Localization of Virtual Objects in the Near Visual Field

We examined errors in the localization of nearby virtual objects presented via see-through helmet-mounted displays as a function of viewing conditions and scene content in four experiments using a total of 38 participants. Monocular, biocular, and stereoscopic presentation of the virtual objects, accommodation (required focus), participants′ age, and the position of physical surfaces were examined. Nearby physical surfaces were found to introduce localization errors that differ depending on the other experimental factors. These errors apparently arise from the occlusion of the physical background by the optically superimposed virtual objects, but they are modified by participants′ accommodative competence and specific viewing conditions. The apparent physical size and transparency of the virtual objects and physical surfaces, respectively, are influenced by their relative position when superimposed. The design implications of the findings are discussed in a concluding section. Head-mounted displays of virtual objects are currently being evaluated as aids for mechanical assembly and equipment maintenance. Other applications include telesurgery, surgical planning, telerobotics, and visualization aids for robotic programming.

[1]  Shojiro Nagata,et al.  How to reinforce perception of depth in single two-dimensional pictures , 1991 .

[2]  Walter C. Gogel,et al.  Absolute motion parallax and the specific distance tendency , 1973 .

[3]  Thomas P. Caudell,et al.  Calibration of head-mounted displays for augmented reality applications , 1993, Proceedings of IEEE Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium.

[4]  V. V. Krishnan,et al.  Frequency analysis of accommodation, accommodative vergence and disparity vergence. , 1973, Vision research.

[5]  Dario L. Ringach,et al.  Binocular eye movements caused by the perception of three-Dimensional structure from motion , 1996, Vision Research.

[6]  Stephen R. Ellis,et al.  Effects of Age on the Judged Distance to Virtual Objects in the near Visual Field , 1996 .

[7]  O. Sabouraud.  [Space perception]. , 1978, Revue d'oto-neuro-ophtalmologie.

[8]  J. van der Hoeve,et al.  ACCOMMODATION* , 1924, British Journal of Ophthalmology.

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

[10]  Herschel W. Leibowitz,et al.  Oculomotor adjustments in darkness and the specific distance tendency , 1976 .

[11]  Stephen R. Ellis,et al.  Judgments of the Distance to Nearby Virtual Objects: Interaction of Viewing Conditions and Accommodative Demand , 1997, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[12]  Ronald Azuma,et al.  Improving static and dynamic registration in an optical see-through HMD , 1994, SIGGRAPH.

[13]  Daniel J Weintraub,et al.  Human factors issues in head-up display design : the book of HUD , 1992 .

[14]  James E. Cutting,et al.  Chapter 3 – Perceiving Layout and Knowing Distances: The Integration, Relative Potency, and Contextual Use of Different Information about Depth* , 1995 .

[15]  Stephen R. Ellis,et al.  The Relationship of Binocular Convergence and Errors in Judged Distance to Virtual Objects , 1995 .

[16]  Stephen R. Ellis,et al.  Judged Distance to Virtual Objects in the near Visual Field , 1995 .

[17]  K J Ciuffreda,et al.  Accommodation and Apparent Distance , 1988, Perception.

[18]  J. T. Enright.  Paradoxical monocular stereopsis and perspective vergence , 1991 .