Clinically Normal Stereopsis Does Not Ensure a Performance Benefit from Stereoscopic 3D Depth Cues

3D Research

Volumn 5, Issue 3, 2014, Pages

  McIntire, John P ^a   Havig, Paul R ^a   Harrington, Lawrence K ^b   Wright, Steve T ^c   Watamaniuk, Scott N J ^d   Heft, Eric L ^a  

^a AIR FORCE RESEARCH LABORATORY   (United States)

^b BALL AEROSPACE AND TECHNOLOGIES CORP   (United States)

^c US Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine ^*  (United States)

^d WRIGHT STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BINOCULARS;

BINOCULAR DISPARITY; CLINICAL TESTS; INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE; PERFORMANCE BENEFITS; STEREOSCOPIC VISION; TASK PERFORMANCE; VIRTUAL OBJECTS; VISUAL ACUITY;

STEREO IMAGE PROCESSING;

EID: 84919884466     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20926731     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s13319-014-0020-9     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Blake, R., & Wilson, H. (2011). Binocular Vision. Vision Research,51, 754–770.
2. Fielder, A. R., & Moseley, M. J. (1996). Does stereopsis matter in humans? Eye,10, 233–238.
3. Froner, B. (2011). Stereoscopic 3D technologies for accurate depth tasks: A theoretical and empirical study. Durham Thesis, Durham University. (Available online at) http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/3324/. Accessed 7 Aug 2014.
4. Fujisaki, H., Yamashita, H., Kihara, K., & Ohtsuka, S. (2012). Individual differences in the use of binocular and monocular depth cues in 3D-graphics environments. SID 2012 Digest, pp. 1190–1193.
5. Fujisaki, H., Yamashita, H., Kihara, K., & Ohtsuka, S. (2013). Ratio of pseudo-stereoanomalous young adults and improvement of their stereopsis in 3D-graphics environments: Study for depth perception based on the use of disparity and shading cues. ITE Transactions on Media Technology and Applications (MTA),1(3), 93–99.
6. Hoffman, D. M., Girshick, A. R., Akeley, K., & Banks, M. S. (2008). Vergence–accommodation conflicts hinder visual performance and cause visual fatigue. Journal of Vision,8(3), 1–30.
7. Jones, R. (1977). Anomalies of disparity detection in the human visual system. Journal of Physiology,264, 621–640.
8. Kihara, K., Fujisaki, H., Ohtsuka, S., Miyao, M., Shimamura, J., Arai, H., & Taniguchi, Y. (2013). Age differences in the use of binocular disparity and pictorial depth cues in 3D-graphics environments. SID 2013 Digest, pp. 501–504.
9. Kooi, F. L., & Toet, A. (2004). Visual comfort of binocular and 3D displays. Displays, 25, 99–108.
10. Kooi, F. L., Dekker, D., van Ee, R., & Brouwer, A.-M. (2010). Real 3D increases perceived depth over anaglyphs but does not cancel stereo-anomaly. Displays,31, 132–138.
11. Kytö, M., Hakala, J., Oittinen, P., & Häkkinen, J. (2012). Effect of camera separation on the viewing experience of stereoscopic images. Journal of Electronic Imaging,21(1), 1–011011.
12. Landers, D. D., & Cormack, L. K. (1997). Asymmetries and errors in perception of depth from disparity suggest a multicomponent model of disparity processing. Perception and Psychophysics,59(2), 219–231.
13. McIntire, J. P., Havig, P. R., & Geiselman, E. (2012). What is 3D good for? A review of human performance on stereoscopic 3D displays. Proceedings of SPIE 8383, (vol. 83830X).
14. McIntire, J. P., Havig, P. R., & Geiselman, E. (2014). Stereoscopic 3D displays and human performance: A comprehensive review. Displays,35, 18–26.
15. McIntire, J. P., Wright, S. T., Harrington, L. K., Havig, P. R., Watamaniuk, S. N. J., & Heft, E. L. (2014). Optometric measurements predict performance but not comfort on a virtual object placement task with a stereoscopic three-dimensional display. Optical Engineering, 53(6) (Special Section On Human Vision), 061711.
16. McIntire, J. P., Wright, S. T., Harrington, L. K., Havig, P. R., Watamaniuk, S. N. J., & Heft, E. L. (under review). Microstereopsis is good, but orthostereopsis is better: Precision alignment task performance and viewer discomfort with a stereoscopic 3D display. Journal of Electronic Imaging.
17. McIntire, J. P., Wright, S. T., Harrington, L. K., Havig, P. R., Watamaniuk, S. N. J., & Heft, E. L. (under review). Binocular fusion ranges and stereoacuity predict positional and rotational task performance on a stereoscopic 3D display. Journal of Display Technology.
18. Mustillo, P. (1985). Binocular mechanisms mediating crossed and uncrossed stereopsis. Psychological Bulletin,97(2), 187–201.
19. Patterson, R., & Fox, R. (1984). The effect of testing method on stereoanomaly. Vision Research,24(5), 403–408.
20. Richards, W. (1970). Stereopsis and stereoblindness. Experimental Brain Research,10, 380–388.
21. Richards, W. (1971). Anomalous stereoscopic depth perception. Journal of the Optical Society of America,61(3), 410–414.
22. Rosenberg, L. (1993). The effect of interocular distance upon operator performance using stereoscopic displays to perform virtual depth tasks. Proceedings of the IEEE VRAIS '93, pp. 27–31.
23. Rozhkova, G. I., & Vasiljeva, N. N. (2010). A computer-aided method for the evaluation of fusional reserves with objective control of fusion break. Human Physiology,36(3), 364–366.
24. Shimono, K. (1984). Evidence for the subsystems in stereopsis: fine and coarse stereopsis. Japanese Psychological Research,26(3), 168–172.
25. Tyler, C. (1990). A stereoscopic view of visual processing streams. Vision Research,30(11), 1877–1895.
26. van Ee, R. (2003). Correlation between stereoanomaly and perceived depth when disparity and motion interact in binocular matching. Perception,32(1), 67–84.
27. van Ee, R., & Richards, W. (2002). A planar and a volumetric test for stereoanomaly. Perception,31, 51–64.
28. Watson, A. B., & Pelli, D. G. (1983). QUEST: A Bayesian adaptive psychometric method. Perception and Psychophysics,33(2), 113–120.