Perception and Action in Peripersonal Space: A Comparison Between Video and Optical See-Through Augmented Reality Devices

Ballestin, Giorgio; Solari, Fabio; Chessa, Manuela

doi:10.1109/ismar-adjunct.2018.00063

Cited by 15 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…the visual alignment cue) greatly enhances the user's accuracy and precision: the errors observed during the experiment are coherent with the errors measured in the control group of the blind reaching experiment. This behaviour is also coherent with the results of our previous study [5], where users performed significantly better when the visual feedback is possible (i.e. the visual alignment between the real and the virtual object) was provided during the movement.…”

Section: Figure 15supporting

confidence: 91%

“…In a previous pilot study [5], we observed significant depth compression with both OST and VST devices. Thus, we devise a more controlled setup with a better registration procedure to assess our previous results.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 56%

“…This suggests that similar problematics may arise in AR HMDs since several of the depth cues lost in VR are often inhibited in AR contexts. The main cues responsible for depth perception in peripersonal space are binocular disparity, binocular convergence, accommodative focus, relative size, and occlusions [5], [7]- [10]. There are many other depth cues such as shading, cast shadows, aerial perspective, texture, dimensionality, atmospheric haze, or height in the visual field [11], [12].…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The calibration requirements of a VST AR system have been described in [4], [29]. One of the main problems with interacting in AR environments experienced through VST HMD devices is that the human eye and the camera's intrinsic parameters are different, thus hampering a correct estimation of egocentric distances [5], [30].…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To detect the user reaching, a Kinect V2 was used. In a previous study [5] the reaching position was captured through the skeleton tracking features provided by the Kinect sensor SDK, which proved to be subject to several issues. One of them is the sensor's tracking instability, which cannot precisely find the hand position due to occlusions.…”

Section: User Tracking: Kinect Registrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

A Registration Framework for the Comparison of Video and Optical See-Through Devices in Interactive Augmented Reality

2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we designed a registration framework that can be used to develop augmented reality environments, where all the real (including the users) and virtual elements are co-localized and registered in a common reference frame. The software is provided together with this paper, to contribute to the research community. The developed framework allows us to perform a quantitative assessment of interaction and egocentric perception in Augmented Reality (AR) environments. We assess perception and interaction in the peripersonal space through a 3D blind reaching task in a simple scenario and an interaction task in a kitchen scenario using both video (VST) and optical see-through (OST) head-worn technologies. Moreover, we carry out the same 3D blind reaching task in real condition (without head-mounted display and reaching real targets). This provides a baseline performance with which to compare the two augmented reality technologies. The blind reaching task results show an underestimation of distances with OST devices and smaller estimation errors in frontal spatial positions when the depth does not change. This happens with both OST and VST devices, compared with the real-world baseline. Such errors are compensated in the interaction kitchen scenario task. Thanks to the egocentric viewing geometry and the specific required task, which constrain the position perception on a table, both VST and OST have comparable and effective performance. Thus, our results show that such technologies have issues, though they can be effectively used in specific real tasks. This does not allow us to choose between VST and OST devices. Still, it provides a baseline and a registration framework for further studies and emphasizes the specificity of perception in interactive AR.

show abstract

Section: Figure 15supporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 56%

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: User Tracking: Kinect Registrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A Registration Framework for the Comparison of Video and Optical See-Through Devices in Interactive Augmented Reality

2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

User's image perception improved strategy and application of augmented reality systems in smart medical care: A review

Jiang

Zhang

Sun

et al. 2023

Robotics Computer Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Augmented reality (AR) is a new human-computer interaction technology that combines virtual reality, computer vision, and computer networks. With the rapid advancement of the medical field towards intelligence and data visualisation, AR systems are becoming increasingly popular in the medical field because they can provide doctors with clear enough medical images and accurate image navigation in practical applications. However, it has been discovered that different display types of AR systems have different effects on doctors' perception of the image after virtual-real fusion during the actual medical application. If doctors cannot correctly perceive the image, they may be unable to correctly match the virtual information with the real world, which will have a significant impact on their ability to recognise complex structures. Methods: This paper uses Citespace, a literature analysis tool, to visualise and analyse the research hotspots when AR systems are used in the medical field. Results: A visual analysis of the 1163 articles retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection database reveals that display technology and visualisation technology are the key research directions of AR systems at the moment. Conclusion: This paper categorises AR systems based on their display principles, reviews current image perception optimisation schemes for various types of systems, and analyses and compares different display types of AR systems based on their practical applications in the field of smart medical care so that doctors can select the appropriate display types based on different application scenarios.

show abstract

Enhancing Accessible Reading for All with Universally Designed Augmented Reality – AReader: From Audio Narration to Talking AI Avatars

Bekkvik Szentirmai

2024

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Perception and Action in Peripersonal Space: A Comparison Between Video and Optical See-Through Augmented Reality Devices

Cited by 15 publications

References 15 publications

A Registration Framework for the Comparison of Video and Optical See-Through Devices in Interactive Augmented Reality

A Registration Framework for the Comparison of Video and Optical See-Through Devices in Interactive Augmented Reality

User's image perception improved strategy and application of augmented reality systems in smart medical care: A review

Enhancing Accessible Reading for All with Universally Designed Augmented Reality – AReader: From Audio Narration to Talking AI Avatars

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About