Perceptual Issues in the Use of Head-Mounted Visual Displays

Abstract

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing this collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED (From -To) SPONSORING / MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)AFRL; AFRL/HEA SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT NUMBER(S) Air Force Research Laboratory Human Effectiveness Directorate Warfighter Readiness Research Division 6030 South Kent Street Mesa AZ 85212-6061 AFRL-HE-AZ-TP-2007-03 DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENTApproved for public release; distribution is unlimited. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTESThis paper was originally published in the journal Human Factors (Volume 48, Fall 2006). ABSTRACTObjective: We provide a review and analysis of much of the published literature on visual perception issues that impact the design and use of head-mounted displays (HMDs). Background: Unlike the previous literature on HMDs, this review draws heavily from the basic vision literature in order to help provide insight for future design solutions for HMDs. Method: Included in this review are articles and books found cited in other works as well as articles and books obtained from an Internet search. Results: Issues discussed include the effect of brightness and contrast on depth of field, dark focus, dark vergence, and perceptual constancy; the effect of accommodation/vergence synergy on perceptual constancy, eyestrain, and discomfort; the relationship of field of view to the functioning of different visual pathways and the types of visualmotor tasks mediated by them; the relationship of binocular input to visual suppression; and the importance of head movements, head tracking, and display update lag. Conclusion: This paper offers a set of recommendations for the design and use of HMDs. Application: Consideration of the basic vision literature will provide insight for future design solutions for HMDs.

The personal cockpit

“…Other research indicates that, for information processing tasks relying mainly on the ventral cortical stream, a FoV of only 40° may suffice [161].…”

“…The human visual field spans about 200° horizontally and 130° vertically, however the detail-oriented foveal region of the eye spans only about 3° [161]. Information from different regions is split between two physiological pathways, called the ventral and dorsal cortical streams [161].…”

“…The dorsal region processes information from both the central and outer regions and is related to motion sensing and navigation. Tasks that require such information from the peripheral view are known to be particularly susceptible to effects caused by FoV limitations [161], for instance finding a walking path through a room [3] or avoiding obstacles [206].…”

“…Thus our Personal Cockpit design should keep the working set of windows at a single depth. Estimation of depth is known to be impaired in virtual environments [38,161,206], due in part to FoV restrictions [229].…”

“…This effect occurs when the proprioceptive cues of focus and vergence become decoupled in stereoscopic environments [161,184]. Until this issue is circumvented by technological advancements (e.g.…”