Virtual Eyes Can Rearrange Your Body: Adaptation to Visual Displacement in See-Through, Head-Mounted Displays

Among the most critical issues in the design of immersive virtual environments are those that deal with the problem of technologically induced intersensory conflict and one of the results, sensorimotor adaptation. An experiment was conducted to support the design of a prototype see-through, head-mounted display (HMD). When wearing video see-through HMDs in augmented reality systems, subjects see the world around them through a pair of head-mounted video cameras. The study looked at the effects of sensory rearrangement caused by a HMD design that displaced the user's virtual eye position forward (165 mm) and above (62 mm) toward the spatial position of the cameras. The position of the cameras creates images of the world that are slightly downward and inward from normal. Measures of hand-eye coordination and speed on a manual pegboard task revealed substantial perceptual costs of the eye displacement initially, but also evidence of adaptation. Upon first wearing the video see-through HMD, subjects' pointing errors increased significantly along the spatial dimensions displaced (the y dimension, above-below the target, and z dimension, in front-behind the target). Speed of performance on the pegboard task decreased by 43 compared to baseline performance. Pointing accuracy improved by approximately 33 as subjects adapted to the sensory rearrangement, but it did not reach baseline performance. When subjects removed the see-through HMD, there was evidence that their hand-eye coordination had been altered. Negative aftereffects were observed in the form of greater errors in pointing accuracy compared to baseline. Although these aftereffects are temporary, the results may have serious practical implications for the use of video see-through HMDs by users (e.g., surgeons) who depend on very accurate hand-eye coordination.

[1]  G. Stratton Some preliminary experiments on vision without inversion of the retinal image. , 1896 .

[2]  W. M. Urban The psychology of sufficient reason. , .

[3]  G. Stratton Vision without inversion of the retinal image. , 1897 .

[4]  F. W. Snyder,et al.  Vision with spatial inversion , 1952 .

[5]  Richard Held,et al.  Technique for Studying Adaptation to Disarranged Hand-Eye Coordination , 1958 .

[6]  R. Held,et al.  Neonatal deprivation and adult rearrangement: complementary techniques for analyzing plastic sensory-motor coordinations. , 1961, Journal of comparative and physiological psychology.

[7]  James G. Taylor The behavioral basis of perception , 1962 .

[8]  I. Kohler,et al.  The formation and transformation of the perceptual world. , 1963 .

[9]  C. S. Harris Perceptual adaptation to inverted, reversed, and displaced vision. , 1965, Psychological review.

[10]  I. Rock The nature of perceptual adaptation , 1969 .

[11]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  The Sciences of the Artificial , 1970 .

[12]  Lloyd Kaufman,et al.  Sight and mind , 1974 .

[13]  A. Kornheiser Adaptation to laterally displaced vision: a review. , 1976, Psychological bulletin.

[14]  R. Welch Perceptual modification : adapting to altered sensory environments / Robert B. Welch , 1978 .

[15]  BRENDAN O. MCGONIGLE,et al.  Long-term retention of single and multistate prismatic adaptation by humans , 1978, Nature.

[16]  J T Reason,et al.  Motion Sickness Adaptation: A Neural Mismatch Model 1 , 1978, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine.

[17]  R A Buchroeder,et al.  Design of a Catadioptric VCASS Helmet-Mounted Display , 1981 .

[18]  Ānisujjāmāna,et al.  Culture and thought , 1983 .

[19]  D. Mccormick Understanding the Media , 1984, Bio/Technology.

[20]  Robert S. Kennedy,et al.  Guidelines for Alleviation of Simulator Sickness Symptomatology , 1987 .

[21]  Colin Potts,et al.  Design of Everyday Things , 1988 .

[22]  Justin G. Droessler,et al.  Tilted cat helmet-mounted display , 1990 .

[23]  C. Oman Sensory conflict in motion sickness: an Observer Theory approach , 1991 .

[24]  Ryutarou Ohbuchi,et al.  Merging virtual objects with the real world: seeing ultrasound imagery within the patient , 1992, SIGGRAPH.

[25]  Michael Bajura,et al.  Merging Virtual Objects with the Real World , 1992 .

[26]  FuchsHenry,et al.  Merging virtual objects with the real world , 1992 .

[27]  Norman E. Lane,et al.  Profile Analysis of Simulator Sickness Symptoms: Application to Virtual Environment Systems , 1992, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[28]  Frank Biocca,et al.  Will Simulation Sickness Slow Down the Diffusion of Virtual Environment Technology? , 1992, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[29]  Jannick P. Rolland,et al.  Video see-through design for merging of real and virtual environments , 1993, Proceedings of IEEE Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium.

[30]  B. Bridgeman,et al.  Alternating prism exposure causes dual adaptation and generalization to a novel displacement , 1993, Perception & psychophysics.

[31]  Hong Chen,et al.  Observing a volume rendered fetus within a pregnant patient , 1994, Proceedings Visualization '94.

[32]  Jie. Yao,et al.  Model observers for predicting human performance on signal detection tasks. , 1994 .

[33]  David J. Goodman,et al.  Personal Communications , 1994, Mobile Communications.

[34]  Jannick P. Rolland,et al.  Towards Quantifying Depth and Size Perception in Virtual Environments , 1993, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[35]  Communication in the age of virtual reality , 1995 .

[36]  B. Gorayska,et al.  Cognitive Technology: In Search of a Humane Interface , 1995 .

[37]  Frank Biocca,et al.  Immersive virtual reality technology , 1995 .

[38]  Henry Fuchs,et al.  Comparison of optical and video see-through, head-mounted displays , 1995, Other Conferences.

[39]  F. Biocca Chapter 3 Intelligence augmentation: The vision inside virtual reality , 1996 .

[40]  Gregory B. Newby,et al.  Virtual reality: Scientific and technological challenges , 1996 .

[41]  W. Bles,et al.  Motion sickness. , 2000, Current opinion in neurology.