Visual suppression of monocularly presented symbology against a fused background in a simulation and training environment

Proceedings of SPIE - The International Society for Optical Engineering

Volumn 6224, Issue , 2006, Pages

  Winterbottom, Marc D ^a   Patterson, Robert ^b   Pierce, Byron J ^a   Taylor, Amanda ^c  

^a AIR FORCE RESEARCH LABORATORY   (United States)

^b WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c Link Simulation and Training   (United States)

Author keywords

Binocular rivalry; HMDs; Visual suppression

Indexed keywords

BINOCULAR RIVALRY; HEAD-MOUNTED DISPLAY (HMD); MONOCULAR SYMBOLOGY; VISUAL SUPPRESSIONS;

BINOCULAR VISION; COMPUTER SIMULATION; EYE MOVEMENTS; HELMET MOUNTED DISPLAYS; PERSONNEL TRAINING; VISIBILITY;

IMAGING SYSTEMS;

EID: 33748446214     PISSN: 0277786X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1117/12.666267     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (46)

1. Melzer, J.E. & Moffitt, K. (1997). HMD design-putting the user first. In J.E. Melzer & K. Moffitt (Eds.), Head mounted displays: Designing for the user. N.Y.: McGraw-Hill.
2. Patterson, R., Winterbottom, M., & Pierce, B. (2006). Perceptual issues in the use of head-mounted visual displays. Human Factors, in press.
3. Velger, M. (1998). Helmet-mounted displays and sights. Boston, MA: Artech House.
4. Wenzel, B., Castillo, A. & Baker, G. (2002). Assessment of the virtual environment safe-for-maintenance trainer (VEST). Technical Report No. AFRL-HE-AZ-TP-2002-0011. Air Force Research Laboratory, Human Effectiveness Directorate, Warfighter Training Research Division, Mesa, AZ.
5. Kooi, F. (1986). Visual Strain: a comparison of monitors and head-mounted displays. Proceedings of SPIE: Imaging Sciences and Display Technologies, 2949, pp. 162-171.
6. Morphew, M., Shively, J., & Casey, D. (2004). Helmet mounted displays for unmanned aerial vehicle control. Proceedings of SPIE: Helmet- and Head-Mounted Displays IX: Technologies and Applications, 5442, pp. 93-103.
7. Hakkinen, J. (2004). A virtual display for mobile use. Society for Information Display International Symposium Digest of Technical Papers.
8. Ehrlich, J. (1997). Simulator sickness and HMD configurations. Proceedings of SPIE: Telemanipulator and Telepresence Technologies IV, 3206, pp. 170-178.
9. Draper, M., Virre, E., Furness, T., & Gawron, V. (2001 ). Effects of image scale and system time delay on simulator sickness within head-coupled virtual environments. Human Factors, 43, pp. 129-146.
10. Draper, M., Viirre, E., Furness, T. & Parker, D. (1997). Theorized relationship between vestibulo-ocular adaptation and simulator sickness in virtual environments. International Workshop on Motion Sickness, Marbella, Spain.
11. Keller, K. & Colucci, D. (1998). Perception in HMDs: What is it in head mounted displays (HMDs) that really make them all so terrible? Proceedings of the SPIE: Helmet- and Head-Mounted Displays III, 3362, pp. 46-53.
12. Howard, I.P. (2002,). Seeing in depth: Vol. 1 Basic mechanisms. N.Y. I. Porteous.
13. Blake, R. (2001). A primer on binocular rivalry, including current controversies. Brain and Mind, 2, 5-38.
14. Blake, R. (1989). A neural theory of binocular rivalry. Psychological Review, 96, 145-167.
15. Wolfe, J. (1983). Influence of spatial frequency, luminance, and duration on binocular rivalry and abnormal fusion of briefly presented dichoptic stimuli. Perception, 12, 447-456.
16. Hollins, M. & Hudnell, K. (1980). Adaptation of the binocular rivalry mechanism. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, 19, 1117-1120.
17. Kaufman, L. (1963). On the spread of suppression and binocular rivalry. Vision Research, 3, 401-415.
18. Blake, R., O'Shea, R.P. & Mueller, T.J. (1992). Spatial zones of binocular rivalry in central and peripheral vision. Visual Neuroscience, 8, 469-478.
19. O'Shea, R.P., Sims, A.J.H. & Govan, D.G. (1997). The effect of spatial frequency and field size on the spread of exclusive visibility in binocular rivalry. Vision Research, 37, 175-183.
