Visuotactile integration for depth perception in augmented reality

Rosa, Nina; Hürst, Wolfgang; Werkhoven, Peter; Veltkamp, Remco C.

doi:10.1145/2993148.2993156

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Using the same experimental setup, McCandless et al [42] additionally studied motion parallax and latency in monocular viewing; they found reduced accuracy with increasing distance and latency. Singh et al [43] found that an occluding surface has complex accuracy effects, and Rosa et al [44] found increased accuracy with redundant tactile feedback.…”

Section: Related Work In Augmented Realitymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of Focal Distance, Age, and Brightness on Near-Field Augmented Reality Depth Matching

Singh

Ellis

Swan

2020

IEEE Trans. Visual. Comput. Graphics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many augmented reality (AR) applications operate within near-field reaching distances, and require matching the depth of a virtual object with a real object. The accuracy of this matching was measured in three experiments, which examined the effect of focal distance, age, and brightness, within distances of 33.3 to 50~cm, using a custom-built AR haploscope. Experiment~I examined the effect of focal demand, at the levels of collimated (infinite focal distance), consistent with other depth cues, and at the midpoint of reaching distance. Observers were too young to exhibit age-related reductions in accommodative ability. The depth matches of collimated targets were increasingly overestimated with increasing distance, consistent targets were slightly underestimated, and midpoint targets were accurately estimated. Experiment~II replicated Experiment~I, with older observers. Results were similar to Experiment~I. Experiment~III replicated Experiment~I with dimmer targets, using young observers. Results were again consistent with Experiment~I, except that both consistent and midpoint targets were accurately estimated. In all cases, collimated results were explained by a model, where the collimation biases the eyes' vergence angle outwards by a constant amount. Focal demand and brightness affect near-field AR depth matching, while age-related reductions in accommodative ability have no effect.

show abstract

Section: Related Work In Augmented Realitymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of Focal Distance, Age, and Brightness on Near-Field Augmented Reality Depth Matching

Singh

Ellis

Swan

2020

IEEE Trans. Visual. Comput. Graphics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the well-studied audio–visual integration space, visual information is modulated by altering the frequency or localization of seen and heard stimuli ( Rohe and Noppeney, 2018 ), often by employing the established McGurk paradigm ( Gentilucci and Cattaneo, 2005 ). In another example, for visuo–haptic integration studies, visual information is modulated in size estimation or identification tasks through the manipulation of an object’s physical shape ( Yalachkov et al, 2015 ) or the alteration of digital images through augmented ( Rosa et al, 2016 ) and virtual reality (VR) headsets ( Noccaro et al, 2020 ).…”

Section: Expanding Multisensory Integration: Current Tools/methods and Emerging Technologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These displays provide a benefit over traditional 2D screens since they are not limited by two-dimensional content. PBDs show 3D images in mid-air, thus allowing depth perception, which could be integrated into traditional experimental paradigms, such as depth discrimination tasks ( Deneve and Pouget, 2004 ; Rosa et al, 2016 ). Furthermore, PBDs also offer a benefit over VR headsets as these novel displays do not require wearing of a head-mounted display (HMD).…”

Section: Expanding Multisensory Integration: Current Tools/methods and Emerging Technologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Multisensory Integration as per Technological Advances: A Review

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multisensory integration research has allowed us to better understand how humans integrate sensory information to produce a unitary experience of the external world. However, this field is often challenged by the limited ability to deliver and control sensory stimuli, especially when going beyond audio–visual events and outside laboratory settings. In this review, we examine the scope and challenges of new technology in the study of multisensory integration in a world that is increasingly characterized as a fusion of physical and digital/virtual events. We discuss multisensory integration research through the lens of novel multisensory technologies and, thus, bring research in human–computer interaction, experimental psychology, and neuroscience closer together. Today, for instance, displays have become volumetric so that visual content is no longer limited to 2D screens, new haptic devices enable tactile stimulation without physical contact, olfactory interfaces provide users with smells precisely synchronized with events in virtual environments, and novel gustatory interfaces enable taste perception through levitating stimuli. These technological advances offer new ways to control and deliver sensory stimulation for multisensory integration research beyond traditional laboratory settings and open up new experimentations in naturally occurring events in everyday life experiences. Our review then summarizes these multisensory technologies and discusses initial insights to introduce a bridge between the disciplines in order to advance the study of multisensory integration.

show abstract

“…McCandless et al [42] studied motion parallax and latency in monocular viewing and found reduced accuracy with increasing distance and latency. Singh et al [44] found that an occluding surface has complex accuracy effects, and Rosa et al [39] found that accuracy increased when using redundant tactile feedback.…”

Section: Perceptual Issues In Ost Hmdsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Depth Layer Switching between an Optical See-Through Head-Mounted Display and a Body-Proximate Display

Eiberger

Kristensson

Mayr

et al. 2019

Symposium on Spatial User Interaction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Figure 1: Left: Vision of extending the field of view of body-proximate displays such as a smartwatch through an optical see-through head-mounted display with visual information presented at a uniform depth layer. Right: Visualization of the two depth layers (smartwatch and focal distance of the head-mounted display), which leads to the need of accomodation and vergence changes to integrate information accross both displays. ABSTRACTOptical see-through head-mounted displays (OST HMDs) typically display virtual content at a fixed focal distance while users need to integrate this information with real-world information at different depth layers. This problem is pronounced in body-proximate multidisplay systems, such as when an OST HMD is combined with a smartphone or smartwatch. While such joint systems open up a new design space, they also reduce users' ability to integrate visual information. We quantify this cost by presenting the results of an experiment (n=24) that evaluates human performance in a visual search task across an OST HMD and a body-proximate display at 30 cm. The results reveal that task completion time increases significantly by approximately 50% and the error rate increases significantly by approximately 100% compared to visual search on a single depth layer. These results highlight a design trade-off when designing joint OST HMD-body proximate display systems.• Human-centered computing → Empirical studies in HCI.

show abstract

Visuotactile integration for depth perception in augmented reality

Cited by 5 publications

References 17 publications

The Effect of Focal Distance, Age, and Brightness on Near-Field Augmented Reality Depth Matching

The Effect of Focal Distance, Age, and Brightness on Near-Field Augmented Reality Depth Matching

Multisensory Integration as per Technological Advances: A Review

Effects of Depth Layer Switching between an Optical See-Through Head-Mounted Display and a Body-Proximate Display

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About