Localization of Virtual Objects in the Near Visual Field

Abstract

We examined errors in the localization of nearby virtual objects presented via see-through helmet-mounted displays as a function of viewing conditions and scene content in four experiments using a total of 38 participants. Monocular, biocular, and stereoscopic presentation of the virtual objects, accommodation (required focus), participants′ age, and the position of physical surfaces were examined. Nearby physical surfaces were found to introduce localization errors that differ depending on the other experimental factors. These errors apparently arise from the occlusion of the physical background by the optically superimposed virtual objects, but they are modified by participants′ accommodative competence and specific viewing conditions. The apparent physical size and transparency of the virtual objects and physical surfaces, respectively, are influenced by their relative position when superimposed. The design implications of the findings are discussed in a concluding section. Head-mounted displays of virtual objects are currently being evaluated as aids for mechanical assembly and equipment maintenance. Other applications include telesurgery, surgical planning, telerobotics, and visualization aids for robotic programming.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Azuma, R. , & Bishop, G. (1994). Improving static and dynamic registration in an optical see-through HMD. In Proceedings of SIGGRAPH ′94 (pp. 197–204). New York: ACM.

Brown, J. L. (1965). Afterimages. In C. H. Graham (Ed.), Vision and visual perception (p. 485). New York: Wiley.

Ciuffreda, K. J. (1992). Components of clinical near vergence testing. Journal of Behavioral Optometry, 3, 3–13.

Cutting, J. E. , & Vishton, P. M. (1995). Perceiving layout and knowing distances: The integration, relative potency and contextual use of different information about depth. In W. Epstein & S. Rogers (Eds.), Handbook of perception and cognition (Vol. 5, pp. 71–117). New York: Academic.

Ellis, S. R. , Bucher, U. J. , & Menges, B. M. (1995). The relationship of binocular convergence to error in the judged distance of virtual objects. In Proceedings of the International Federation of Automatic Control (pp. 297–301). Laxenburg, Austria: International Federation of Automatic Control.

Ellis, S. R. , & Menges, B. M. (1997a). Effects of age on the judged distance to virtual objects in the near visual field. In W. A. Rogers (Ed.), Designing for an aging population: Ten years of human factors/ergonomics research (pp. 15–19). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

Ellis, S. R. , & Menges, B. M. (1997b). Judged distance to virtual objects in the near visual field. Presence 6, 452–460.

Enright, J. T. (1991). Paradoxical monocular stereopsis and perspective vergence. In S. R. Ellis , M. K. Kaiser , & A. J. Grunwald (Eds.), Pictorial communication in virtual and real environments (1st ed., pp. 567–576). London: Taylor & Francis.

Fisher, S. K. , & Ciuffreda, K. J. (1988). Accommodation and apparent distance. Perception, 17, 609–621.

10.

Gogel, W. C. , & Tietz, J. D. (1973). Absolute motion parallax and the specific distance tendency. Perception and Psychophysics, 13, 284–292.

11.

Graham, C. H. (1965). Space perception. In C. H. Graham (Ed.), Vision and visual perception (pp. 519–520). New York: Wiley.

12.

Janin, A. L. , Mizell, D. W. , & Caudell, T. P. (1993). Calibration of head-mounted displays for augmented reality applications. In Proceedings of IEEE Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium ′93 (pp. 246–255). New York: IEEE.

13.

Krishnan, V. V. , Phillips, S. , & Stark, L. (1973). Frequency analysis of accommodation, accommodative vergence, and disparity vergence. Vision Research, 13, 1545–1554.

14.

Moses, R. A. (1987). Accommodation. In R. A. Moses & W. M. Haret, Jr. (Eds.), Adler′s physiology of the eye (pp. 291–310). Washington, DC: Mosby.

15.

Nagata, S. (1993). How to reinforce perception of depth in single two-dimensional pictures. In S. R. Ellis , M. K. Kaiser , & A. J. Grunwald (Eds.), Pictorial communication in virtual and real environments (2nd ed., pp. 527–545). London: Taylor & Francis.

16.

Owens, D. A. , & Liebowitz, H. W. (1976). The specific distance tendency. Perception and Psychophysics, 20, 2–9.

17.

Owens, D. A. , & Liebowitz, H. W. (1983). Perceptual and motor consequences of tonic vergence. In C. M. Schor & K. J. Ciuffreda (Eds.), Vergence eye movements: Basic and clinical aspects (p. 50). Boston: Butterworth.

18.

Ringach, D. L. , Hawken, M. J. , & Shapley, R. (1997). Binocular eye movements caused by the perception of three dimensional structure from motion. Vision Research, 36, 1479–1492.

19.

Rolland, J. P. , Ariely, D. , & Gibson, W. (1995). Towards quantifying depth and size perception in 3D virtual environments. Presence 4, 24–49.

20.

Semlow, J. L. , & Hung, G. K. (1983). The near response: Theories of control. In C. M. Schor & K. J. Ciuffreda (Eds.), Vergence eye movements: Basic and clinic aspects (pp. 175–196). Boston: Butterworth.

21.

Weintraub, D. J. , & Ensing, M. (1992). Human factors issues in head-up display design: The book of HUD. Wright-Patterson AFB, OH: CSERIAC.

22.

Zuber, B. (1965). Physiological control of eye movements in humans. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.