20. Liu, L. & Schor, C. (1994). The spatial properties of binocular suppression zone. Vision Research, 34 (7), pp. 937-947.
21. O'Shea, R.; Blake, R.; & Wolfe, J. (1994). Binocular rivalry and fusion under scotopic luminances. Perception, 23 (7), pp.771-784.
22. Alais & Blake (1999). Binocular Rivalry. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
23. Kovacs, I; Papathomas, T.; Yang, M.; & Fehér, A. (1996). When the brain changes its mind: Interocular grouping during binocular rivalry. Proceedings of the National Academies of Science, Vol. 93, pp. 15508-15511.
24. Fox, R. & Check, R. (1972). Independence between binocular rivalry suppression and duration and magnitude of suppression. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 93, 283-289.
25. Wales & Fox (1970). Increment detection thresholds during binocular rivalry suppression. Perception & Psychophysics, 8, pp. 90-94.
26. Fox & Check (1968). Detection of motion during binocular rivalry suppression. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 78 (3), pp. 388-95.
27. O'Shea (1987). Chronometric analysis supports fusion rather than suppression theory of binocular vision. Vision Research, 21 (5), pp. 131-791.
28. Holopigian (1989). Clinical suppression and binocular rivalry suppression: the effects of stimulus strength on the depth of suppression. Vision Research, 29 (10), pp. 1325-33.
29. Norman, H.F., Norman, J.F. & Bilotta, J. (2000). The temporal course of suppression during binocular rivalry. Perception, 29, 831-841.
30. Barany, E.H. & Hallden, V. (1948). Phasic inhibition of the light reflex of the pupil during retinal rivalry. Journal of Neurophysiology, 11, 25-30.
31. Schall, J.D., Nawrot, M., Blake, R. & Yu, K. (1993). Visual guided attention is neutralized when informative cues are visible but unperceived. Vision Research, 33, 2057-2064.
32. Levelt, W.J.M. (1965). On binocular rivalry. Soesterberg, The Netherlands: Institute for Perception, RVO-TNO.
33. Fox, R. & Rasche, F. (1969). Binocular rivalry and reciprocal inhibition. Perception & Psychophysics, 5, 215-217.
34. Hollins, M. (1980). The effect of contrast on the completeness of binocular rivalry suppression. Perception & Psychophysics, 21, 550-556.
35. Andrews, T.J. & Purves, D. (1997). Similarities in normal and binocular rivalrous viewing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 94, 9905-9908.
36. Breese, B.B. (1899). On inhibition. Psychological Monographs, 3, 1-65.
37. Blake, R., Yu, K., Lokey, M. & Norman, H. (1998). Binocular rivalry and visual motion. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10, 46-60.
38. Mueller, T. & Blake, R. (1989). Afresh look at the temporal dynamics of binocular rivalry. Biological Cybernetics, 61 (3), pp. 223 - 232.
39. Blake & Boothroyd (1985). The precedence of binocular fusion over binocular rivalry. Perception & Psychophysics, 37, 114-124.
40. Liu, L.; Tyler, C; & Schor, C. (1992). Failure of rivalry at low contrast: evidence of a suprathreshold binocular summation process. Vision Research, 32 (8), pp. 1471-1479.
41. Creed, R.S. (1935). Observations on binocular fusion and rivalry. Journal of Physiology, 84, 381-392.
42. Smith, E.L., Levi, D.M., Harwerth, R.S. & White, J.M. (1982). Color vision is altered during the suppression phase of binocular rivalry. Science, 218, 802-804.
43. Julesz, B. & Miller, J.E. (1975). Independent spatial-frequency-tuned channels in binocular fusion and rivalry. Perception, 4, 125-143.
44. Wight, D. R., Best, L. G., & Peppier, P. W. (1998). M2DART: A Real-Image Simulator Visual Display System. Air Force Research Laboratory Technical Report Number: AFRL-HE-AZ-TR-1998-0097.
45. Coren, S. & Caplan, C. (1973). Patterns of Ocular Dominance. American Journal of Optometry and Archives of American Academy of Optometry, 50(4), 283-292.
46. Laramee, R. & Ware, C. (2002). Rivalry and interference with a head-mounted display. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 9 (3), pp. 238-251.