Literature DB >> 17356211

Egocentric depth judgments in optical, see-through augmented reality.

J Edward Swan1, Adam Jones, Eric Kolstad, Mark A Livingston, Harvey S Smallman.   

Abstract

Abstract-A fundamental problem in optical, see-through augmented reality (AR) is characterizing how it affects the perception of spatial layout and depth. This problem is important because AR system developers need to both place graphics in arbitrary spatial relationships with real-world objects, and to know that users will perceive them in the same relationships. Furthermore, AR makes possible enhanced perceptual techniques that have no real-world equivalent, such as x-ray vision, where AR users are supposed to perceive graphics as being located behind opaque surfaces. This paper reviews and discusses protocols for measuring egocentric depth judgments in both virtual and augmented environments, and discusses the well-known problem of depth underestimation in virtual environments. It then describes two experiments that measured egocentric depth judgments in AR. Experiment I used a perceptual matching protocol to measure AR depth judgments at medium and far-field distances of 5 to 45 meters. The experiment studied the effects of upper versus lower visual field location, the x-ray vision condition, and practice on the task. The experimental findings include evidence for a switch in bias, from underestimating to overestimating the distance of AR-presented graphics, at approximately 23 meters, as well as a quantification of how much more difficult the x-ray vision condition makes the task. Experiment II used blind walking and verbal report protocols to measure AR depth judgments at distances of 3 to 7 meters. The experiment examined real-world objects, real-world objects seen through the AR display, virtual objects, and combined real and virtual objects. The results give evidence that the egocentric depth of AR objects is underestimated at these distances, but to a lesser degree than has previously been found for most virtual reality environments. The results are consistent with previous studies that have implicated a restricted field-of-view, combined with an inability for observers to scan the ground plane in a near-to-far direction, as explanations for the observed depth underestimation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17356211     DOI: 10.1109/TVCG.2007.1035

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph        ISSN: 1077-2626            Impact factor:   4.579


  7 in total

1.  Comparative effectiveness and safety of image guidance systems in neurosurgery: a preclinical randomized study.

Authors:  Hani J Marcus; Philip Pratt; Archie Hughes-Hallett; Thomas P Cundy; Adam P Marcus; Guang-Zhong Yang; Ara Darzi; Dipankar Nandi
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  2015-04-24       Impact factor: 5.115

2.  The impact of visualization paradigms on the detectability of spatial misalignment in mixed reality surgical guidance.

Authors:  Wenhao Gu; Alejandro Martin-Gomez; Sue Min Cho; Greg Osgood; Bert Bracke; Chad Josewski; Jonathan Knopf; Mathias Unberath
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2022-03-26       Impact factor: 2.924

3.  Estimating distance in real and virtual environments: Does order make a difference?

Authors:  Christine J Ziemer; Jodie M Plumert; James F Cremer; Joseph K Kearney
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 2.199

Review 4.  Registration Techniques for Clinical Applications of Three-Dimensional Augmented Reality Devices.

Authors:  Christopher M Andrews; Alexander B Henry; Ignacio M Soriano; Michael K Southworth; Jonathan R Silva
Journal:  IEEE J Transl Eng Health Med       Date:  2020-12-17       Impact factor: 3.316

5.  Persistence of metric biases in body representation during the body ownership illusion.

Authors:  Min-Hee Seo; Jeh-Kwang Ryu; Byung-Cheol Kim; Sang-Bin Jeon; Kyoung-Min Lee
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-07-26       Impact factor: 3.752

6.  Depth discrimination of constant angular size stimuli in action space: role of accommodation and convergence cues.

Authors:  Abdeldjallil Naceri; Alessandro Moscatelli; Ryad Chellali
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2015-09-16       Impact factor: 3.169

7.  Body ownership affects visual perception of object size by rescaling the visual representation of external space.

Authors:  Björn van der Hoort; H Henrik Ehrsson
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 2.199

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.