Binocular rivalry and head-worn displays

Human Factors

Volumn 49, Issue 6, 2007, Pages 1083-1096

  Patterson, Robert ^a   Winterbottom, Marc ^b   Pierce, Byron ^b   Fox, Robert ^c  

^a WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b AIR FORCE RESEARCH LABORATORY   (United States)

^c VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BINOCULAR VISION; COGNITIVE SYSTEMS; INTERNET;

BINOCULAR RIVALRY; HEAD-WORN DISPLAYS;

DISPLAY DEVICES;

ARTICLE; BINOCULAR VISION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISPLAY SYSTEM; HUMAN; INTERNET; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; STIMULUS; VISUAL ACUITY; VISUAL SYSTEM FUNCTION;

DATA DISPLAY; HEAD; HUMAN ENGINEERING; HUMANS; UNITED STATES; VISION DISPARITY; VISION, BINOCULAR;

EID: 36749091709     PISSN: 00187208     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1518/001872007X249947     Document Type: Article

References (100)

1. Abadi, R. (1976). Induction masking - A study of some inhibitory interactions during dichoptic viewing. Vision Research, 16, 269-275.
2. Alais, D., & Blake, R. (1999). Grouping visual features during binocular rivalry. Vision Research, 39, 4341-4353.
3. Alexander, L. (1951). The influence of figure-ground relationships on binocular rivalry. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41, 376-381.
4. Anderson, J., Bechtoldt, H., & Gregory, L. (1978). Binocular integration in line rivalry. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 11, 399-402.
5. Behar, I., Wiley, R., Levine, R., Rash, C., Walsh, D., & Cornum, R. (1990). Visual survey of Apache aviators (VISAA) (Tech. Rep. USAARL 90-15). Fort Rucker, AL: U.S. Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory.
6. Blake, R. (1988). Dichoptic reading: Relative meaning in binocular rivalry. Perception and Psychophysics, 40, 133-141.
7. Blake, R. (1989). A neural theory of binocular rivalry. Psychological Review, 96, 145-167.
8. Blake, R. (2001). A primer on binocular rivalry, including current controversies. Brain and Mind, 2, 5-38.
9. Blake, R., & Boothroyd, K. (1985). The precedence of binocular fusion over binocular rivalry. Perception and Psychophysics, 37, 114-124.
10. Blake, R., & Camisa, J. (1979). On the inhibitory nature of binocular rivalry suppression. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 5, 315-323.
11. Blake, R., & Fox, R. (1974). Adaptation to invisible gratings and the site of binocular rivalry suppression. Nature, 249, 488-490.
12. Blake, R., O'Shea, R., & Mueller, T. (1992). Spatial zones of binocular rivalry in central and peripheral vision. Visual Neuroscience, 8, 469-478.
13. Blake, R., Westendorf, D., & Yang, Y. (1991). Discriminating binocular fusion from false fusion. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, 32, 2821-2825.
14. Blake, R., Yu, K., Lokey, M., & Norman, H. (1998). Binocular rivalry and visual motion. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10, 46-60.
15. Blake, R., Zimba, L., & Williams, D. (1985). Binocular correspondence and visual motion. Biological Cybernetics, 52, 391-397.
16. Breese, B. (1899). On inhibition. Psychological Monographs, 3, 1-65.
17. Chong, S., & Blake, R. (2006). Exogenous attention and endogenous attention influence initial dominance in binocular rivalry. Vision Research, 46, 1794-1803.
18. Chong, S., Tadin, D., & Blake, R. (2005). Endogenous attention prolongs dominance durations in binocular rivalry. Journal of Vision, 5, 1004-1012.
19. Collins, J., & Blackwell, L. (1974). Effects of eye dominance and retinal distance on binocular rivalry. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 39, 747-754.
20. Collyer, S., & Bevan, W. (1970). Objective measurement of dominance control in binocular rivalry. Perception and Psychophysics, 8, 437-439.
21. Coren, S. & Caplan, C. (1973). Patterns of ocular dominance. American Journal of Optometry and Archives of American Academy of Optometry, 50(4), 283-292.
22. Draper, M., Viirre, 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, 129-146.
