Utility of stereoscopic displays for indirect-vision driving and robot teleoperation

The effectiveness of an active shutter-glasses stereoscopic display (SD) and a passive polarised SD was evaluated in a live robot-teleoperation task and a simulated indirect-vision driving task in various terrains. Overall, participants completed their tasks significantly faster with the SDs in three-dimensional (3D) mode than with the SDs in the baseline 2D mode. They also navigated more accurately with the SDs in 3D mode. When the effectiveness of the two types of SDs was examined separately, results showed that the active shutter-glasses SD resulted in faster responses and task completion times than the passive polarised SD, though most of the differences failed to reach statistical significance. Perceived workload when interacting with the two SD systems did not differ significantly between the active versus passive display types or between the 3D and 2D modes of operation; however, participants reported more severe discomfort after interacting with the passive polarised SD. Practitioner Summary: This study demonstrated the utility of SDs for enhancing operators' navigation-related performance. The results furthered the understanding of the differential effectiveness of an active stereoscopic system versus a passive system. The findings will facilitate the implementation of stereoscopic systems for robotics control and indirect-vision driving in military settings.

[1]  Satoru Kawai,et al.  Grasping an augmented object to analyse manipulative force control , 2002, Ergonomics.

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

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

[4]  David B. Chenault,et al.  3D vision system assessment , 2009, Electronic Imaging.

[5]  Tovi Grossman,et al.  An evaluation of depth perception on volumetric displays , 2006, AVI '06.

[6]  A. Nyssen,et al.  Influence of 2D and 3D view on performance and time estimation in minimal invasive surgery , 2009, Ergonomics.

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

[8]  Peter A Howarth,et al.  Potential hazards of viewing 3‐D stereoscopic television, cinema and computer games: a review , 2011, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.

[9]  John P. McIntire,et al.  What is 3D good for? A review of human performance on stereoscopic 3D displays , 2012, Defense + Commercial Sensing.

[10]  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.

[11]  Dirk Reiners,et al.  Evaluation of 2D and 3D Displays to Validate the Integration of Human Performance Analysis Methods into Submarine Acquisitions , 2010 .

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

[13]  S. Hart,et al.  Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research , 1988 .

[14]  Nicolas S. Holliman,et al.  A comparative study of fine depth perception on two-view 3D displays , 2008, Displays.

[15]  Shih-Ching Yeh,et al.  Effects of gender, application, experience, and constraints on interaction performance using autostereoscopic displays , 2006, Electronic Imaging.

[16]  Voicu Popescu,et al.  Perception of 3D spatial relations for 3D displays , 2004, IS&T/SPIE Electronic Imaging.

[17]  K-P Holzhausen,et al.  Human engineering experiments using a telerobotic vehicle , 1993 .

[18]  Daniel P. J. Bruneau,et al.  A self-analysis of the NASA-TLX workload measure , 2007, Ergonomics.

[19]  Lisa Prokurat-Franks.  Tank Automotive Research, Development, and Engineering Center , 2002 .

[20]  Robert S. Kennedy,et al.  Simulator Sickness Questionnaire: An enhanced method for quantifying simulator sickness. , 1993 .

[21]  J.W. HUBER,et al.  The effects of different viewing conditions on performance in simulated minimal access surgery , 2003, Ergonomics.

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

[23]  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.

[24]  Sumio Yano,et al.  Visual fatigue caused by stereoscopic images and the search for the requirement to prevent them: A review , 2012, Displays.

[25]  Wa Wijnand IJsselsteijn,et al.  Visual discomfort in stereoscopic displays: a review , 2007, Electronic Imaging.

[26]  A Y Umeda,et al.  REMOTE VISION SYSTEMS FOR TELEOPERATED GROUND VEHICLES , 1991 .

[27]  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 .

[28]  E. H. Spain,et al.  Objective Assessments of Mobility With an Early Unmanned Ground Vehicle (UGV) Prototype Viewing System , 1991 .

[29]  Jessie Y. C. Chen,et al.  Effects of Display Dimension and Viewpoint Synchronization on Robot Teleoperation Performance in a Simulated Environment , 2012 .

[30]  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.

[31]  Wa Wijnand IJsselsteijn,et al.  Effectiveness of stereoscopic displays in medicine: A review , 2012 .