skip to main content
10.1145/3340764.3340776acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmundcConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Information Processing in Real and in Stereoscopic Environments

Authors Info & Claims
Published:08 September 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

It is widely acknowledged that the accommodation-vergence-conflict contributes a lot to strain and stress happening in stereoscopic vision. Astonishingly little is known, however, regarding the cognitive consequences. A set-up is developed and introduced which enables the quantification of recognition performance for objects which are viewed out of focus. Experiment 1 showed that in stereoscopic environments, recognition performance for objects behind fixation was in mean twice as good as in real environments. In real environments, recognition of objects presented behind fixation was even worse than in the upper visual field (Exp. 2). Although retinal disparity seems to contribute to this low recognition performance, Experiment 3 showed that in real environments, even without disparate images, processing of objects in depth is rather limited. The data provide a first estimate on how much defocus blur affects cognitive processing in real environments and hence, how much cognitive effort is required in stereoscopic scenes to enable comparable information processing in virtual and in real surrounds.

References

  1. Stuart M Anstis. 1974. A chart demonstrating variations in acuity with retinal position. Vision Research 14, 7 (1974), 589.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Martin S Banks, Steven A Cholewiak, Gordon D Love, Pratul Srinivasan, and Ren Ng. 2017. ChromaBlur: Rendering Chromatic Eye Aberration Improves Accommodation and Realism in HMDs. In 3D Image Acquisition and Display: Technology, Perception and Applications. Optical Society of America, DM2F-1.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Mark A Berkley, Frederick Kitterle, and David W Watkins. 1975. Grating visibility as a function of orientation and retinal eccentricity. Vision Research 15, 2 (1975), 239--244.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Tobias Blum, Matthias Wieczorek, André Aichert, Radhika Tibrewal, and Nassir Navab. 2010. The effect of out-of-focus blur on visual discomfort when using stereo displays. In 2010 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality. IEEE, 13--17.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Fergus W Campbell. 1957. The depth of field of the human eye. Optica Acta: International Journal of Optics 4, 4 (1957), 157--164.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Steven A Cholewiak, Gordon D Love, Pratul P Srinivasan, Ren Ng, and Martin S Banks. 2017. Chromablur: Rendering chromatic eye aberration improves accommodation and realism. ACM Transactions on Graphics 36, 6 (2017), 210. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Lisa Valentina Eberhardt and Anke Huckauf. 2019. Crowding in depth for binocular and monocular observation. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics (2019), 1--11.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Graham K Edgar and Andrew T Smith. 1990. Hemifield differences in perceived spatial frequency. Perception 19, 6 (1990), 759--766.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. S Kay Fisher and Kenneth J Ciuffreda. 1988. Accommodation and apparent distance. Perception 17, 5 (1988), 609--621.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. John M Foley. 1980. Binocular distance perception. Psychological review 87, 5 (1980), 411.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. RD Freeman. 1980. Visual acuity is better for letters in rows than in columns. Nature 286, 5768 (1980), 62.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Mark A Georgeson and Stuart A Wallis. 2014. Binocular fusion, suppression and diplopia for blurred edges. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics 34, 2 (2014), 163--185.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Daniel G Green, Maureen K Powers, and Martin S Banks. 1980. Depth of focus, eye size and visual acuity. Vision Research 20, 10 (1980), 827--835.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. David M Hoffman, Ahna R Girshick, Kurt Akeley, and Martin S Banks. 2008. Vergence--accommodation conflicts hinder visual performance and cause visual fatigue. Journal of Vision 8, 3 (2008), 33--33.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. MI Hofmann and PE Hallett. 1993. Texture segregation based on two-dimensional relative phase differences in composite sine-wave grating patterns. Vision Research 33, 2 (1993), 221--234.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Ian P Howard. 2012. Perceiving in depth, Volume 1: Basic mechanisms. Oxford University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Ian P Howard and Brian J Rogers. 2012. Perceiving in depth, Volume 2: Stereoscopic vision. Oxford University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Anke Huckauf, Mario H Urbina, Jens Grubert, Irina Böckelmann, Fabian Doil, Lutz Schega, Johannes Tümler, and Rüdiger Mecke. 2010. Perceptual issues in optical-see-through displays. In Proceedings of the 7th Symposium on Applied Perception in Graphics and Visualization. ACM, 41--48. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Frank L Kooi and Alexander Toet. 2004. Visual comfort of binocular and 3D displays. Displays 25, 2-3 (2004), 99--108.