23. Draper, M., Viirre, E., Furness, T., & Parker, D. (1997). Theorized relationship between vestibulo-ocular adaptation and simulator sickness in virtual environments. In International Workshop on Motion Sickness (pp. 14-16). London: Medical Research Council, Human Movement and Balance Unit, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery.
24. Ehrlich, J. (1997). Simulator sickness and HMD configurations. Proceedings of SPIE: Telemanipulator and Telepresence Technologies IV, 3206, 170-178.
25. Engle, E. (1956). The role of content in binocular resolution. American Journal of Psychology, 69, 87-91.
26. Fahle, M. (1982). Binocular rivalry: Suppression depends on orientation and spatial frequency. Vision Research, 34, 709-720.
27. Fox, R. (1991). Binocular rivalry. In D. M. Regan (Ed.), Binocular vision and psychophysics (Vol. 9, pp. 93-110). London: MacMillan.
28. Fox, R., & Check, R. (1968). Detection of motion during binocular rivalry suppression. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 78, 388-395.
29. Fox, R., & Herrmann, J. (1967). Stochastic properties of binocular rivalry alternation. Perception and Psychophysics, 2, 432-436.
30. Fox, R., & Rasche, F. (1969). Binocular rivalry and reciprocal inhibition. Perception and Psychophysics, 5, 215-217.
31. Galster, S., Bolia, R., & Brown, R. (2005). The efficacy of advanced visual display technologies in simulated airborne command and control environments (Tech. Rep. AFRL-HE-WP-TP-2005-0026). Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH: Air Force Research Laboratory.
32. Glumm, M., Marshak, W., Branscome, T., McWesler, M., Patton, D., & Mullins, L. (1998). A comparison of soldier performance using current land navigation equipment with information integrated on a helmet-mounted display (Tech. Rep. ARL-TR-1604). Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: Army Research Laboratory.
33. Grigsby, S., & Tsou, B. (1994). Visual processing and partial-overlap head-mounted displays. Journal of the Society for Information Display, 2(2), 69-74.
34. Hakkinen, J. (2004). A virtual display for mobile use. In Society for Information Display international symposium digest of technical papers (pp. 1586-1589). San Jose, CA: Society for Information Display.
35. Hastorf, A., & Myro, G. (1959). The effect of meaning on binocular rivalry. Vision Research, 35, 1727-1739.
36. Hayashi, R., Maeda, T., Shimojo, S., & Tachi, S. (2004). An integrative model of binocular vision: A stereo model utilizing interocularly unpaired points produces both depth and binocular rivalry. Vision Research, 44, 2367-2380.
37. Helmholtz, H., von. (1962). Concerning the perceptions in general. In J. P. C. Southall (Ed.), Helmholtz's treatise on physiological optics: Vol. 3. The perceptions of vision (3rd ed., pp. 1-37). New York: Dover. (Original German work published 1866)
38. Hershberger, M., & Guerin, D. (1975). Binocular rivalry in helmet-mounted display applications (Tech. Rep. AMRL-TR-75-48). Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH: Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory.
39. Hollins, M. (1980). The effect of contrast on the completeness of binocular rivalry suppression. Perception and Psychophysics, 27, 550-556.
40. Hollins, M., & Leung, E. (1978). The influence of color on binocular rivalry. In J. C. Armington, J. Krausfopf, & B. R. Wotten (Eds.), Visual psychophysics and physiology (pp 181-190). New York: Academic Press.
41. Holopigian, K. (1989). Clinical suppression and binocular rivalry suppression: The effects of stimulus strength on the depth of suppression. Vision Research, 29, 1325-1333.
42. Howard, I. (2002). Seeing in depth: Vol. I. Basic mechanisms. New York: I. Porteous.
43. Howard, I., & Rogers, B. (1995). Binocular vision and stereopsis. New York: Oxford University Press.
44. Humphriss, D. (1982). The psychological septum: An investigation into its function. American Journal of Optometry and Physiological Optics, 59, 639-641.
45. James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology (Vol. 1). New York: Dover.
46. Kaufman, L. (1963). On the spread of suppression and binocular rivalry. Vision Research, 3, 401-415.
47. 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 SPIE: Helmet- and Head-Mounted Displays III, 3362, 46-53.
