Estimation of distances in virtual environments using size constancy

It is reported in the literature that distances from the observer are underestimated more in virtual environments (VEs) than in physical world conditions. On the other hand estimation of size in VEs is quite accurate and follows a size-constancy law when rich cues are present. This study investigates how estimation of distance in a CAVETM environment is affected by poor and rich cue conditions, subject experience, and environmental learning when the position of the objects is estimated using an experimental paradigm that exploits size constancy. A group of 18 healthy participants was asked to move a virtual sphere controlled using the wand joystick to the position where they thought a previously-displayed virtual cube (stimulus) had appeared. Real-size physical models of the virtual objects were also presented to the participants as a reference of real physical distance during the trials. An accurate estimation of distance implied that the participants assessed the relative size of sphere and cube correctly. The cube appeared at depths between 0.6 m and 3 m, measured along the depth direction of the CAVE. The task was carried out in two environments: a poor cue one with limited background cues, and a rich cue one with textured background surfaces. It was found that distances were underestimated in both poor and rich cue conditions, with greater underestimation in the poor cue environment. The analysis also indicated that factors such as subject experience and environmental learning were not influential. However, least square fitting of Stevens’ power law indicated a high degree of accuracy during the estimation of object locations. This accuracy was higher than in other studies which were not based on a size-estimation paradigm. Thus as indirect result, this study appears to show that accuracy when estimating egocentric distances may be increased using an experimental method that provides information on the relative size of the objects used.

Evaluation of two "integrated" polarimetric Quantitative Precipitation Estimation (QPE) algorithms at C-band

Two so-called “integrated” polarimetric rate estimation techniques, ZPHI (Testud et al., 2000) and ZZDR (Illingworth and Thompson, 2005), are evaluated using 12 episodes of the year 2005 observed by the French C-band operational Trappes radar, located near Paris. The term “integrated” means that the concentration parameter of the drop size distribution is assumed to be constant over some area and the algorithms retrieve it using the polarimetric variables in that area. The evaluation is carried out in ideal conditions (no partial beam blocking, no ground-clutter contamination, no bright band contamination, a posteriori calibration of the radar variables ZH and ZDR) using hourly rain gauges located at distances less than 60 km from the radar. Also included in the comparison, for the sake of benchmarking, is a conventional Z = 282R1.66 estimator, with and without attenuation correction and with and without adjustment by rain gauges as currently done operationally at Météo France. Under those ideal conditions, the two polarimetric algorithms, which rely solely on radar data, appear to perform as well if not better, pending on the measurements conditions (attenuation, rain rates, …), than the conventional algorithms, even when the latter take into account rain gauges through the adjustment scheme. ZZDR with attenuation correction is the best estimator for hourly rain gauge accumulations lower than 5 mm h−1 and ZPHI is the best one above that threshold. A perturbation analysis has been conducted to assess the sensitivity of the various estimators with respect to biases on ZH and ZDR, taking into account the typical accuracy and stability that can be reasonably achieved with modern operational radars these days (1 dB on ZH and 0.2 dB on ZDR). A +1 dB positive bias on ZH (radar too hot) results in a +14% overestimation of the rain rate with the conventional estimator used in this study (Z = 282R^1.66), a -19% underestimation with ZPHI and a +23% overestimation with ZZDR. Additionally, a +0.2 dB positive bias on ZDR results in a typical rain rate under- estimation of 15% by ZZDR.