Perceptual issues in optical-see-through displays

Abstract

Optical see-through devices enable observers to see additional information embedded in real environments. There is already some evidence of increasing visual load in respective systems. We investigated visual performance when users performed visual search tasks or dual tasks only on the optical see-through device, only on a computer screen, or switching between both. In spite of having controlled for basic differences between both devices, switching between the presentation devices produced costs in visual performance. The assumption that these decreases in performance are partly due to differences localizing the presented objects was confirmed by convergence data

Eye Strain from Switching Focus in Optical See-Through Displays

“…Huckauf et al compared the visual search and focus switching tasks on between computer screens and OST displays, and confirmed the lowered performance on the OST displays. Furthermore, they also found that users tended to misjudge the target object depth, namely closer than the actual [6].…”

The Effect of Context Switching, Focal Switching Distance, Binocular and Monocular Viewing, and Transient Focal Blur on Human Performance in Optical See-Through Augmented Reality

“…However, the Magic Leap One presents virtual objects at two fixed focal distances [46]. To the best of the authors' knowledge, the Microvision Nomad, used in Gabbard et al [16] and other studies [24,47], is the only commercial display with an adjustable focal knob. Some laboratorybuilt displays have used lenses that can be refocused by software [9,28].…”

“…Previous research has found that context switching can reduce performance, both for general information displays [52] and when context switching between AR and real world content [16,24]. In addition, frequent focal distance switching can result in excessive eye strain, visual fatigue, and reduced task performance [3,4,13,15,23,26,39].…”

“…All of the others employed commercial, off-the-shelf OST AR displays, with inherent limitations in the consistency of presented depth cues. For example, Wang Baldonado [52] used standard computer monitors, Huckauf et al [24] and Gabbard et al [16] used monitors and an one-eye Microvision Nomad, Neveu et al [39] used a television and a Sony Glasstron, Imamov et al [26] used an HTC Vive Pro, Eiberger et al [15] used an Epson Moverio BT-100, and Drouot et al [13] used a Microsoft Hololens 2.…”

Dynamic text management for see-through wearable and heads-up display systems

“…This type of technology has various benefits, such as allowing virtual information to be displayed onto real world objects, giving a simultaneous view of digital content and real world environment, and faster access times to information. Although these devices can be incredibly useful and augment human ability, various studies on technologically induced intersensory conflict, readability, and fatigue show that it is still difficult for users to acclimate to content viewed through see through displays [7,14,15]. Secondly, since text is typically viewed in a fixed location on an HMD screen, people, vehicles, and noise in the background of a user's path can interfere with tasks, especially with reading text.…”