Cue combination for 3D location judgements

Svarverud, Ellen; Gilson, Stuart J.; Glennerster, Andrew

doi:10.1167/10.1.5

Cited by 38 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Subjectively, the transition was seamless. In none of the trials, neither those on which the room expanded nor those on which it remained static did participants notice any change in the size of the room [15], [17]. This is consistent with previous findings using large-scale stimuli in which looming cues are eliminated [19], [20].…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 91%

“…In fact, using the best fitting estimates from Svarverud et al [17] which estimate the weight applied to ‘texture-based’ and ‘physical’ cues across different conditions, we can also predict the magnitude of the effect we would expect to see in the current experiment. The mean ratio of vergence angles to square D via C or via B is 0.77 (s.d.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 80%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Demonstration of ‘Broken’ Visual Space

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It has long been assumed that there is a distorted mapping between real and ‘perceived’ space, based on demonstrations of systematic errors in judgements of slant, curvature, direction and separation. Here, we have applied a direct test to the notion of a coherent visual space. In an immersive virtual environment, participants judged the relative distance of two squares displayed in separate intervals. On some trials, the virtual scene expanded by a factor of four between intervals although, in line with recent results, participants did not report any noticeable change in the scene. We found that there was no consistent depth ordering of objects that can explain the distance matches participants made in this environment (e.g. A>B>D yet also A

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 80%

A Demonstration of ‘Broken’ Visual Space

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…are separately weighted according to their reliability (Landy, Maloney, Johnston, & Young, 1995), and then combined optimally. Many studies have shown that human observers combine cues in a way that is consistent with this optimal model (Ernst & Banks, 2002; Hillis, Watt, Landy, & Banks, 2004; Knill & Saunders, 2003; Svarverud, Gilson, & Glennerster, 2010). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 84%

The precision of binocular and monocular depth judgments in natural settings

McKee

Taylor

2010

Journal of Vision

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We measured binocular and monocular depth thresholds for objects presented in a real environment. Observers judged the depth separating a pair of metal rods presented either in relative isolation, or surrounded by other objects, including a textured surface. In the isolated setting, binocular thresholds were greatly superior to the monocular thresholds by as much as a factor of 18. The presence of adjacent objects and textures improved the monocular thresholds somewhat, but the superiority of binocular viewing remained substantial (roughly a factor of 10). To determine whether motion parallax would improve monocular sensitivity for the textured setting, we asked observers to move their heads laterally, so that the viewing eye was displaced by 8–10 cm; this motion produced little improvement in the monocular thresholds. We also compared disparity thresholds measured with the real rods to thresholds measured with virtual images in a standard mirror stereoscope. Surprisingly, for the two naive observers, the stereoscope thresholds were far worse than the thresholds for the real rods—a finding that indicates that stereoscope measurements for unpracticed observers should be treated with caution. With practice, the stereoscope thresholds for one observer improved to almost the precision of the thresholds for the real rods.

show abstract

“…There are previous extensive researches on depth perception of 3D models using immersive or volumetric 3D environments [3], [4], [5], [6], [8], [9], but the novelty of this experimental study is the comparison of the depth perception of CAD models using two distinct display modalities: monoscopic desktop system and 3D stereoscopic immersive environment.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Visual Depth Perception of 3D CAD Models in Desktop and Immersive Virtual Environments

Gîrbacia

Beraru

Talabă

et al. 2014

INT J COMPUT COMMUN

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:In this paper is presented an experimental study that aims to compare the depth perception of virtual prototypes in immersive virtual environments with the depth perception of CAD models using 2D LCD display. First, a multipurpose solution of a large-scale interactive multi wall projected virtual environment named Holo-CAVE is described and then the conducted experiments are presented. The experiments carried out highlight that perceived depth values estimated for virtual prototypes are significantly influenced by the 3D stereoscopic visualization. Another interesting result of the study is that the estimated depth accuracy increases with the depth size that has to be perceived. The results of experimental study illustrate that the use of immersive stereoscopic visualization is useful during Computer Aided Design related activities.

show abstract

Cue combination for 3D location judgements

Cited by 38 publications

References 36 publications

A Demonstration of ‘Broken’ Visual Space

A Demonstration of ‘Broken’ Visual Space

The precision of binocular and monocular depth judgments in natural settings

Visual Depth Perception of 3D CAD Models in Desktop and Immersive Virtual Environments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About