Human Stereopsis, Fusion, and Stereoscopic Virtual Environments

Author(s):  
Elizabeth Thorpe Davis ◽  
Larry F. Hodges

Two fundamental purposes of human spatial perception, in either a real or virtual 3D environment, are to determine where objects are located in the environment and to distinguish one object from another. Although various sensory inputs, such as haptic and auditory inputs, can provide this spatial information, vision usually provides the most accurate, salient, and useful information (Welch and Warren, 1986). Moreover, of the visual cues available to humans, stereopsis provides an enhanced perception of depth and of three-dimensionality for a visual scene (Yeh and Silverstein, 1992). (Stereopsis or stereoscopic vision results from the fusion of the two slightly different views of the external world that our laterally displaced eyes receive (Schor, 1987; Tyler, 1983).) In fact, users often prefer using 3D stereoscopic displays (Spain and Holzhausen, 1991) and find that such displays provide more fun and excitement than do simpler monoscopic displays (Wichanski, 1991). Thus, in creating 3D virtual environments or 3D simulated displays, much attention recently has been devoted to visual 3D stereoscopic displays. Yet, given the costs and technical requirements of such displays, we should consider several issues. First, we should consider in what conditions and situations these stereoscopic displays enhance perception and performance. Second, we should consider how binocular geometry and various spatial factors can affect human stereoscopic vision and, thus, constrain the design and use of stereoscopic displays. Finally, we should consider the modeling geometry of the software, the display geometry of the hardware, and some technological limitations that constrain the design and use of stereoscopic displays by humans. In the following section we consider when 3D stereoscopic displays are useful and why they are useful in some conditions but not others. In the section after that we review some basic concepts about human stereopsis and fusion that are of interest to those who design or use 3D stereoscopic displays. Also in that section we point out some spatial factors that limit stereopsis and fusion in human vision as well as some potential problems that should be considered in designing and using 3D stereoscopic displays. Following that we discuss some software and hardware issues, such as modelling geometry and display geometry as well as geometric distortions and other artifacts that can affect human perception.

Author(s):  
Elizabeth Thorpe Davis ◽  
Gregory M. Corso ◽  
Woodrow Barfield ◽  
Gregory M. Corso ◽  
Robert G. Eggleston ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Stephen R. Ellis

Virtual environments created through computer graphics are communications media (Licklider et al., 1978). Like other media, they have both physical and abstract components. Paper, for example, is a medium for communication. The paper is itself one possible physical embodiment of the abstraction of a two-dimensional surface onto which marks may be made. The corresponding abstraction for head-coupled, virtual image, stereoscopic displays that synthesize a coordinated sensory experience is an environment. These so-called “virtual reality” media have only recently caught the international public imagination (Pollack, 1989; D’Arcy, 1990; Stewart, 1991; Brehde, 1991), but they have arisen from continuous development in several technical and non-technical areas during the past 25 years (Brooks Jr., 1988; Ellis, 1990; Ellis, et al., 1991, 1993; Kalawsky, 1993). A well designed computer interface affords the user an efficient and effortless flow of information to and from the device with which he interacts. When users are given sufficient control over the pattern of this interaction, they themselves can evolve efficient interaction strategies that match the coding of their communications to the characteristics of their communication channel (Zipf, 1949; Mandelbrot, 1982; Ellis and Hitchcock, 1986; Grudin and Norman, 1991). But successful interface design should strive to reduce this adaptation period by analysis of the user’s task and performance limitations. This analysis requires understanding of the operative design metaphor for the interface in question. The dominant interaction metaphor for the computer interface changed in the 1980’s. Modern graphical interfaces, like those first developed at Xerox PARC (Smith et al., 1982) and used for the Apple Macintosh, have transformed the “conversational” interaction from one in which users “talked” to their computers to one in which they “acted out” their commands in a “desk-top” display. This so called desk-top metaphor provides the users with an illusion of an environment in which they enact wishes by manipulating symbols on a computer screen. Virtual environment displays represent a three-dimensional generalization of the two-dimensional “desk-top” metaphor. These synthetic environments may be experienced either from egocentric or exocentric viewpoints. That is to say, the users may appear to actually be in the environment or see themselves represented as a “You are here” symbol (Levine, 1984) which they can control.


2000 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 593-615 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nat Durlach ◽  
Gary Allen ◽  
Rudy Darken ◽  
Rebecca Lee Garnett ◽  
Jack Loomis ◽  
...  

There is currently much research activity involving virtual environments (VEs) and spatial behavior (spatial perception, cognition, and performance). After some initial remarks describing and categorizing the different types of research being conducted on VEs and spatial behavior, discussion in this Forum paper focuses on one specific type, namely, research concerned with the use of VE technology for training spatial behavior in the real world. We initially present an overview of issues and problems relevant to conducting research in this area, and then, in the latter portion of the paper, present an overview of the research that we believe needs to be done in this area. We have written this paper for the forum section of Presence because, despite its length, it is essentially an opinion piece. Our aim here is not to report the results of research in our own laboratory nor to review the literature, as other available papers already serve these goals. Rather, the primary purpose of this paper is to stimulate open discussion about needed future research. In general, we believe that such a discussion can serve the research establishment as much as reports of completed work.


2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. A. Grier ◽  
H. Thiruvengada ◽  
S. R. Ellis ◽  
P. Havig ◽  
K. S. Hale ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Richard Stone ◽  
Minglu Wang ◽  
Thomas Schnieders ◽  
Esraa Abdelall

Human-robotic interaction system are increasingly becoming integrated into industrial, commercial and emergency service agencies. It is critical that human operators understand and trust automation when these systems support and even make important decisions. The following study focused on human-in-loop telerobotic system performing a reconnaissance operation. Twenty-four subjects were divided into groups based on level of automation (Low-Level Automation (LLA), and High-Level Automation (HLA)). Results indicated a significant difference between low and high word level of control in hit rate when permanent error occurred. In the LLA group, the type of error had a significant effect on the hit rate. In general, the high level of automation was better than the low level of automation, especially if it was more reliable, suggesting that subjects in the HLA group could rely on the automatic implementation to perform the task more effectively and more accurately.


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. 796
Author(s):  
Micaela Maria Zucchelli ◽  
Laura Piccardi ◽  
Raffaella Nori

Individuals with agoraphobia exhibit impaired exploratory activity when navigating unfamiliar environments. However, no studies have investigated the contribution of visuospatial working memory (VSWM) in these individuals’ ability to acquire and process spatial information while considering the use of egocentric and allocentric coordinates or environments with or without people. A total of 106 individuals (53 with agoraphobia and 53 controls) navigated in a virtual square to acquire spatial information that included the recognition of landmarks and the relationship between landmarks and themselves (egocentric coordinates) and independent of themselves (allocentric coordinates). Half of the participants in both groups navigated in a square without people, and half navigated in a crowded square. They completed a VSWM test in addition to tasks measuring landmark recognition and egocentric and allocentric judgements concerning the explored square. The results showed that individuals with agoraphobia had reduced working memory only when active processing of spatial elements was required, suggesting that they exhibit spatial difficulties particularly in complex spatial tasks requiring them to process information simultaneously. Specifically, VSWM deficits mediated the relationship between agoraphobia and performance in the allocentric judgements. The results are discussed considering the theoretical background of agoraphobia in order to provide useful elements for the early diagnosis of this disorder.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document