48. Klymenko, V., Harding, T., Beasley, H., Martin, J., & Rash, C. (1999). The effect of helmet-mounted display field of view configurations on target acquisition (Tech. Rep. USAARL 99-19). Fort Rucker, AL: U.S. Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory.
49. Klymenko, V., Harding, T., Beasley, H., & Rash, C. (2001). Visual search performance in HMDs with partial overlapped binocular fields of view (Tech. Rep. USAARL 2001-05). Fort Rucker, AL: U.S. Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory.
50. Klymenko, V., Verona, R., Martin, J., Beasley, H., & McLean, W. (1994). Factors affecting the perception of tuning in monocular regions of partial binocular overlap displays (Tech. Rep. USAARL 94-47). Fort Rucker, AL: U.S. Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory.
51. Kooi, F. (1993). Binocular configurations of a night-flight head-mounted display. Displays, 14(1), 11-20.
52. Kooi, F. (1997). Visual strain: A comparison of monitors and head-mounted displays. Proceedings of SPIE: Imaging Sciences and Display Technologies, 2949, 162-171.
53. 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, 93, 15508-15511.
54. Kruk, R. V., & Longridge, T. (1984). Binocular overlap in a fiber optic helmet mounted display. In Proceedings of the 1984 Image Conference III (pp. 363-378). CSA, Bethesda, MD: The IMAGE Society.
55. Lack, L. (1969). The effect of practice on binocular rivalry control. Perception and Psychophysics, 6, 397-400.
56. Lack, L. (1978). Selective attention and the control of binocular rivalry. The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton.
57. Laramee, R., & Ware, C. (2002). Rivalry and interference with a head-mounted display. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 9(3), 238-251.
58. Lee, S., & Blake, R. (2004). A fresh look at interocular grouping during binocular rivalry. Vision Research, 44, 983-991.
59. Lehky, S. (1995). Binocular rivalry is not chaotic. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 259, 71-76.
60. Levelt, W. (1965). On binocular rivalry. Soesterberg, Netherlands: Institute for Perception, RVO-TNO.
61. Lippert, T. (1990). Fundamental monocular/binocular HMD human factors. Proceedings of SPIE: Helmet-Mounted Displays II, 1290, 185-191.
62. Liu, L., & Schor, C. (1994). The spatial properties of binocular suppression zone. Vision Research, 34, 937-947.
63. Liu, L., Tyler, C., & Schor, C. (1992). Failure of rivalry at low contrast: Evidence of a suprathreshold binocular summation process. Vision Research, 32, 1471-1479.
64. Melzer, J., & Moffitt, K. (1997). Head mounted displays: Designing for the user. New York: McGraw-Hill.
65. Meng, M., & Tong, F. (2004). Can attention selectively bias bistable perception? Differences between binocular rivalry and ambiguous figures. Journal of Vision, 4, 539-551.
66. 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, 93-103.
67. Neisser, U., & Becklen, R. (1975). Selective looking: Attending to visually specified events. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 480-494.
68. Norman, H., Norman, J., & Bilotta, J. (2000). The temporal course of suppression during binocular rivalry. Perception, 29, 831-841.
69. Ono, H., Hasdorf, A., & Osgood, C. (1966). Binocular rivalry as a function of incongruity of meaning. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 7, 225-233.
70. Ooi, T., & He, Z. (1999). Binocular rivalry and visual awareness: The role of attention. Perception, 28, 551-574.
71. Ooi, T., & Loop, M. (1994). Visual suppression and its effect upon color and luminance sensitivity. Vision Research, 34, 2997-3003.
72. O'Shea, R. (1987). Chronometrie analysis supports fusion rather than suppression theory of binocular vision. Vision Research, 27, 781-791.
73. O'Shea, R., Blake, R., & Wolfe, J. (1994). Binocular rivalry and fusion under scotopic luminance. Perception, 23, 771-784.
74. O'Shea, R., & Crassini, B. (1984). Binocular rivalry occurs without simultaneous presentation of rival stimuli. Perception and Psychophysics, 36, 266-276.
75. O'Shea, R., Sims, A., & Govan, D. (1997). The effect of spatial frequency and field size on the spread of exclusive visibility in binocular rivalry. Vision Research, 37, 175-183.
