The Issue of Visual Correction Compatibility with Helmet-Mounted Displays

Rash, Clarence E.; Kalich, Melvyn E.; Pol, Corins van de; Reynolds, Barbara S.

doi:10.21236/ada408908

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 17 publications

(22 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Over the years, this term has caused some confusion within the HMD community. 24 What is of critical importance in HMDs is the actual physical distance from the plane of the last physical element to the exit pupil, a distance called the physical eye relief or eye clearance distance (Figure 7, left). This distance should be sufficient to allow use of corrective spectacles, nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) protective masks, and oxygen mask, as well as, to accommodate the wide variations in head and facial anthropometry.…”

Section: Eye Reliefmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Physical eye relief (right) can be less than optical eye relief if additional structures are present. 24 Physical eye relief distance for the ANVIS can be specified as the greatest vertex distance where the entire 40-degree FOV is still visible, where the vertex distance is the distance from the anterior surface of the cornea to the surface of the last lens element of the ANVIS. Beyond a vertex distance of 20 mm, the FOV is proportionately reduced.…”

Section: Eye Reliefmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The impact of human factors, crashworthiness and optical performance design requirements on helmet-mounted display development from the 1970s to the present

Harding

Rash²,

McLean³

et al. 2015

Display Technologies and Applications for Defense, Security, and Avionics IX; And Head- And Helmet-Mounted Displays XX

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Driven by the operational needs of modern warfare, the helmet-mounted display (HMD) has matured from a revolutionary, but impractical, World War I era idea for an infantry marksman's helmet-mounted weapon delivery system to a sophisticated and ubiquitous display and targeting system that dominates current night warfighting operations. One of the most demanding applications for HMD designs has been in Army rotary-wing aviation, where HMDs offer greater direct access to visual information and increased situational awareness in an operational environment where information availability is critical on a second-to-second basis. However, over the past 40 years of extensive HMD development, a myriad of crashworthiness, optical, and human factors issues have both frustrated and challenged designers. While it may be difficult to attain a full consensus on which are the most important HMD design factors, certainly head-supported weight (HSW), exit pupil size, field-of-view, image resolution and physical eye relief have been among the most critical. A confounding factor has been the interrelationship between the many design issues, such as early attempts to use non-glass optical elements to lower HSW, but at the cost of image quality, and hence, pilot visual performance. This paper traces how the role of the demanding performance requirements placed on HMDs by the U.S. Army aviation community has impacted the progress of HMD designs towards the Holy Grail of HMD design: a wide field-of-view, high resolution, binocular, full-color, totally crashworthy system.

show abstract

Section: Eye Reliefmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Eye Reliefmentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of human factors, crashworthiness and optical performance design requirements on helmet-mounted display development from the 1970s to the present

Harding

Rash²,

McLean³

et al. 2015

Display Technologies and Applications for Defense, Security, and Avionics IX; And Head- And Helmet-Mounted Displays XX

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In most cases, physical eye relief is much less than optical eye relief and is more relevant in addressing compatibility with ancillary equipment, e.g., helmet visors, etc. (Rash et al, 2002). Once the rear projection screen was placed at the exit pupil, a camera mounted to the left was moved parallel to the optical axis until the camera angle was orthogonal to the optical axis of the HMD and lateral to the position of the rear projection screen and combiner lenses.…”

Section: Hmd Test Parametersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the Microvision Spectrum SD2500 Helmet-Mounted Display for the Air Warrior Block 3 Day/Night HMD Program

Rash¹,

Harding²,

Martin³

et al. 2006

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Perceptual Issues in the Use of Head-Mounted Visual Displays

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

The Issue of Visual Correction Compatibility with Helmet-Mounted Displays

Cited by 4 publications

References 17 publications

The impact of human factors, crashworthiness and optical performance design requirements on helmet-mounted display development from the 1970s to the present

The impact of human factors, crashworthiness and optical performance design requirements on helmet-mounted display development from the 1970s to the present

Evaluation of the Microvision Spectrum SD2500 Helmet-Mounted Display for the Air Warrior Block 3 Day/Night HMD Program

Perceptual Issues in the Use of Head-Mounted Visual Displays

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About