Challenges and New Directions in Augmented Reality, Computer Security, and Neuroscience - Part 1: Risks to Sensation and Perception

Rapidly advancing AR technologies are in a unique position to directly mediate between the human brain and the physical world. Though this tight coupling presents tremendous opportunities for human augmentation, it also presents new risks due to potential adversaries, including AR applications or devices themselves, as well as bugs or accidents. In this paper, we begin exploring potential risks to the human brain from augmented reality. Our initial focus is on sensory and perceptual risks (e.g., accidentally or maliciously induced visual adaptations, motion-induced blindness, and photosensitive epilepsy), but similar risks may span both lower- and higher-level human brain functions, including cognition, memory, and decision-making. Though they have not yet manifested in practice in early-generation AR technologies, we believe that such risks are uniquely dangerous in AR due to the richness and depth with which it interacts with a user's experience of the physical world. We propose a framework, based in computer security threat modeling, to conceptually and experimentally evaluate such risks. The ultimate goal of our work is to aid AR technology developers, researchers, and neuroscientists to consider these issues before AR technologies are widely deployed and become targets for real adversaries. By considering and addressing these issues now, we can help ensure that future AR technologies can meet their full, positive potential.

[1]  W. Levelt On binocular rivalry , 1965 .

[2]  Lawrence G. McDade,et al.  Behavioral Indices of Multisensory Integration: Orientation to Visual Cues is Affected by Auditory Stimuli , 1989, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[3]  K. Nakayama,et al.  Toward a general theory of stereopsis: binocular matching, occluding contours, and fusion. , 1994, Psychological review.

[4]  S. Yantis,et al.  Visual motion and attentional capture , 1994, Perception & psychophysics.

[5]  M. Corbetta,et al.  Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain , 2002, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[6]  M. Griffin,et al.  Eye movement, vection, and motion sickness with foveal and peripheral vision. , 2003, Aviation, space, and environmental medicine.

[7]  Philip N. Sabes,et al.  Flexible strategies for sensory integration during motor planning , 2005, Nature Neuroscience.

[8]  Mtm Marc Lambooij,et al.  Visual Discomfort and Visual Fatigue of Stereoscopic Displays: A Review , 2009 .

[9]  C. Clifford Binocular rivalry , 2009, Current Biology.

[10]  P. Petrovic,et al.  Delusions and the Role of Beliefs in Perceptual Inference , 2013, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[11]  C. Spence Just how important is spatial coincidence to multisensory integration? Evaluating the spatial rule , 2013, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[12]  Margus Veanes,et al.  PrePose: Security and Privacy for Gesture-Based Programming , 2014 .

[13]  David J. Crandall,et al.  PlaceAvoider: Steering First-Person Cameras away from Sensitive Spaces , 2014, NDSS.

[14]  Helen J. Wang,et al.  World-Driven Access Control for Continuous Sensing , 2014, CCS.

[15]  M. Webster Visual Adaptation. , 2015, Annual review of vision science.

[16]  Eric E. Sabelman,et al.  The real-life dangers of augmented reality , 2015, IEEE Spectrum.

[17]  Tadayoshi Kohno,et al.  How to Safely Augment Reality: Challenges and Directions , 2016, HotMobile.

[18]  J. Szaflarski,et al.  Photosensitivity in generalized epilepsies , 2017, Epilepsy & Behavior.

[19]  Tadayoshi Kohno,et al.  Securing Augmented Reality Output , 2017, 2017 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP).