journal article·2020-02-20Open access

Exocentric Distance Judgment and Accuracy of Head-Mounted and Stereoscopic Widescreen Displays in Frontal Planes

Chiuhsiang Joe Lin, Betsha Tizazu Abreham, Dino Caesaron, Bereket Haile Woldegiorgis

Applied Sciences· Volume 10· Issue 4

Abstract

An experiment was done to explore the effects of two virtual display systems on the accuracy of exocentric distance judgment and position. Sixteen participants viewed animated virtual targets using either a head-mounted display (HMD) or a stereoscopic widescreen display (SWD). The virtual targets have been shown, one at a time, at three depth levels and with two corresponding exocentric distances and three target sizes at each target distance and, afterward, via pointing by holding a stick to estimate the exocentric distance and position of each target. The position data were collected using an OptiTrack motion capture system. The results showed that the accuracy of exocentric distance judgment was higher with the head-mounted displays than with the stereoscopic widescreen displays. In addition, higher position accuracy in the X-direction was obtained from the stereoscopic widescreen displays, whereas no significant difference was observed in position accuracy in the Y-direction. However, it is possible that the HMD could give better accuracy in both exocentric distance and position judgments in the frontal plane, if the HMD had been perfectly mounted and flawlessly fit the participant’s eyes. The result also revealed that exocentric distance judgment was significantly higher at the farthest target distances than at the nearest distance. Similarly, the position accuracy significantly increased as exocentric distance decreased. Moreover, engineers may allude to the findings as the evidence from the study suggests that the intermediate target distances might be fitting or ideal distances to design and structure 3D applications.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Advanced Optical Imaging Technologies · Virtual Reality Applications and Impacts · Visual perception and processing mechanisms

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Department of Industrial Management, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, No.43, Sec. 4, Keelung Rd., Da‘an Dist., Taipei City 10607, Taiwan

Department of Industrial Engineering—School of Industrial and System Engineering Telkom University, Jl. Telekomunikasi Terusan Buah Batu, Sukapura, Dayeuhkolot, Bandung 40257, Jawa Barat, Indonesia

Funding

Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan

References (40)

Show source-provided references
1. The Past, Present, and Future of Virtual and Augmented Reality Research: A Network and Cluster Analysis of the Literature10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02086 ↗
2. Visual computing technologies to support the Operator 4.010.1016/j.cie.2018.11.060 ↗
3. Romero, D., Bernus, P., Noran, O., Stahre, J., and Fasth, F.-B.Å. (2016). The Operator 4.0: Human Cyber-Physical Systems & Adaptive Automation towards Human-Automation Symbiosis Work Systems, Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-51133-7_80 ↗
4. Visual Computing as a Key Enabling Technology for Industrie 4.0 and Industrial Internet10.1109/MCG.2015.45 ↗
5. Graphics and Media Technologies for Operators in Industry 4.010.1109/MCG.2018.053491736 ↗
6. The accuracy of distance perception in the frontal plane of projection-based stereoscopic environments10.1002/jsid.618 ↗
7. Depth perception within peripersonal space using head-mounted display10.1162/PRES_a_00048 ↗
8. Distance estimation of near-field visual objects in stereoscopic displays10.1002/jsid.269 ↗
9. Evaluating the accuracy of size perception on screen-based displays: Displayed objects appear smaller than real objects10.1037/xap0000051 ↗
10. Improved virtual reality perception with calibrated stereo and variable focus for industrial use10.1007/s12008-017-0377-0 ↗
11. Interaction and visual performance in stereoscopic displays: A review10.1002/jsid.378 ↗
12. Depth Perception in Virtual Reality: Distance Estimations in Peri- and Extrapersonal Space10.1089/cpb.2007.9935 ↗
13. Effects of Displays on Visually Controlled Task Performance in Three-Dimensional Virtual Reality Environment10.1002/hfm.20566 ↗
14. How does presentation method and measurement protocol affect distance estimation in real and virtual environments?10.1145/1823738.1823744 ↗
15. Limited field of view of head-mounted displays is not the cause of distance underestimation in virtual environments10.1162/1054746042545238 ↗
16. Effects of displays on a direct reaching task: A comparative study of head mounted display and stereoscopic widescreen display10.1016/j.ergon.2019.06.013 ↗
17. Alexandrova, I.V., Teneva, P.T., De La Rosa, S., Kloos, U., Blthoff, H.H., and Mohler, B.J. (2010, January 23–24). Egocentric distance judgments in a large screen display immersive virtual environment. Proceedings of the 7th Annual Symposium on Applied Perception in Graphics and Visualization, APGV 2010, Los Angeles, CA, USA.10.1145/1836248.1836258 ↗
18. Precision of Exocentric Distance Judgments in Desktop and Cube Presentation10.1162/105474603321640941 ↗
19. Henry, D., and Furness, T. (1993, January 18–22). Spatial perception in virtual environments: Evaluating an architectural application. Proceedings of the IEEE Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium, Seattle, WA, USA.
20. One-Dimensional and Multi-Dimensional Studies of the Exocentric Distance Estimates in Frontoparallel Plane, Virtual Space, and Outdoor Open Field
21. The underestimation of egocentric distance: Evidence from frontal matching tasks10.3758/s13414-011-0170-2 ↗
22. Frontal extents in virtual environments are not immune to underperception10.3758/s13414-015-0948-8 ↗
23. Factors Affecting the Perception of Interobject Distances in Virtual Environments10.1162/105474699566549 ↗
24. Tan, D.S., Gergle, D., Scupelli, P.G., and Pausch, R. (2004, January 24–29). Physically large displays improve path integration in 3D virtual navigation tasks. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Vienna, Austria.10.1145/985692.985748 ↗
25. Can exocentric direction be dissociated from its exocentric distance in virtual environments?10.3758/PP.70.3.541 ↗
26. Effect of Display Technology on Perceived Scale of Space10.1177/0018720815590300 ↗
27. Egocentric distance perception and performance of direct pointing in stereoscopic displays10.1016/j.apergo.2017.05.007 ↗
28. Matching and Reaching Depth Judgments with Real and Augmented Reality Targets10.1109/TVCG.2015.2459895 ↗
29. Lin, C.J., Caesaron, D., and Woldegiorgis, B.H. (2019). The accuracy of the frontal extent in stereoscopic environments: A comparison of direct selection and virtual cursor techniques. PLoS ONE, 14.10.1371/journal.pone.0222751 ↗
30. Buck, L.E., Young, M.K., and Bodenheimer, B. (2018). A comparison of distance estimation in HMD-based virtual environments with different HMD-based conditions. ACM Trans. Appl. Percept., 15.10.1145/3196885 ↗
31. Kelly, J.W., Cherep, L.A., and Siegel, Z.D. (2017). Perceived Space in the HTC Vive. ACM Trans. Appl. Percept., 15.10.1145/3106155 ↗
32. Renner, R.S., Velichkovsky, B.M., and Helmert, J.R. (2013). The Perception of Egocentric Distances in Virtual Environments—A Review. ACM Comput. Surv., 46.10.1145/2543581.2543590 ↗
33. Cutting, J.E., and Vishton, P.M. (1995). Perceiving layout and knowing distances: The integration, relative potency, and contextual use of different information about depth. Perception of Space and Motion, Academic Press.10.1016/B978-012240530-3/50005-5 ↗
34. ISO (2000). Reference Number: ISO 9241-9: Ergonomic Requirements for Office Work with Visual Display Terminals (VDTs)-Part 9-Requirements for Non-Keyboard Input Devices, International Organization for Standardisation. [1st ed.].
35. Navigating Large-Scale Virtual Environments: What Differences Occur between Helmet-Mounted and Desk-Top Displays?10.1162/105474699566143 ↗
36. The Role of Depth and Frontal Planes in Perceiving Distances in a Virtual Environment10.1167/11.11.75 ↗
37. Distance estimation with mixed real and virtual targets in stereoscopic displays10.1016/j.displa.2014.11.006 ↗
38. Impact of parallax and interpupillary distance on size judgment performances of virtual objects in stereoscopic displays10.1080/00140139.2018.1526328 ↗
39. CAVE Size Matters: Effects of Screen Distance and Parallax on Distance Estimation in Large Immersive Display Setups10.1162/PRES_a_00241 ↗
40. Vergence–accommodation conflicts hinder visual performance and cause visual fatigue10.1167/8.3.33 ↗