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Marc Lambooij, Marten Fortuin, Ingrid Heynderickx, and Wijnand IJsselsteijn. 2009. Visual discomfort and visual fatigue of stereoscopic displays: A review. Journal of Imaging Science and Technology 53, 3 (2009), 30201--1.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Gordon E Legge. 1984. Binocular contrast summation -- I. Detection and discrimination. Vision Research 24, 4 (1984), 373--383.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Michael W Levine and J Jason McAnany. 2005. The relative capabilities of the upper and lower visual hemifields. Vision Research 45, 21 (2005), 2820--2830.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. DE Mitchell. 1966. A review of the concept of "Panum's fusional areas". Optometry and Vision Science 43, 6 (1966), 387--401.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Mark Mon-Williams and James R Tresilian. 2000. Ordinal depth information from accommodation? Ergonomics 43, 3 (2000), 391--404.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Leila Montaser-Kouhsari and Marisa Carrasco. 2009. Perceptual asymmetries are preserved in short-term memory tasks. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 71, 8 (2009), 1782--1792.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Shojiro Nagata. 1996. The binocular fusion of human vision on stereoscopic displays -- field of view and environment effects. Ergonomics 39, 11 (1996), 1273--1284.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Kenneth N Ogle and J Theodore Schwartz. 1959. Depth of focus of the human eye. Journal of the Optical Society of America 49, 3 (1959), 273--280.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. DA Palmer. 1961. Measurement of the horizontal extent of Panum's area by a method of constant stimuli. Optica Acta: International Journal of Optics 8, 2 (1961), 151--159.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Robert Patterson, Marc D Winterbottom, and Byron J Pierce. 2006. Perceptual issues in the use of head-mounted visual displays. Human factors 48, 3 (2006), 555--573.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Damin Qin, Mamoru Takamatsu, and Yoshio Nakashima. 2004. Measurement for the panum's fusional area in retinal fovea using a three--dimention display device. Journal of Light & Visual Environment 28, 3 (2004), 126--131.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Jyrki Rovamo, Veijo Virsu, Pentti Laurinen, and L Hyvärinen. 1982. Resolution of gratings oriented along and across meridians in peripheral vision. Investigative ophthalmology & visual science 23, 5 (1982), 666--670.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Nava Rubin, Ken Nakayama, and Robert Shapley. 1996. Enhanced perception of illusory contours in the lower versus upper visual hemifields. Science 271, 5249 (1996), 651--653.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Takashi Shibata, Joohwan Kim, David M Hoffman, and Martin S Banks. 2011. The zone of comfort: Predicting visual discomfort with stereo displays. Journal of vision 11, 8 (2011), 11--11.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Cigdem P Talgar and Marisa Carrasco. 2002. Vertical meridian asymmetry in spatial resolution: Visual and attentional factors. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 9, 4 (2002), 714--722.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Matthieu Urvoy, Marcus Barkowsky, and Patrick Le Callet. 2013. How visual fatigue and discomfort impact 3D-TV quality of experience: a comprehensive review of technological, psychophysical, and psychological factors. annals of telecommunications-annales des télécommunications 68, 11-12 (2013), 641--655.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Dhanraj Vishwanath. 2012. The utility of defocus blur in binocular depth perception. i-Perception 3, 8 (2012), 541--546.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Claes Von Hofsten. 1976. The role of convergence in visual space perception. Vision Research 16, 2 (1976), 193--198.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. John P Wann, Simon Rushton, and Mark Mon-Williams. 1995. Natural problems for stereoscopic depth perception in virtual environments. Vision research 35, 19 (1995), 2731--2736.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Simon J Watt, Kurt Akeley, Marc O Ernst, and Martin S Banks. 2005. Focus cues affect perceived depth. Journal of vision 5, 10 (2005), 7--7.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Marc D Winterbottom, Robert Patterson, Byron J Pierce, Christine M Covas, and Jennifer Winner. 2007. Depth of focus and visual recognition of imagery presented on simultaneously viewed displays: implications for head-mounted displays. Human factors 49, 5 (2007), 907--919.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Information Processing in Real and in Stereoscopic Environments

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Other conferences
        MuC '19: Proceedings of Mensch und Computer 2019
        September 2019
        863 pages
        ISBN:9781450371988
        DOI:10.1145/3340764

        Copyright © 2019 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 8 September 2019

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed limited

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader