Binocular rivalry in monocular augmented reality devices: a review

Bayle, Elodie; Guilbaud, Esetelle; Hourlier, Sylvain; Lelandais, Sylvie; Leroy, Laure; Plantier, Justin; Neveu, Pascaline

doi:10.1117/12.2518928

Cited by 4 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 67 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Two types of methods are used in AR systems: binocular presentation and monocular presentation (Bayle et al, 2019 ; Kitamura et al, 2014 , 2015 ; Kitamura et al, 2019 ; Sasaki et al, 2010 ). With binocular AR, information is presented to both eyes of the user, and with monocular presentation, it is presented to only one of their eyes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceptual and cognitive processes in augmented reality – comparison between binocular and monocular presentations

Dempo

Kimura

Shinohara

2021

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the present study, we investigated the difference between monocular augmented reality (AR) and binocular AR in terms of perception and cognition by using a task that combines the flanker task with the oddball task. A right- or left-facing arrowhead was presented as a central stimulus at the central vision, and participants were instructed to press a key only when the direction in which the arrowhead faced was a target. In a small number of trials, arrowheads that were facing in the same or opposite direction (flanker stimuli) were presented beside the central stimulus binocularly or monocularly as an AR image. In the binocular condition, the flanker stimuli were presented to both eyes, and, in the monocular condition, only to the dominant eye. The results revealed that participants could respond faster in the binocular condition than in the monocular one; however, only when the flanker stimuli were in the opposite direction was the response faster in the monocular condition. Moreover, the results of event-related brain potentials (ERPs) showed that all stimuli were processed in both the monocular and the binocular conditions in the perceptual stage; however, the influence of the flanker stimuli was attenuated in the monocular condition in the cognitive stage. The influence of flanker stimuli might be more unstable in the monocular condition than in the binocular condition, but more precise examination should be conducted in a future study.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceptual and cognitive processes in augmented reality – comparison between binocular and monocular presentations

Dempo

Kimura

Shinohara

2021

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This layout triggers competition between both eyes affecting visual search. On the other hand, an alike condition caused by the neural adaptation of switches between the perceptual state also characterizes binocular rivalry by facilitating visibility near the point of fixation rather than the fixation itself [27,28]. A consideration for monocular augmented reality is that there is competitive dominance between stimuli luminescence and moving or stationary stimuli.…”

Section: Augmented Visual Searchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Augment-Me: An Approach for Enhancing Pilot’s Helmet-Mounted Display Visualization for Tactical Combat Effectiveness and Survivability

Compierchio,

Tretten,

Illankoon

2023

Applications of Augmented Reality - Current State of the Art

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A learning framework for combining state-of-the-art augmented reality (AR) technologies and artificial intelligence (AI) for helmet-mounted display applications in combat aviation has been proposed to explore perceptual and cognitive performance factors and their influence on mission needs. The analysis originated through examining helmet-mounted display (HMD) design features and their configurations for tactical situational awareness (SA). In accomplishing this goal, the relationship between the pilot visual search and recent advancements in AI have been gauged as a background source to unlock pilot’s uncued visual search limit. In this context, the Augment-Me framework is introduced with the ability to view and organize SA information in a predictive way. The provisioning of AI-augmented fixation maps could effectively outperform current AR-HMD capabilities, facilitating human decision while pursuing the detection and compensation of the mechanisms of human error.

show abstract

“…nance, and dominance duration for the respective dominance periods [18]. However, sometimes incomplete suppression can occur.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The current study considered pairings of all four stimuli presented in Figure 3 to investigate the effects of different stimulus pairs on alternation rate and observation duration. BR is subsequently measured by monitoring the alternation rate, overall predominance, and dominance duration for the respective dominance periods [18]. However, sometimes incomplete suppression can occur.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Practically, fusion cues are often implemented by surrounding the rivalrous image pairs with identical frames-such as a simple patterned border-or by adding fixation crosses to the centre of the images [15]. Other factors that influence dominance during a BR task include contrast, spatial frequency, and brightness [18], which relate to the size and colour scale of the presented stimuli, as well as the refresh rate of the display. Images presented during BR tasks need to be emotionally neutral, have a simple semantic meaning, be identical in size (larger images evoke stronger occipital-lobe visually evoked potentials (VEPs) [19]), and have identical pixel contrasts and luminance [20].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Inducing Perceptual Dominance with Binocular Rivalry in a Virtual Reality Head-Mounted Display

Blignaut

Venter

Heever

et al. 2023

MCA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Binocular rivalry is the perceptual dominance of one visual stimulus over another. Conventionally, binocular rivalry is induced using a mirror-stereoscope—a setup involving mirrors oriented at an angle to a display. The respective mirror planes fuse competing visual stimuli in the observer’s visual field by projecting the stimuli through the stereoscope to the observed visual field. Since virtual-reality head-mounted displays fuse dichoptic vision in a similar way, and since virtual-reality head-mounted displays are more versatile and more readily available than mirror stereoscopes, this study investigated the efficacy of using a virtual-reality headset (Oculus Rift-S) as an alternative to using a mirror stereoscope to study binocular rivalry. To evaluate the validity of using virtual-reality headsets to induce visual dominance/suppression, two identical experimental sequences—one using a conventional mirror stereoscope and one using a virtual-reality headset—were compared and evaluated. The study used Gabor patches at different orientations to induce binocular rivalry and to evaluate the efficacy of the two experiments. Participants were asked to record all instances of perceptual dominance (complete suppression) and non-dominance (incomplete suppression). Independent sample t-tests confirmed that binocular rivalry with stable vergence was successfully induced for the mirror-stereoscope experiment (t = −4.86; p ≤ 0.0001) and the virtual-reality experiment (t = −9.41; p ≤ 0.0001). Using ANOVA to compare Gabor patch pairs of gratings at +45°/−45° orientations presented in both visual fields, gratings at 0°/90° orientations presented in both visual fields, and mixed gratings (i.e., unconventional grating pairs) presented in both visual fields, the performance of the two experiments was evaluated by comparing observation duration in seconds (F = 0.12; p = 0.91) and the alternation rate per trial (F = 8.1; p = 0.0005). The differences between the stimulus groups were not statistically significant for the observation duration but were significantly different based on the alternation rates per trial. Moreover, ANOVA also showed that the dominance durations (F = 114.1; p < 0.0001) and the alternation rates (F = 91.6; p < 0.0001) per trial were significantly different between the mirror-stereoscope and the virtual-reality experiments, with the virtual-reality experiment showing an increase in alternation rate and a decrease in observation duration. The study was able to show that a virtual-reality head-mounted display can be used as an effective and novel alternative to induce binocular rivalry, but there were some differences in visual bi-stability between the two methods. This paper discusses the experimental measures taken to minimise piecemeal rivalry and to evaluate perceptual dominance between the two experimental designs.

show abstract

Binocular rivalry in monocular augmented reality devices: a review

Cited by 4 publications

References 67 publications

Perceptual and cognitive processes in augmented reality – comparison between binocular and monocular presentations

Perceptual and cognitive processes in augmented reality – comparison between binocular and monocular presentations

Augment-Me: An Approach for Enhancing Pilot’s Helmet-Mounted Display Visualization for Tactical Combat Effectiveness and Survivability

Inducing Perceptual Dominance with Binocular Rivalry in a Virtual Reality Head-Mounted Display

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About