Figure 3.1. Photograph illustrating the virtual world used in the comparative studies. This particular photograph shows a virtual world with a 50 degree GFOV representing a monoscopic display format. 32
Figure 3.2. Illustration of the apparatus used for the three comparative studies. 33
Figure 3.3. Summary of average presence ratings (from 1 to 100) across all subjects for the three comparative studies. The dashed lines encompass the condition (world 2) which was repeated across all three studies. 45
Figure 4.1. Illustration of the apparatus used for the second experiment. 56
Figure 4.2. Summary of average presence ratings (from 1 to 100) across all subjects as a function of no-sound versus spatialized sound and non-spatialized sound versus spatialized sound. The dashed lines encompass the condition (layout 2) which was repeated across both studies. 65
Figure 5.1. Schematic of the experimental apparatus used in experiment three. 75
Figure 5.2. Illustration of the response sheet used by subjects to log their responses for spatial judgments. 78
Figure 5.3. Separation error as a function of GFOV and headtracking for objects located near the camera eyepoint. 81
Figure 5.4. Depth error as a function of GFOV and stereopsis for objects located near the camera eyepoint. 82
Figure 5.5. Depth error as a function of stereopsis and headtracking for objects located near the camera eyepoint. 83
Figure 5.6. Separation error as a function of stereopsis and GFOV for objects located far from the camera eyepoint. 85
Figure 5.7. Depth error as a function of stereopsis and GFOV for objects located far from the camera eyepoint. 86
