As monocular head-mounted displays (HMDs) are introduced into existing flight simulators for training and mission rehearsal it will be important to determine whether binocular rivalry affects the visibility of HMD presented symbology or the out-the-window (OTW) flight simulator display imagery. In the present study, we examined whether rivalry suppression could be objectively measured under conditions that simulated a monocular HMD and OTW display, and whether voluntary attention and moving imagery influenced the strength of rivalry suppression. The results indicated that strength of suppression under these conditions was less than that found under classic dichoptic viewing conditions, and that attention had little influence on performance.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BlakeR. (2001). A primer on binocular rivalry, including current controversies. Brain and Mind, 2, 5–38.
2.
BlakeR.BoothroydK. (1985). The precedence of binocular fusion over binocular rivalry. Perception & Psychophysics, 37, 114–124.
3.
BreeseB.B. (1899). On inhibition. Psychological Monographs, 3, 1–65.
4.
DraperM.VirreE.S.FurnessT.A.ParkerD.E.Theorized relationship between vestibulo-ocular adaptation and simulat or sickness in virtual environments. Presented at International Workshop on Motion Sickness, Marbella, Spain, May 26–28, 1997.
5.
DraperM.VirreE.FurnessT.GawronV. (2001). Effects of image scale and system time delay on simulator sickness within head-coupled virtual environments. Human Factors, 43, pp. 129–146.
6.
FoxR.CheckR. (1972). Independence between binocular rivalry suppression and duration and magnitude of suppression. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 93, 283–289.
HakkinenJ. (2004). A virtual display for mobile use. Society for Information Display International Symposium Digest of Technical Papers.
9.
HollinsM. (1980). The effect of contrast on the completeness of binocular rivalry suppression. Perception & Psychophysics, 27, 550–556.
10.
HowardI.P. (2002). Seeing in depth: Vol. 1 Basic mechanisms. N.Y. I. Porteous.
11.
KellerK.ColucciD. (1998). Perception in HMDs: What is it in head mounted displays (HMDs) that really make them all so terrible?Proceedings of the SPIE: Helmet- and Head-Mounted Displays III, 3362, pp. 46–53.
12.
LackL. (1978). Selective attention and the control of binocular rivalry.Mouton, The Hague.
13.
LeveltW.J.M. (1965). On binocular rivalry.Soesterberg, The Netherlands: Institute for Perception, RVO-TNO.
14.
LevittH. (1971) Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 49, 2, pp. 467–477.
15.
MelzerJ.E.MoffittK. (1997). HMD design–putting the user first. In MelzerJ.E.MoffittK. (Eds.), Head mounted displays: Designing for the user.N.Y.: McGraw-Hill.
16.
MorphewM.ShivelyJ.CaseyD. (2004). Helmet mounted displays for unmanned aerial vehicle control. Proceedings of SPIE: Helmet- and Head-Mounted Displays IX: Technologies and Applications, 5442, pp. 93–103.
17.
NormanH.F.NormanJ.F.BilottaJ. (2000). The temporal course of suppression during binocular rivalry. Perception, 29, 831–841.
18.
OoiT.L.HeZ.J. (1999). Binocular rivalry and visual awareness: The role of attention. Perception, 28, 551–574.
19.
O'lSheaR.P.SimsA.J.H.GovanD.G. (1997). The effect of spatial frequency and field size on the spread of exclusive visibility in binocular rivalry. Vision Research, 37, 175–183.
20.
PattersonR.WinterbottomM.PierceB. (2006). Perceptual issues in the use of head-mounted visual displays. Human Factors, in press.
21.
VelgerM. (1998). Helmet-mounted displays and sights. Boston, MA: Artech House.
22.
WinterbottomM.PattersonR.PierceB.TaylorA. (2006). Visual suppression of monocularly presented symbology against a fused background in a simulation and training environment. SPIE Helmet- and Head-Mounted Displays XI: Technologies and Applications.
