Interaction and visual performance in stereoscopic displays: A review

Abstract

In this paper, authors systematically selected and reviewed articles related to stereoscopic displays and their advances, with a special focus on perception, interaction, and corresponding challenges. The aim was to understand interaction‐related problems, provide possible explanations, and identify factors that limit their applications. Despite promising advancements, there are still issues that researchers in the field fail to explain precisely. The two major problems in stereoscopic viewing are, compared with the real world, objects are perceived to be smaller than they actually are and there are discomfort and visual syndromes. Furthermore, there is general agreement that humans underestimate their egocentric distance in a virtual environment (VE). Our analysis revealed that in the real world, distance estimation is about 94% accurate, but in VE, it is only about 80% accurate. This problem could reduce the efficacy of different sensory motor‐based applications where interaction is important. Experts from human factors, computing, psychology, and others have studied contributing factors such as types of perception/response method, quality of graphics, associated stereoscopic conditions, experience in virtual reality (VR), and distance signals. This paper discusses the factors requiring further investigation if the VR interaction is to be seamlessly realized. In addition, engineering research directions aiming at improving current interaction performances are recommended.

The accuracy of distance perception in the frontal plane of projection‐based stereoscopic environments

“…Even within this distance range, we found that the overall position judgment accuracy dropped sharply from 0.91 (at 65 cm) to 0.77 (at 150 cm) in the stereoscopic displays. While there are differences between those studies and this one, the results are consistent where the ratio of accuracies in the frontal plane of virtual and real environments were better (0.81/0.88 = 92%, in Geuss et al and 0.85/0.94 = 90%, in the present study) when compared with egocentric distance perception in the depth plane (50–80% of the actual).…”

“…Following the overall underestimation of distance in the virtual environment in both egocentric and exocentric distance spaces, one may expect that the compression could be volumetric . The results by Lin et al and Lin et al showed a significant effect of parallax on a center‐to‐center distance between mixed real and virtual targets and between two virtual targets, respectively.…”

“…Despite all these difficulties and limitations, VR technologies are applied in areas such as medicine, psychology, training, entertainment, sports, and gaming, often where a real environment would be expensive, dangerous, or impossible to develop. Experts from human factors, computing, psychology, and others have studied contributing factors such as types of perception/response method, quality of graphics, associated stereoscopic conditions, experience in VR, and distance signals . However, there are still questions regarding the human's distance perception in a virtual environment.…”

Limits of peripheral acuity and implications for VR system design

“…The current generation of VR headsets still yield a modest field of view of 90°–100° horizontally, which although is far less than the human binocular field of view of 220°, is still far greater than the angular coverage of the normal use‐case of any direct‐view display. Even though VR displays feature impressive pixel counts, the perceived pixel density is still much worse than conventional monitors …”

G6-1 Analysis of movement and performance of pointing in real and stereoscopic environments

“…Understanding movement performances and behaviors depicted by the stereoscopic environment and then comparing it with the real world performances and movement behaviors, would help to explain the space perception issues reported in various studies (C. J. Lin & Woldegiorgis, 2015;Renner et al, 2013). …”