Specification and evaluation of level of detail selection criteria

Reddy, Martin

doi:10.1007/bf01417674

Cited by 28 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Geometric detail elision in the periphery has been proposed by many researchers [Cheng 2003;Luebke et al 2000;Murphy and Duchowski 2001;Ohshima et al 1996;Reddy 1998;Reddy 2001;Weaver 2007]. We use a simple technique for geometric LOD management described in Section 6, but another could be substituted.…”

Section: Foveated Geometric Detail Elisionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Foveated 3D graphics

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We exploit the falloff of acuity in the visual periphery to accelerate graphics computation by a factor of 5-6 on a desktop HD display (1920×1080). Our method tracks the user's gaze point and renders three image layers around it at progressively higher angular size but lower sampling rate. The three layers are then magnified to display resolution and smoothly composited. We develop a general and efficient antialiasing algorithm easily retrofitted into existing graphics code to minimize "twinkling" artifacts in the lower-resolution layers. A standard psychophysical model for acuity falloff assumes that minimum detectable angular size increases linearly as a function of eccentricity. Given the slope characterizing this falloff, we automatically compute layer sizes and sampling rates. The result looks like a full-resolution image but reduces the number of pixels shaded by a factor of 10-15.We performed a user study to validate these results. It identifies two levels of foveation quality: a more conservative one in which users reported foveated rendering quality as equivalent to or better than non-foveated when directly shown both, and a more aggressive one in which users were unable to correctly label as increasing or decreasing a short quality progression relative to a high-quality foveated reference. Based on this user study, we obtain a slope value for the model of 1.32-1.65 arc minutes per degree of eccentricity. This allows us to predict two future advantages of foveated rendering: (1) bigger savings with larger, sharper displays than exist currently (e.g. 100 times speedup at a field of view of 70°and resolution matching foveal acuity), and (2) a roughly linear (rather than quadratic or worse) increase in rendering cost with increasing display field of view, for planar displays at a constant sharpness.

show abstract

Section: Foveated Geometric Detail Elisionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Foveated 3D graphics

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, in order to save scene-rendering time, which can otherwise be quite extensive, multi-resolutional VR displays are commonly used (for a recent review, see Luebke et al, 2002), and these are most often head-contingent (e.g., Ohshima, Yamamoto, & Tamura, 1996;Reddy, 1997;Watson et al, 1997). Reddy (1997, p. 181) has, in fact, argued that head tracking is often all that is needed to provide substantial savings in multi-resolutional VR displays, and he showed that taking account of retinal eccentricity created very little savings in at least two different VR applications (Reddy, 1997;Reddy, 1998). However, the applications he used had rather low maximum resolutions (e.g., 4.8-12.5 cycles/degree, or 9.6-25 pixels/degree).…”

Section: Virtual Realitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Gaze-Contingent Multiresolutional Displays: An Integrative Review

et al. 2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gaze-contingent multi-resolutional displays (GCMRDs) place high-resolution information only in the area to which the user's gaze is directed. This portion of the display is referred to as the area of interest (AOI). Image resolution and details outside the AOI are reduced, lowering the requirements for processing resources and transmission bandwidth in demanding display and imaging applications.This review provides an integrative survey of the current literature on GCMRDs across a wide range of applications. It also provides a general framework within which such research can be integrated, evaluated, and guided. Within this framework, a GCMRD (or "moving window") is analyzed in terms of (1) its multi-resolutional images (also called "variable-resolution", "space-variant", or "level of detail"), and (2) its gaze-contingent (or "foveated" or "eye-slaved"), movement of the AOI. We also synthesize the known human factors research on GCMRDs, and point out important questions for future research and development. Actual or potential applications of this research include flight, medical and driving simulators, virtual reality, remote piloting and teleoperation, infrared and indirect vision, image transmission and image retrieval, telemedicine, video teleconferencing, robotics and artificial vision systems.

show abstract

“…There has also been major work on gaze-contingent systems [Duchowski 2002] and peripherally degraded displays [Reddy 1998;Watson et al 1997]. There has been much previous research into saliency [Itti et al 1998;Yee et al 2001].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predicting and Evaluating Saliency for Simplified Polygonal Models

Howlett

Hamill

O’Sullivan

2005

ACM Trans. Appl. Percept.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we consider the problem of determining feature saliency for three-dimensional (3D) objects and describe a series of experiments that examined if salient features exist and can be predicted in advance. We attempt to determine salient features by using an eye-tracking device to capture human gaze data and then investigate if the visual fidelity of simplified polygonal models can be improved by emphasizing the detail of salient features identified in this way. To try to evaluate the visual fidelity of the simplified models, a set of naming time, matching time, and forced-choice preference experiments were carried out. We found that perceptually weighted simplification led to a significant increase in visual fidelity for the lower levels of detail (LOD) of the natural objects, but that for the man-made artifacts the opposite was true. We, therefore, conclude that visually prominent features may be predicted in this way for natural objects, but our results show that saliency prediction for synthetic objects is more difficult, perhaps because it is more strongly affected by task. As a further step we carried out some confirmation experiments to examine if the prominent features found during the saliency experiment were actually the features focused upon during the naming, matching, and forced-choice preference tasks. Results demonstrated that the heads of natural objects received a significant amount of attention, especially during the naming task. We hope that our results will lead to new insights into the nature of saliency in 3D graphics.

show abstract

Specification and evaluation of level of detail selection criteria

Cited by 28 publications

References 24 publications

Foveated 3D graphics

Foveated 3D graphics

Gaze-Contingent Multiresolutional Displays: An Integrative Review

Predicting and Evaluating Saliency for Simplified Polygonal Models

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About