Observers adjusted a pointer to match the depicted distance of a monocular virtual object viewed in a see-through head-mounted display. Distance information was available through motion parallax produced as the observers rocked back and forth. The apparent stability of the virtual object was impaired by the time delay between the observers' head motions and the corresponding change in the object position on the display. Localizations were made for four time delays (31 ms, 64 ms, 131 ms, and 197 ms) and three depicted distances (75 cm, 95 cm, and 113 cm). The errors in localizations increased systematically with time delay and depicted distance.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BeallACLoomisJMPhilbeckJWFikesTG (1995) Absolute motion parallax weakly determines visual scale in real and virtual environments. Proc. SPIE, 2411: 288–297.
2.
BraunsteinML (1966) Sensitivity of the observer to transformations of the visual field. J Exp Psych, 72: 683–689.
3.
DeesJW (1966) Accuracy of absolute visual distance and size estimation in space as a function of stereopsis and motion parallax. J Exp Psych, 72: 466–476.
4.
EllisSRMengesBM (1997) Judgments of the distance to nearby virtual objects: Interaction of viewing conditions and accommodative demand. Presence, 6: 452–460.
5.
EllisSRMengesBMAdelsteinBJacobyRHMcCandlessJM (1997) Influence of head motion on the judged distance of monocularly presented virtual objects. Proc Human Factors and Ergonomics Soc, 2: 1234–1238.
FisherSKCiuffredaKJ (1988) Accommodation and apparent distance. Perception, 17:609–621.
8.
GibsonJJ (1950) The perception of the visual world. Boston: The Riverside Press.
9.
GogelWC (1969) The sensing of retinal size. Vision Research, 9: 1079–1094.
10.
GogelWCTietzJD (1973) Absolute motion parallax and the specific distance tendency. Perception and Psychophysics, 13: 284–292.
11.
von HelmholtzH (1925) in SouthallJPC (Ed.) Helmholtz's Treatise on Physiological Optics, Vol. III. New York: Optical Soc. America.
12.
JacobyRHAdelsteinBDEllisSR (1996) Improved temporal response in virtual environments through system hardware and software reorganization. Proc. SPIE 2653, Stereoscopic Displays and Virtual Reality Systems, III. 271–284.
13.
LaneJCAkinDL (1997) Stereopsis and motion parallax cues in virtual reality control applications. In SmithMJSalvendyGKoubekRJ (Eds.) Design of Computing Systems: Social and Ergonomic Considerations. Proc. Seventh Int. Conf. on HCI.Amsterdam: Elsevier, 917–920.
14.
OnoMERivestJROnoH (1986) Depth perception as a function of motion parallax and absolute-distance information. J Exp Psych, 12: 331–337.
15.
RobinsonDA (1975) Oculomotor control signals. In LennerstrandFBach-y-RitaP (eds): Basic Mechanisms of Ocular Motility and Their Clinical Implications. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 337–374.
16.
RogersBGrahamM (1979) Motion parallax as an independent cue for depth perception. Perception, 8: 125–134.
17.
RogersBGrahamM (1982) Similarities between motion parallax and stereopsis in human depth perception. Vision Research, 22: 261–270.
18.
SmetsGJFOverbeekeKJ (1995) Trade-off between resolution and interactivity in spatial task performance. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 15(5): 46–51.
19.
VircksRM (1968) Investigation of head movement and intensity as depth cues in a perspective contact analog display. SM Thesis MVT-68-3, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
