Spatiotemporal characteristics of medical extended-reality systems

Emerging uses for extended-reality (XR) head-mounted displays (HMDs) within medical environments include visualizations of medical data across various imaging modalities including radiography, computed tomography, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance images. Rendering medical data in XR environments requires real-time updates to account for user movement within the environment. Unlike stationary 2D medical displays, XR HMDs also require real-time stereoscopic rendering capabilities with high performance graphics processing units. Furthermore, performance depends on the status of added systems including tracking sensor technology, user's input data, and in the case of augmented reality (AR), spatial mapping and image registration. These temporal considerations have implications for the interpretation of medical data. However, methods for the evaluation of their effects on image quality are not yet well defined. The definition of these effects in the context of medical XR devices is at best inconsistent if not completely lacking. In this work, we compare the effects and causes for three classes of XR spatiotemporal characteristics affecting medical image quality: temporal artifacts, luminance artifacts, and spatial mapping artifacts. We describe the XR system components starting from user movement recognized by inertial measurement unit and camera sensors and ending with user perception of the display through the optics of the HMD. We summarize our findings and highlight device performance areas contributing to the different effects.

[1]  John Penczek,et al.  72-2: Standardizing Fundamental Criteria for Near Eye Display Optical Measurements: Determining Eye Point Position , 2018 .

[2]  H. B.,et al.  The International Commission on Illumination , 1921, Nature.

[3]  Andrew B. Watson,et al.  High Frame Rates and Human Vision: A View through the Window of Visibility , 2013 .

[4]  Kevin J. MacKenzie,et al.  Differences between oculomotor and perceptual artifacts for temporally limited head mounted displays , 2020, Journal of the Society for Information Display.

[5]  Gavin S. P. Miller,et al.  The Problem of Persistence with Rotating Displays , 2017, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[6]  Jennifer Gille,et al.  41.2: Judder-Induced Edge Flicker in Moving Objects , 2001 .

[7]  Scott Daly,et al.  A Psychophysical Study Exploring Judder Using Fundamental Signals and Complex Imagery , 2014 .

[8]  David R. Bull,et al.  The visibility of motion artifacts and their effect on motion quality , 2016, 2016 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP).

[9]  Kenta Seki,et al.  Fast-response LCD for 1001-ppi VR head-mounted displays , 2019, OPTO.

[10]  Julie Delon,et al.  Stabilization of Flicker-Like Effects in Image Sequences through Local Contrast Correction , 2010, SIAM J. Imaging Sci..

[11]  Alexandre Chapiro,et al.  A Luminance-aware Model of Judder Perception , 2019, ACM Trans. Graph..

[12]  Dominique Thoreau,et al.  Survey of Temporal Brightness Artifacts in Video Tone Mapping , 2014 .

[13]  Pascal Frossard,et al.  Visual Distortions in 360-degree Videos , 2019, ArXiv.