Effects of field-of-view restriction on manoeuvring in a 3-D environment

Field-of-view (FOV) restrictions are known to affect human behaviour and to degrade performance for a range of different tasks. However, the relationship between human locomotion performance in complex environments and FOV size is currently not fully known. This paper examined the effects of FOV restrictions on the performance of participants manoeuvring through an obstacle course with horizontal and vertical barriers. All FOV restrictions tested (the horizontal FOV was either 30°, 75° or 120°, while the vertical FOV was always 48°) significantly reduced performance compared to the unrestricted condition. Both the time and the number of footsteps needed to traverse the entire obstacle course increased with a decreasing FOV size. The relationship between FOV restriction and manoeuvring performance that was determined can be used to formulate requirements for FOV restricting devices that are deployed to perform time-limited human locomotion tasks in complex structured environments, such as night-vision goggles and head-mounted displays used in training and entertainment systems.

[1]  W. A. Wagenaar.  Note on the construction of digram-balanced Latin squares. , 1969 .

[2]  B. Amblard,et al.  Role of Foveal and Peripheral Visual Information in Maintenance of Postural Equilibrium in Man , 1980, Perceptual and motor skills.

[3]  Elliot B. Werner.  Manual of Visual Fields , 1991 .

[4]  Randy F. Pausch,et al.  A Literature Survey for Virtual Environments: Military Flight Simulator Visual Systems and Simulator Sickness , 1992, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[5]  K. Turano,et al.  Visual stabilization of posture in retinitis pigmentosa and in artificially restricted visual fields. , 1993, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[6]  A. Patla,et al.  Locomotor Patterns of the Leading and the Trailing Limbs as Solid and Fragile Obstacles Are Stepped Over: Some Insights Into the Role of Vision During Locomotion. , 1996, Journal of motor behavior.

[7]  Joseph Psotka,et al.  Effects of Field of View on Judgements of Self-Location: Distance Estimations Using Plainview Representations as a Function of Observer Eye Station Points (ESP) and Geometric Field of View (FOVg). , 1998 .

[8]  A. Patla.  How Is Human Gait Controlled by Vision , 1998 .

[9]  Marion A. Eppler,et al.  Development of Visually Guided Locomotion , 1998 .

[10]  S. Watt,et al.  Field of view affects reaching, not grasping , 2000, Experimental Brain Research.

[11]  Pieter Padmos,et al.  Image parameters for driving with indirect viewing systems , 2003, Ergonomics.

[12]  Renato Moraes,et al.  The effects of distant and on-line visual information on the control of approach phase and step over an obstacle during locomotion , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[13]  Jerry Davis,et al.  Effect of personal protective eyewear on postural stability , 2004, Ergonomics.

[14]  Jack M. Loomis,et al.  Limited Field of View of Head-Mounted Displays Is Not the Cause of Distance Underestimation in Virtual Environments , 2004, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[15]  Hubert Dolezal.  Living in a World Transformed: Perceptual and Performatory Adaptation to Visual Distortion , 2004 .

[16]  Zijiang J. He,et al.  Perceiving distance accurately by a directional process of integrating ground information , 2004, Nature.

[17]  Peter Willemsen,et al.  The Influence of Restricted Viewing Conditions on Egocentric Distance Perception: Implications for Real and Virtual Indoor Environments , 2005, Perception.

[18]  Christopher K. Rhea,et al.  Control of adaptive locomotion: effect of visual obstruction and visual cues in the environment , 2006, Experimental Brain Research.

[19]  Byron J. Pierce,et al.  Perceptual Issues in the Use of Head-Mounted Visual Displays , 2006, Hum. Factors.

[20]  Michael Greig,et al.  Any way you look at it, successful obstacle negotiation needs visually guided on-line foot placement regulation during the approach phase , 2006, Neuroscience Letters.