What is 3D good for? A review of human performance on stereoscopic 3D displays

This work reviews the human factors-related literature on the task performance implications of stereoscopic 3D displays, in order to point out the specific performance benefits (or lack thereof) one might reasonably expect to observe when utilizing these displays. What exactly is 3D good for? Relative to traditional 2D displays, stereoscopic displays have been shown to enhance performance on a variety of depth-related tasks. These tasks include judging absolute and relative distances, finding and identifying objects (by breaking camouflage and eliciting perceptual "pop-out"), performing spatial manipulations of objects (object positioning, orienting, and tracking), and navigating. More cognitively, stereoscopic displays can improve the spatial understanding of 3D scenes or objects, improve memory/recall of scenes or objects, and improve learning of spatial relationships and environments. However, for tasks that are relatively simple, that do not strictly require depth information for good performance, where other strong cues to depth can be utilized, or for depth tasks that lie outside the effective viewing volume of the display, the purported performance benefits of 3D may be small or altogether absent. Stereoscopic 3D displays come with a host of unique human factors problems including the simulator-sickness-type symptoms of eyestrain, headache, fatigue, disorientation, nausea, and malaise, which appear to effect large numbers of viewers (perhaps as many as 25% to 50% of the general population). Thus, 3D technology should be wielded delicately and applied carefully; and perhaps used only as is necessary to ensure good performance.

[1]  Colin Ware,et al.  Reevaluating stereo and motion cues for visualizing graphs in three dimensions , 2005, APGV '05.

[2]  Wijnand A. Ijsselsteijn,et al.  Evaluating stereoscopic displays: both efficiency measures and perceived workload sensitive to manipulations in binocular disparity , 2011, Electronic Imaging.

[3]  Sjoerd C. de Vries,et al.  Steering a simulated unmanned aerial vehicle using a head-slaved camera and HMD , 1997, Defense, Security, and Sensing.

[4]  Harvey S. Smallman,et al.  The Use of 2D and 3D Displays for Shape-Understanding versus Relative-Position Tasks , 2001, Hum. Factors.

[5]  G. Westheimer The Ferrier Lecture, 1992. Seeing depth with two eyes: stereopsis , 1994, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[6]  Elia Vecellio,et al.  The role of binocular vision in walking , 2009, Visual Neuroscience.

[7]  Gerald Westheimer,et al.  Three-dimensional displays and stereo vision , 2011, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[8]  Geoffrey S. Hubona,et al.  3D object recognition with motion , 1997, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[9]  Julie M. Harris,et al.  Is stereopsis effective in breaking camouflage for moving targets? , 1997, Vision Research.

[10]  R K Jones,et al.  Why two eyes are better than one: the two views of binocular vision. , 1981, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[11]  Warren S. Torgerson,et al.  A Comparison of Monocular, Biocular, and Binocular Night Vision Goggles for Traversing Off-Road Terrain on Foot. , 1995 .

[12]  Ross L. Pepper,et al.  Stereo TV Improves Operator Performance Under Degraded Visibility Conditions , 1981 .

[13]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  Two- and Three-Dimensional Displays for Aviation: A Theoretical and Empirical Comparison , 1993 .

[14]  David Drascic,et al.  Skill Acquisition and Task Performance in Teleoperation Using Monoscopic and Stereoscopic Video Remote Viewing , 1991 .

[15]  Simon J Watt,et al.  The visual control of reaching and grasping: binocular disparity and motion parallax. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[16]  Steven P. Williams,et al.  Stereopsis cueing effects on hover-in-turbulence performance in a simulated rotorcraft , 1990 .

[17]  Melvyn A. Goodale,et al.  Understanding the contribution of binocular vision to the control of adaptive locomotion , 2002, Experimental Brain Research.

[18]  William A. Wallace,et al.  The Effects of 3D Imagery on Managerial Data Interpretation , 1986, MIS Q..

[19]  G. Cupit,et al.  Stereo TV enhancement study Final technical report , 1968 .

[20]  Robert Sadacca,et al.  HUMAN FACTORS STUDIES IN IMAGE INTERPRETATION: THE VALUE OF STEREOSCOPIC VIEWING, , 1961 .

[21]  Wijnand A. IJsselsteijn,et al.  Stereoscopic displays in medical domains: a review of perception and performance effects , 2009, Electronic Imaging.

[22]  Air Operations,et al.  Perspective Displays: A Review of Human Factors Issues , 1998 .

[23]  A H Reinhardt-Rutland,et al.  Remote operation: a selective review of research into visual depth perception. , 1996, The Journal of general psychology.

[24]  Paul B Hibbard,et al.  Binocular cues and the control of prehension. , 2004, Spatial vision.

[25]  A. Neubauer,et al.  Two- vs. three-dimensional presentation of mental rotation tasks: Sex differences and effects of training on performance and brain activation , 2010, Intelligence.

[26]  Edward Hugh Spain Stereo advantage for a peg-in-hole task using a force-feedback manipulator , 1990, Other Conferences.

[27]  David Drascic,et al.  Using stereoscopic video for defense teleoperation , 1993, Electronic Imaging.

