences in spatial perception created by the IVRIE and DT systems. Factors examined included
the differences between and within the two virtual systems, based on differences in texture, system
usage sequence, and the complexity of the experiential/spatial guidelines. Descriptive and inferential
statistical testing using quantitative and qualitative data were used to find differences in spatial
perception and decision making. The results showed significant space size variations produced by
participants between and within the two different VR systems.
Keywords:
virtual reality; immersive virtual environment; spatial perception; spatial decision
making; immersion; interaction; user experience; spatial design
1. Introduction
Digital technology has drastically changed visualization and modeling techniques.
Today, three-dimensional (3D) visualization methods and dynamic models have replaced
analog visualization and static representations. The utilization of virtual environments for
visualization and modeling has changed digital architectural representations from abstract
and static to highly realistic, potentially providing an immersive experience on multiple
spatial and temporal scales [1].
This study was motivated by the long-term goals of exploring and identifying the
potential of VR as a digital design environment/tool for architectural design, including
its use in design learning, teaching, and practice. The overall objective was to better
understand differences in users’ perception of the spatial factors of design in an immersive
Virtual Reality Interactive Environment (IVRIE), as compared to the spatial perception
obtained using a desktop-based semi-immersive virtual environment system (also known
as traditional VR or a desktop-based Virtual Reality system (DT system)).
VR as a visualization tool has experienced a recent boom in the professional and edu-
cational design fields [
2
]. In many studies, VR, its characteristics, and possible capabilities
have been highlighted in connection with digital design imperatives. VR as a visualization
tool or design environment can be integrated into the design process from the initial design
phases to the most advanced stages, affecting conventional design methods [3].
Sustainability 2022, 14, 10326. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610326 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
