Ocular Vergence Measurement in Projected and Collimated Simulator Displays

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate electrooculography (EOG) as a measurement of ocular vergence in both collimated and projected simulator environments. The task required participants to shift their gaze between a central fixation point and a target appearing at one of three eccentricities. EOG was effective in recording ocular vergence. The EOG results were similar between collimated and projected displays, except for differences in vergence changes during lateral movement of the eyes, and ocular excursions downward elicited a greater EOG response than the reverse upward movement. The computer-based technique of recording vergence was found to produce measurable traces from a majority of participants. The technique has potential for further development as a tool for measuring ocular vergence in virtual environments where methods that require the wearing of headmounted apparatus to track ocular structures (e.g., the pupil), which cannot be worn at the same time as a flight or flight-simulator helmet, are unsuitable.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Davson, H. (1980). Physiology of the eye. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone.

Hollins, M. (1976). Does accommodation micropsia exist? American Journal of Psychology, 89, 443–454.

Meehan, J. W. (1993). Apparent minification in an imaging display under reduced viewing conditions. Perception, 22, 1075–1084.

Meehan, J. W. , & Day, R. H. (1995). Visual accommodation as a cue for size. Ergonomics, 38, 1239–1249.

Meehan, J. W. , Smith, G. , & Day, R. H. (1994). Pseudophakes experience apparent minification in an imaging display. Perception, 23, 1063–1068.

Meehan, J. W. , & Triggs, T. J. (1988). Magnification effects with imaging displays depend on scene content and viewing condition. Human Factors, 30, 487–494.

Newman, R. L. (1987). Responses to Roscoe, “The trouble with HUDs and HMDs.” Human Factors Society Bulletin, 30(10), 3–5.

Rock, I. (1975). An introduction to perception. New York: Macmillan.

Roscoe, S. N. (1985). Bigness is in the eye of the beholder. Human Factors, 27, 615–636.

10.

Roscoe, S. N. (1986). Designed for disaster. Human Factors Society Bulletin, 29(6), 1–2.

11.

Roscoe, S. N. (1987a). The trouble with HUDs and HMDs. Human Factors Society Bulletin, 30(7), 1–3.

12.

Roscoe, S. N. (1987b). The trouble with virtual images revisited. Human Factors Society Bulletin, 30(11), 3–5.

13.

Roscoe, S. N. (1997). Size-distance variance and eye accommodation: The ways of an investigator. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 8, 75–81.

14.

Roumes, C. , Meehan, J. W. , Plantier, J. , & Menu, J. P. (1992). Estimation de distance sur les vues stéréoscopiques [Estimation of distance with stereoscopic viewing]. Service de Santé des Armées Travaux Scientifiques, 13, 219–220.

15.

Silverstein, L. , & Wilbert, J. (1987). Responses to Roscoe, “The trouble with HUDs and HMDs.” Human Factors Society Bulletin, 30(10), 5–6.

16.

Smith, G. , Meehan, J. W. , & Day, R. H. (1992). The effect of accommodation on retinal image size. Human Factors, 34, 289–301.

17.

Stern, R. M. , Ray, W. J. , & Davis, C. M. (1980). Psychophysiological recording. New York: Oxford University Press.

18.

Viveash, J. P. , Belyavin, A. J. , Waters, M. , & Stott, J. R. R. (1996). The accuracy of eye movement measurement under operational conditions. Journal of Defence Science, 1, 242–248.

19.

Wann, J. P. , Rushton, S. , & Mon-Williams, M. (1995). Natural problems for stereoscopic depth perception in virtual environments. Vision Research, 35, 2731–2736.

20.

Weintraub, D. J. (1987). HUDs, HMDs, and common sense: Polishing virtual images. Human Factors Society Bulletin, 30(10), 1–3.