Figure 1.
Experiment 1: Exterior view of the experimental setup.
Figure 2.
Experiment 1: Bird’s eye view of the arrangement of cuboids in the furnished model room.
Objects D were with respect to C at a distance of 1 cm. The bottom horizontal line corresponds to the front wall.
Figure 3.
Experiment 1: Interior view in the maximum left, default, and maximum right viewing direction of the furnished (first row) and the unfurnished (second row) model room with the additional scaling cue as well as of the furnished (third row) and the unfurnished (fourth row) model room without the additional scaling cue.
Figure 4.
Experiment 1: Mean relative estimation errors of the three room dimensions as a function of furnishing and scaling cue.
Error bars show ±1 SEM of the 39 individuals in the factor level combinations with scaling cue and of the 40 individuals in the factor level combinations without scaling cue.
Table 1.
Experiment 1: Results of the MANOVA and the post-hoc calculated repeated measures ANOVAs conducted for the relative estimation errors of the room dimension estimates.
Table 2.
Experiment 1: Results of the paired t-tests (test value = 0) conducted for the difference of the relative estimation errors in the comparisons width vs. depth, height vs. width, and height vs. depth, differentiated according to scaling cue and furnishing.
Figure 5.
Experiment 1: Mean spaciousness judgments as a function of furnishing and presentation order.
Error bars show ±1 SEM of the 40 subjects in each factor level combination.
Figure 6.
Experiment 2: Two-dimensional screenshots of the smallest (above) and the largest (below) virtual room in the furnished and unfurnished condition, each displayed from the leftmost, the default, and the rightmost vantage point.
Figure 7.
Experiment 2: The observer’s position relative to the projection screen (left-hand side) and relative to the smallest virtual room (right-hand side).
Within the virtual room, the grey shaded area was not visible to observers.
Figure 8.
Experiment 2: Mean relative estimation errors of the three room dimensions as a function of furnishing.
Error bars show ±1 SEM of the 39 subjects in each condition.
Table 3.
Experiment 2: Results of the MANOVA and the post hoc calculated repeated-measures ANOVAs conducted for the relative estimation error of the room dimension estimates.
Table 4.
Experiment 2: Results of Hotellings T2-test [65] and the post-hoc calculated t-tests for single samples (test value = 0) conducted for the means of the relative estimation error of the room dimension estimates.
Figure 9.
Experiment 2: Mean relative estimation errors of the three room dimensions as a function of width/depth.
Error bars show ±1 SEM of the 39 subjects in each condition.
Table 5.
Experiment 2: Results of the paired-samples t-tests (test value = 0) conducted for the difference of the relative estimation errors in the comparisons width vs. depth and height vs. width, differentiated according to the seven levels of surface area.
Figure 10.
Experiment 2: Mean spaciousness judgments as a function of furnishing and width/depth.
Error bars show ±1 SEM of the 40 subjects in each condition.
Table 6.
Overview of the effects of furnishing on perceived spatial dimensions and perceived spaciousness of interior space in Experiments 1 and 2.