[28]  Robert E. Cole,et al.  Remote-manipulator tasks impossible without stereo TV , 1990, Other Conferences.

[29]  V. Grayson CuQlock-Knopp,et al.  Perception of terrain drop-offs as a function of L-R viewpoint separation in stereoscopic video , 2005, SPIE Defense + Commercial Sensing.

[30]  Woodrow Barfield,et al.  Judgments of Azimuth and Elevation as a Function of Monoscopic and Binocular Depth Cues Using a Perspective Display , 1995, Hum. Factors.

[31]  Peter Willemsen,et al.  Effects of Stereo Viewing Conditions on Distance Perception in Virtual Environments , 2008, PRESENCE: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments.

[32]  Jeffrey C. Woldstad,et al.  Multiple Two-Dimensional Displays as an Alternative to Three-Dimensional Displays in Telerobotic Tasks , 2000, Hum. Factors.

[33]  Christopher D. Wickens The When and How of Using 2-D and 3-D Displays for Operational Tasks , 2000 .

[34]  K Nakayama,et al.  Stereoscopic Depth: Its Relation to Image Segmentation, Grouping, and the Recognition of Occluded Objects , 1989, Perception.

[35]  Nick Holliman,et al.  3D Display Systems , 2003 .

[36]  Y. Aitsiselmi,et al.  Using mental rotation to evaluate the benefits of stereoscopic displays , 2009, Electronic Imaging.

[37]  Woodrow Barfield,et al.  Relationship between monocular and binocular depth cues for judgements of spatial information and spatial instrument design , 1995 .

[38]  Melvyn A. Goodale,et al.  The role of binocular vision in prehension: a kinematic analysis , 1992, Vision Research.

[39]  E. Peinsipp-Byma,et al.  Evaluation of stereoscopic 3D displays for image analysis tasks , 2009, Electronic Imaging.

[40]  M. Mon-Williams,et al.  When two eyes are better than one in prehension: monocular viewing and end-point variance , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[41]  Kyung Soo Park,et al.  Reality and human performance in a virtual world , 1996 .

[42]  Robert E. Cole,et al.  A rapid-sequential-positioning task for evaluating motion parallax and stereoscopic 3D cues in teleoperator displays , 1991, Conference Proceedings 1991 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[43]  Ross L. Pepper,et al.  Operator Performance Using Conventional Or Stereo Video Displays , 1978 .

[44]  Sjoerd C. de Vries,et al.  Steering a simulated unmanned aerial vehicle using a head-slaved camera and HMD: effects of HMD quality, visible vehicle references, and extended stereo cueing , 1998, Defense, Security, and Sensing.

[45]  David J. Getty 3-D Displays Perceptual Research and Applications to Military Systems , 1982 .

[46]  Bruce A. Steiner,et al.  The Use of 3-D Stereo Display of Tactical Information , 1990 .

[47]  John M. Reising,et al.  3-D displays for cockpits: where they pay off , 1990, Other Conferences.

[48]  Sharon Dixon,et al.  Human factors guidelines for applications of 3D perspectives: a literature review , 2009, Defense + Commercial Sensing.

[49]  Woodrow Barfield,et al.  Effects of Stereopsis and Head Tracking on Performance Using Desktop Virtual Environment Displays , 1999, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[50]  Paul Richard,et al.  Effect of Stereoscopic Viewing on Human Tracking Performance in Dynamic Virtual Environments , 1998, Virtual Worlds.

[51]  R. Patterson,et al.  Human Stereopsis , 1992, Human factors.

[52]  R. Blake,et al.  Further developments in binocular summation , 1981, Perception & psychophysics.

[53]  Robert T Held,et al.  A guide to stereoscopic 3D displays in medicine. , 2011, Academic radiology.

[54]  Kenneth J. Ciuffreda,et al.  Why Two Eyes ? , 2005 .

[55]  A. O'Toole,et al.  On the preattentive accessibility of stereoscopic disparity: Evidence from visual search , 1997, Perception & psychophysics.

[56]  Wijnand A. IJsselsteijn,et al.  Performance of a path tracing task using stereoscopic and motion based depth cues , 2010, 2010 Second International Workshop on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX).

[57]  Blake Hannaford,et al.  Quantitative Evaluation of Perspective and Stereoscopic Displays in Three-Axis Manual Tracking Tasks , 1987, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[58]  Lawrence W. Stark,et al.  Visual enhancements in pick-and-place tasks: Human operators controlling a simulated cylindrical manipulator , 1987, IEEE Journal on Robotics and Automation.

[59]  B JULESZ,et al.  Binocular Depth Perception without Familiarity Cues , 1964, Science.

[60]  Jennie J. Gallimore,et al.  Visualization of 3-D computer-aided design objects , 1993, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[61]  Mark Mon-Williams,et al.  Natural problems for stereoscopic depth perception in virtual environments , 1995, Vision Research.

[62]  Michael J. Singer,et al.  Task Performance in Virtual Environments: Stereoscopic Versus Monoscopic Displays and Head-Coupling. , 1995 .

[63]  V. Grayson CuQlock-Knopp,et al.  Enhanced perception of terrain hazards in off-road path choice: stereoscopic 3D versus 2D displays , 1997 .

