Training system for converting current visual information to bird's-eye view

Abstract

Introduction: Effective decision-making in ball games requires the ability to convert positional information from a first-person perspective into a bird's-eye view. To address this need, we developed a virtual reality (VR)-based training system designed to enhance spatial cognition.

Methods: Using a head-mounted virtual reality display, participants engaged in tasks where they tracked multiple moving objects in a virtual space and reproduced their positions from a bird's-eye perspective. The system simulated game-like scenarios to systematically train this cognitive skill. Participants' performance was assessed before and after the training.

Results: The experimental results revealed significant improvements in spatial accuracy and cognitive ability among participants after using the system. These enhancements were measured by their ability to accurately convert first-person positional data into a bird's-eye perspective.

Discussion: The findings suggest that the VR-based system effectively enhances perceptual-cognitive skills critical for team sports and other tasks requiring advanced spatial awareness. This training method holds potential for broader applications in spatially demanding activities.

Keywords: cognitive skill development; first-person to bird’s-eye perspective conversion; perceptual-cognitive training; spatial cognitive ability; spatial perspective transformation; team sports decision-making; virtual reality; virtual reality sports training.

Figure 1

System transition diagram. The diagram represents the progression through the three phases of the training system: Tracking phase, Reproduction phase, and Review phase. During the Tracking phase, the user observes objects moving in Court A. Once the objects stop, the user transitions to Court B to recreate the observed positions from a bird’s-eye perspective in the Reproduction phase. In cases where the score is below 100, the system moves to the Review phase, enabling the user to compare their attempt with the correct positions to improve their spatial understanding. The system cycles through these phases until the user achieves a perfect score.

Figure 2

Screenshot of tracking phase in Court A. This screenshot depicts the user’s view during the Tracking phase within Court A. In this phase, the user observes and tracks multiple moving objects in a virtual environment using a Head Mounted Display (HMD). The objects move across the court in various directions, requiring the user to turn their head to follow them. This task aims to enhance the user’s ability to recognize spatial relationships and prepare for the subsequent Reproduction phase.

Figure 3

Screenshot of reproduction phase. This figure shows the Reproduction phase, where the user attempts to recreate the positions of objects observed during the Tracking phase. The user interacts with the virtual court (Court B) from a bird’s-eye view, using an HMD to place the objects in their perceived correct positions. The score is displayed after the placement to provide immediate feedback, indicating the accuracy of the user’s spatial reconstruction.

Figure 4

Placing objects with Oculus Touch. This figure illustrates the process of placing objects during the Reproduction phase. The user uses Oculus Touch controllers to manipulate virtual hands, allowing precise movement and placement of objects within the court. The interaction demonstrates how users adjust object positions to match their recollection of the observed layout from the Tracking phase, enabling a hands-on approach to improving spatial awareness.

Figure 5

Screenshot after grading in the recall phase (75 points). This figure displays the grading results shown during the Reproduction phase after the user has placed objects in Court B. In this example, the user achieved a score of 75 points, reflecting the accuracy of their spatial reconstruction based on the observed layout in the Tracking phase. The score provides immediate feedback, allowing users to gauge their performance and identify areas for improvement.

Figure 6

Screenshots of Court B and Court C at the time of scoring. This figure illustrates the process of scoring during the Reproduction phase, highlighting the comparison between the user’s placement in Court B and the correct layout in Court C. The system uses collision detection to determine whether the objects placed by the user overlap with the correct positions in Court C. The overlapping areas are assessed to assign points, providing an objective measure of the user’s accuracy. This mechanism ensures precise evaluation of the user’s spatial recall ability.

Figure 7

Judgment by the collider, Left is correct, right is incorrect. This figure illustrates the judgment process using the collider during the scoring phase. The system evaluates whether the user’s placement in Court B overlaps with the correct placement in Court C. The left image shows a correct placement where the object is within the collider’s range, while the right image displays an incorrect placement outside the collider’s range. This collision-based judgment forms the basis for calculating the user’s score, ensuring an objective evaluation of spatial accuracy.

Figure 8

Screenshot of the review phase comparing left and right. This figure shows the Review phase, where the user can compare their object placements in Court B (right) with the correct layout observed in Court A (left). This phase alternates between the two views, allowing the user to identify discrepancies and understand where adjustments are needed. The Review phase is designed to reinforce learning by providing a visual comparison and enabling iterative improvement in spatial reconstruction skills.

Figure 9

Pre-post test. This figure illustrates the sequence of the pre-post test. The test begins with the presentation of the first stimulus, showing a layout of objects observed from a first-person perspective. After a brief interval, the second stimulus is displayed, either replicating the first layout from a bird’s-eye perspective or showing a modified arrangement. Participants are required to determine whether the second stimulus correctly represents the layout from the first stimulus, testing their ability to mentally switch perspectives and reconstruct spatial relationships.

Figure 10

Average scores for pre- and post-tests. This figure presents the average scores of the pre- and post-tests for both the experimental and control groups. The experimental group shows a significant improvement in scores after using the training system, while the control group exhibits minimal change. These results highlight the effectiveness of the system in enhancing participants’ ability to convert first-person perspective information into a bird’s-eye view.