Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study applies engineering anthropometry and Monte Carlo simulations to define ergonomic guidelines for minimizing vergence-accommodation conflict in virtual environments. Interpupillary distance (IPD) data from three anthropometric datasets (ANSUR I, ANSUR II, CAESAR) were bootstrapped to determine conservative viewing-distance limits accommodating 99% of users. Simulations considered various IPD calibration errors, fixed IPD settings, and focal distances typical of commercial displays. Results established practical zones of comfortable disparity (ZoCD) and vergence to guide virtual interface design.

Keywords

vergence-accommodation conflict interpupillary distance Monte Carlo simulation virtual reality ergonomics stereoscopic displays visual fatigue human-centered design binocular vision engineering anthropometry

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Başak

U. Y.

Kazempourradi

Yilmaz

Ulusoy

Urey

(2019). Dual focal plane augmented reality interactive display with gaze-tracker. OSA Continuum, 2(5), 1734. https://doi.org/10.1364/OSAC.2.001734

Carmack

(2021, March 15). Design focal distance for the Quest/Quest 2 optics. Twitter (X). https://x.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/1371485209603022853?lang=en

Creed

Al-Kalbani

Theil

Sarcar

Williams

(2024). Inclusive AR/VR: Accessibility barriers for immersive technologies. Universal Access in the Information Society, 23(1), 59–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-023-00969-0

Dodgson

N. A.

(2004). Variation and extrema of human interpupillary distance. Proc. SPIE, 5291, 36–46. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.529999

Gordon

C. C.

(1989). 1988 Anthropometric Survey of U.S. Personnel: Methods and Summary Statistics (Technical Report No. NATICK/TR-89/044). U.S. Army Natick Soldier Research, Development and Engineering Center.

Gordon

C. C.

(2012). 2012 Anthropometric Survey of U.S. Army Personnel: Methods and Summary Statistics (Technical Report No. NATICK/TR-15/007). U.S. Army Natick Soldier Research, Development and Engineering Center.

Han

K. D.

Jaafar

Stoakes

I. M.

, et al. (2023). Comparing the effectiveness of smartphone applications in the measurement of interpupillary distance. Cureus, 15(7), e42744. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.42744

Hibbard

P. B.

Van Dam

L. C. J.

Scarfe

(2020). The implications of interpupillary distance variability for virtual reality. 2020 International Conference on 3D Immersion, IC3D 2020 - Proceedings, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1109/IC3D51119.2020.9376369

Hirota

Morimoto

Kanda

Endo

Miyoshi

Miyagawa

Hirohara

Yamaguchi

Saika

Fujikado

(2018). Objective evaluation of visual fatigue using binocular fusion maintenance. Translational Vision Science & Technology, 7(2), 9. https://doi.org/10.1167/tvst.7.2.9

10.

Holland

B. J.

Siderov

(1999). Repeatability of measurements of interpupillary distance. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 19(1), 74–78. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1475-1313.1999.00400.x

11.

Korot

Rolain

M. M.

Evans

Thanos

Bergeles

Wood

E. H.

Rolain

M. A.

(2021). Purpose-built, head-mounted 3D display for ophthalmic microsurgery: Surgical skill performance and evaluation: A pilot study. BMJ Innovations, 7(2), 463–469. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjinnov-2020-000507

12.

Koulieris

G.-A.

Bui

Banks

M. S.

Drettakis

(2017). Accommodation and comfort in head-mounted displays. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 36(4), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1145/3072959.3073622

13.

Kramida

(2016). Resolving the vergence-accommodation conflict in head-mounted displays. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 22(7), 1912–1931. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2015.2473855

14.

McMahon

T. T.

Irving

E. L.

Lee

(2012). Accuracy and repeatability of self-measurement of interpupillary distance. Optometry and Vision Science, 89(6), 901–907. https://doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0b013e318257f37b

15.

Meta Platforms, Inc. (2025, October 7). Mixed reality design guidelines. Meta for Developers. https://web.archive.org/web/20251013230013/https://developers.meta.com/horizon/design/mr-design-guideline

16.

Microsoft Corporation. (2021, October 18). Comfort. Microsoft Learn. https://web.archive.org/web/20251013230646/https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/mixed-reality/design/comfort

17.

Murray

N. P.

Hunfalvay

Bolte

(2017). The reliability, validity, and normative data of interpupillary distance and pupil diameter using eye-tracking technology. Translational Vision Science & Technology, 6(4), 2. https://doi.org/10.1167/tvst.6.4.2

18.

Newton

D. C.

(2022). Human factors considerations for head-worn displays in civil aviation. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 13318, 233–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06015-1_17

19.

Pladere

Luguzis

Zabels

Smukulis

Barkovska

Krauze

Konosonoka

Svede

Krumina

(2021). When virtual and real worlds coexist: Visualization and visual system affect spatial performance in augmented reality. Journal of Vision, 21(8), 17. https://doi.org/10.1167/jov.21.8.17

20.

Pladere

Svarverud

Krumina

Gilson

S. J.

Baraas

R. C.

(2022). Inclusivity in stereoscopic XR: Human vision first. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2022.1006021

21.

Robinette

K. M.

Blackwell

Daanen

Boehmer

Fleming

(2002). Civilian American and European surface anthropometry resource (caesar), final report. 1. Summary. US Air Force Research Laboratory.

22.

Shibata

Kim

Hoffman

D. M.

Banks

M. S.

(2011). The zone of comfort: Predicting visual discomfort with stereo displays. Journal of Vision, 11(8), 11–11. https://doi.org/10.1167/11.8.11

23.

u/jensen404. (2016, April 25). Vive focus distance is ~75 cm [Online forum post]. Reddit. https://web.archive.org/web/20251014004234/https://www.reddit.com/r/Vive/comments/4gbhny/vive_focus_distance_is_75_cm/

Applying Engineering Anthropometry to Mitigate Eye Strain in Virtual Environments

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References