Literature DB >> 21572544

Temporal presentation protocols in stereoscopic displays: Flicker visibility, perceived motion, and perceived depth.

David M Hoffman1, Vasiliy I Karasev, Martin S Banks.   

Abstract

Most stereoscopic displays rely on field-sequential presentation to present different images to the left and right eyes. With sequential presentation, images are delivered to each eye in alternation with dark intervals, and each eye receives its images in counter phase with the other eye. This type of presentation can exacerbate image artifacts including flicker, and the appearance of unsmooth motion. To address the flicker problem, some methods repeat images multiple times before updating to new ones. This greatly reduces flicker visibility, but makes motion appear less smooth. This paper describes an investigation of how different presentation methods affect the visibility of flicker, motion artifacts, and distortions in perceived depth. It begins with an examination of these methods in the spatio-temporal frequency domain. From this examination, it describes a series of predictions for how presentation rate, object speed, simultaneity of image delivery to the two eyes, and other properties ought to affect flicker, motion artifacts, and depth distortions, and reports a series of experiments that tested these predictions. The results confirmed essentially all of the predictions. The paper concludes with a summary and series of recommendations for the best approach to minimize these undesirable effects.

Entities:  

Year:  2011        PMID: 21572544      PMCID: PMC3092720          DOI: 10.1889/JSID19.3.271

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Soc Inf Disp        ISSN: 1071-0922            Impact factor:   2.140


  20 in total

1.  Global factors that determine the maximum disparity for seeing cyclopean surface shape.

Authors:  L R Ziegler; R F Hess; F A Kingdom
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 1.886

2.  Determinants of the critical flicker-fusion threshold.

Authors:  C LANDIS
Journal:  Physiol Rev       Date:  1954-04       Impact factor: 37.312

3.  Why is spatial stereoresolution so low?

Authors:  Martin S Banks; Sergei Gepshtein; Michael S Landy
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2004-03-03       Impact factor: 6.167

4.  The stroboscopic Pulfrich effect is not evidence for the joint encoding of motion and depth.

Authors:  Jenny C A Read; Bruce G Cumming
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2005-05-17       Impact factor: 2.240

5.  Smooth and sampled motion.

Authors:  D C Burr; J Ross; M C Morrone
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1986       Impact factor: 1.886

6.  Motion and vision. II. Stabilized spatio-temporal threshold surface.

Authors:  D H Kelly
Journal:  J Opt Soc Am       Date:  1979-10

7.  Sharpening of drifting, blurred images.

Authors:  P J Bex; G K Edgar; A T Smith
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1995-09       Impact factor: 1.886

8.  How does binocular delay give information about depth?

Authors:  D C Burr; J Ross
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1979       Impact factor: 1.886

9.  Optical and retinal factors affecting visual resolution.

Authors:  F W Campbell; D G Green
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  1965-12       Impact factor: 5.182

10.  Binocular summation in man and monkey.

Authors:  R S Harwerth; E L Smith
Journal:  Am J Optom Physiol Opt       Date:  1985-07
View more
  9 in total

1.  The limits of human stereopsis in space and time.

Authors:  David Kane; Phillip Guan; Martin S Banks
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2014-01-22       Impact factor: 6.167

2.  The visibility of color breakup and a means to reduce it.

Authors:  Paul V Johnson; Joohwan Kim; Martin S Banks
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2014-12-19       Impact factor: 2.240

3.  Stereoscopic 3D display technique using spatiotemporal interlacing has improved spatial and temporal properties.

Authors:  Paul V Johnson; Joohwan Kim; Martin S Banks
Journal:  Opt Express       Date:  2015-04-06       Impact factor: 3.894

4.  Stereoscopic 3D display with color interlacing improves perceived depth.

Authors:  Joohwan Kim; Paul V Johnson; Martin S Banks
Journal:  Opt Express       Date:  2014-12-29       Impact factor: 3.894

5.  Visual Discomfort with Stereo 3D Displays when the Head is Not Upright.

Authors:  David Kane; Robert T Held; Martin S Banks
Journal:  Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng       Date:  2012-02-09

6.  Stereoscopy and the Human Visual System.

Authors:  Martin S Banks; Jenny C A Read; Robert S Allison; Simon J Watt
Journal:  SMPTE Motion Imaging J       Date:  2012-05

7.  Humans perceive flicker artifacts at 500 Hz.

Authors:  James Davis; Yi-Hsuan Hsieh; Hung-Chi Lee
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2015-02-03       Impact factor: 4.379

8.  Avoiding monocular artifacts in clinical stereotests presented on column-interleaved digital stereoscopic displays.

Authors:  Ignacio Serrano-Pedraza; Kathleen Vancleef; Jenny C A Read
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2016-11-01       Impact factor: 2.240

9.  User experience while viewing stereoscopic 3D television.

Authors:  Jenny C A Read; Iwo Bohr
Journal:  Ergonomics       Date:  2014-05-30       Impact factor: 2.778

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.