Novel measurement method of multi-view 3D display for determining an optimum viewing distance (OVD)

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ki-Hyuk Yoon ◽  
Heongkyu Ju ◽  
Hyun Woo Kim ◽  
Seon Kyu Yoon ◽  
Sung-Kyu Kim
2016 ◽  
Vol 24 (11) ◽  
pp. 657-668 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daichi Suzuki ◽  
Shuji Hayashi ◽  
Yosuke Hyodo ◽  
Shinichiro Oka ◽  
Takeo Koito ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bas Rokers ◽  
Jacqueline M. Fulvio ◽  
Jonathan Pillow ◽  
Emily A. Cooper

AbstractPeople make surprising but reliable perceptual errors. Here, we provide a unified explanation for errors in the perception of three-dimensional (3D) motion. To do so, we characterized the retinal motion signals produced by objects moving with arbitrary trajectories through arbitrary locations in 3D. Next, we developed a Bayesian model, treating 3D motion perception as optimal inference given sensory noise and the geometry of 3D viewing. The model predicts a wide array of systematic perceptual errors, that depend on stimulus distance, contrast, and eccentricity. We then used a virtual reality (VR) headset as well as a standard 3D display to test these predictions in both traditional psychophysical and more naturalistic settings. We found evidence that people make many of the predicted errors, including a lateral bias in the perception of motion trajectories, a dependency of this bias on stimulus contrast, viewing distance, and eccentricity, and a surprising tendency to misreport approaching motion as receding and vice versa. In sum, we developed a quantitative model that provides a parsimonious account for a range of systematic misperceptions of motion in naturalistic environments.


2013 ◽  
Vol 21 (6) ◽  
pp. 263-270 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kuo-Chung Huang ◽  
Yi-Heng Chou ◽  
Lang-chin Lin ◽  
Hoang Yan Lin ◽  
Fu-Hao Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Mohamed Z. Ramadan ◽  
Mohammed H. Alhaag

This paper compares the effects of viewing videos with 2D and 3D displays with regard to the viewing distance (3H vs. 6H, where H is the height of the screen) and viewing time to determine the physical stresses in terms of heart rate variability, galvanic skin resistance (GSR), and performance of the viewer (percent of correct responses). Twenty healthy male university students with a mean age ± standard deviation of 27.7 ± 2.53 years participated in this study as volunteers. None had color blindness, and all had normal vision acuity. Display type by viewing distance interaction had a significant effect on most of the heart rate variability measures and associated with watching time for the GSR responses. The results concluded that viewing the 3D display from a short viewing distance produced significantly high physical stresses compared to viewing the 2D display from the same short viewing distance. However, the 3D display seemed to impart lower physical stress than the 2D display at long viewing distances. The findings of this study indicate that physical stresses appeared significant at close viewing distance after watching a 3D display for 50 min and increased with continued watching time. In addition, viewer performance was higher for the 3D compared to 2D display type.


2021 ◽  
Vol 52 (S2) ◽  
pp. 597-599
Author(s):  
Yang Meng ◽  
Yan Lyu ◽  
Nan Zhang ◽  
Ruiyang Li ◽  
Zhongyuan Yu ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 22 (19) ◽  
pp. 22616 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ki-Hyuk Yoon ◽  
Heongkyu Ju ◽  
Inkyu Park ◽  
Sung-Kyu Kim

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document