[64]  Anders Ynnerman,et al.  Interactive and Immersive 3D Visualization for ATC , 2005 .

[65]  Larry F. Hodges,et al.  Evaluation of Display Parameters Affecting User Performance of an Interactive Task in a Virtual Environment , 1991 .

[66]  M. Fahle Wozu zwei Augen? , 1987, Naturwissenschaften.

[67]  W N KAMA,et al.  REMOTE VIEWING: A COMPARISON OF DIRECT VIEWING, 2D AND 3D TELEVISION. TECHN DOCUM REP AMRL-TDR-64-15. , 1964, AMRL-TR. Aerospace Medical Research Laboratories.

[68]  C D Wickens,et al.  Implications of Graphics Enhancements for the Visualization of Scientific Data: Dimensional Integrality, Stereopsis, Motion, and Mesh , 1994, Human factors.

[69]  K. N. Ogle Researches in binocular vision. , 1950 .

[70]  M. Morgan,et al.  Grasping deficits and adaptations in adults with stereo vision losses. , 2009, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[71]  M. Moseley,et al.  Does stereopsis matter in humans? , 1996, Eye.

[72]  Ken Nakayama,et al.  Serial and parallel processing of visual feature conjunctions , 1986, Nature.

[73]  P Milgram,et al.  Effects of Stereoscopic and Rotational Displays in a Three-Dimensional Path- Tracing Task , 1993, Human factors.

[74]  Sean Murphy,et al.  3-D TV system for remote handling: development and evaluation , 1990, Other Conferences.

[75]  Patrick J. Green,et al.  Clinical applications for stereoscopic 3‐D displays , 2007 .

[76]  Charles Wheatstone On some remarkable and hitherto unobserved phenomena of binocular vision. , 1962 .

[77]  J. Findlay,et al.  Visual search in depth , 2001, Vision Research.

[78]  R. B. Perlow,et al.  Enhanced target detection using stereoscopic imaging radar , 1995 .

[79]  Geoffrey S. Hubona,et al.  The effects of cast shadows and stereopsis on performing computer-generated spatial tasks , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans.

[80]  Nicholas J. Wade,et al.  Perceptual Aspects of Two-dimensional and Stereoscopic Display Techniques in Endoscopic Surgery: Review and Current Problems , 2001, Seminars in laparoscopic surgery.

[81]  G. Westheimer SEEING DEPTH WITH TWO EYES: STEREOPSIS , 1994 .

[82]  Wa Wijnand IJsselsteijn,et al.  Human Factors of 3D Displays , 2005 .

[83]  Colin Ware,et al.  Evaluating stereo and motion cues for visualizing information nets in three dimensions , 1996, TOGS.

[84]  David R. Scribner,et al.  The Effect of Stereoscopic and Wide Field of View Conditions on Teleoperator Performance , 1998 .

[85]  Edward H. Spain,et al.  Stereoscopic versus orthogonal view displays for performance of a remote manipulation task , 1991, Electronic Imaging.

[86]  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 .

[87]  Suzanne V. Bemis,et al.  Operator Performance as a Function of Type of Display: Conventional versus Perspective , 1988 .

[88]  S B Steinman,et al.  Serial and Parallel Search in Pattern Vision? , 1987, Perception.

[89]  L D Silverstein,et al.  Spatial Judgments with Monoscopic and Stereoscopic Presentation of Perspective Displays , 1992, Human factors.

[90]  Jessie Y. C. Chen,et al.  Human Performance Issues and User Interface Design for Teleoperated Robots , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews).

[91]  Celestine A. Ntuen,et al.  Comparison between 2-D & 3-D using an autostereoscopic display: The effects of viewing field and illumination on performance and visual fatigue , 2009 .

[92]  Jennie J. Gallimore,et al.  Visualization of three-dimensional structure during computer-aided design , 1995, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[93]  V. Grayson CuQlock-Knopp,et al.  Perceptual training with cues for hazard detection in off-road driving , 1991, Electronic Imaging.

[94]  Louis B. Rosenberg The effect of interocular distance upon operator performance using stereoscopic displays to perform virtual depth tasks , 1993, Proceedings of IEEE Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium.

[95]  Alexander Toet,et al.  Search and target acquisition: single line of sight versus wide baseline stereo , 2001 .

[96]  Ben C. Lee,et al.  Evaluation of a 3D autostereoscopic display for telerobotic operations , 1997, Electronic Imaging.

[97]  Ross L. Pepper,et al.  Remote Operator Performance Comparing Mono and Stereo TV Displays: the Effects of Visibility, Learning and Task Factors , 1979 .

[98]  Matthias Wöpking,et al.  3-D displays: A review of current technologies , 1997 .

[99]  Bernard D. Steinberg Target detection-sensitivity enhancement using high-resolution radar and 2-D and 3-D stereo target displays , 1992 .

[100]  Simon Grant,et al.  Advantages of binocular vision for the control of reaching and grasping , 2006, Experimental Brain Research.

[101]  John V. Draper,et al.  Three experiments with stereoscopic television: when it works and why , 1991, Conference Proceedings 1991 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.