76. Patterson, R. (1990). Spatiotemporal properties of stereoacuity. Optometry and Vision Science, 67, 123-128.
77. Patterson, R., Winterbottom, M., & Pierce, B. (2006). Perceptual issues in the use of head-mounted visual displays. Human Factors, 48, 555-573.
78. Peli, E. (1990). Visual issues in the use of a head-mounted monocular display. Optical Engineering, 29, 883-892.
79. Peli, E. (1998). The visual effects of head-mounted display (HMD) are not distinguishable from those of desk-top computer display. Vision Research, 38, 2053-2066.
80. Peli, E. (1999). Optometrie and perceptual issues with head-mounted display (HMD). In P. Mouroulis (Ed.), Visual instrumentation: Optical design and engineering principles (pp. 205-276). New York: McGraw-Hill.
81. Rash, E., Verona, R., & Crowley, J. (1990). Human factors and safety considerations of night vision systems flight using thermal imaging systems. Proceedings of SPIE: Helmet-Mounted Displays II, 1290, 142-164.
82. Rolland, J., Biocca, F., Hamza-Lup, F., Ha, Y., & Martins, R. (2005). Development of head-mounted projection displays for distributed, collaborative, augmented reality applications. Presence, 14, 528-549.
83. Schall, J., Nawrot, M., Blake, R., & Yu, K. (1993). Visual guided attention is neutralized when informative cues are visible but unperceived. Vision Research, 33, 2057-2064.
84. Shimojo, S., & Nakayama, K. (1990). Real world occlusion constraints and binocular rivalry. Vision Research, 30, 69-80.
85. Smith, E., Levi, D., Harwerth, R. & White, J. (1982). Color vision is altered during the suppression phase of binocular rivalry. Science, 218, 802-804.
86. van Dam, L., & van Ee, R. (2006). The role of saccades in exerting voluntary control in perceptual and binocular rivalry. Vision Research, 46, 787-799.
87. Velger, M. (1998). Helmet-mounted displays and sights. Boston, MA: Artech House.
88. Wade, N., de Weert, C., & Swanston, M. (1984). Binocular rivalry with moving patterns. Perception and Psychophysics, 35, 111-122.
89. Wales, R., & Fox, R. (1970). Increment detection thresholds during binocular rivalry suppression. Perception and Psychophysics, 8, 90-94.
90. Walker, P. (1975). The subliminal perception of movement and the "suppression" in binocular rivalry. British Journal of Psychology, 66, 347-356.
91. Walker, P., & Powell, D. (1979). The sensitivity of binocular rivalry to changes in the nondominant stimulus. Vision Research, 19, 247-249.
92. Washburn, M., Faison, C., & Scott, R. (1934). A comparison between the Miles A-B-C method and retinal rivalry as tests of ocular dominance. American Journal of Psychology, 46, 633-636.
93. Wenzel, B., Castillo, A., & Baker, G. (2002). Assessment of the virtual environment safe-for-maintenance trainer (VEST) (Tech. Rep. AFRL-HE-AZ-TP-2002-0011). Mesa, AZ: Air Force Research Laboratory.
94. Winterbottom, M., Patterson, R., Covas, C., Rogers, J., & Pierce, B. (2006). Binocular rivalry and attention in helmet-mounted display applications. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 50th Annual Meeting (pp. 2061-2066). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
95. Winterbottom, M., Patterson, R., Pierce, B., & Taylor, A. (2006). Visual suppression of monocularly presented symbology against a fused background in simulation and training environment. Proceedings of SPIE: Helmet- and Head-Mounted Displays XI: Technologies and Applications, 6224, 2.1-2.10.
96. Wolfe, J. (1986). Stereopsis and binocular rivalry. Psychological Review, 93, 269-282.
97. Yang, Y., Rose, D., & Blake, R. (1992). On the variety of percepts associated with dichoptic viewing of dissimilar monocular stimuli. Perception, 21, 47-62.
98. Yeh, M., & Wickens, C. (2001). Display signaling in augmented reality: Effects of cue reliability and image realism on attention allocation and trust calibration. Human Factors, 43, 355-365.
99. Yu, K., & Blake, R. (1992). Do recognizable figures enjoy an advantage in binocular rivalry? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 1158-1173.
100. Zimba, L., & Blake, R. (1983). Binocular rivalry and semantic processing: Out of sight, out of mind. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 9, 807-815.