JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
Stereoscopic Depth from 3D Contents with Various Disparity
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
  • Journal title : Journal of Broadcast Engineering
  • Volume 21, Issue 1,  2016, pp.76-86
  • Publisher : The Korean Institute of Broadcast and Media Engineers
  • DOI : 10.5909/JBE.2016.21.1.76
 Title & Authors
Stereoscopic Depth from 3D Contents with Various Disparity
Kham, Keetaek;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
This study was investigated whether the perceived depth was changed depending on the measurement methods. In the method of direct comparison, virtual object with one of the various binocular disparities was presented in the frontal space with LEDs which were used for depth estimation for a binocular stimulus, while in the method of indirect comparison, visual object was presented in the frontal space but the LEDs were placed rightward at the angle of 45 degree from the mid-sagittal line. In these experimental setup, the depth of binocular stimulus was directly matched that of LED in direct comparison condition. In indirect comparison condition, however, observer estimated the depth of binocular stimulus, turned one`s head rightward to the array of LEDs and turned on the LED which was supposed to be the same depth as binocular stimulus. Additionally, it was investigated whether the perceived depth was different depending on observer`s stereo acuity. The results showed that perceived depths measured in the direct comparison were more similar to the depth predicted from geometry than those in the indirect comparison, and that the perceived depths from observers with high stereo acuity were similar to the predicted depth from geometry those from observers with low stereo acuity. These results indicated that stereoscopic depths of the binocular stimuli would vivid and compelling when binocular stimuli was simultaneously presented with real objects in the same visual space, like a mixed reality.
 Keywords
perceived depth;egocentric distance;direct and indirect comparison;stereoacuity;
 Language
Korean
 Cited by
 References
1.
van Beurden, M. H. P. H., IJsselsteijn, W. A., & de Kort, Y. A. W. Effectiveness of stereoscopic displays in medicine : a review. 3D Research, 3(1), 1-13, 2012. crossref(new window)

2.
Lipton, L. Foundations of the stereoscopic cinema- A study in depth. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold. 1982.

3.
Ukai, K., & Kato, Y. The use of video refraction to measure the dynamic properties of the near triad in observers of a 3-D display. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 22, 385-388, 2002. crossref(new window)

4.
Wopking, M. Viewing comfort with stereoscopic pictures: an experimental study on the subjective effects of disparity magnitude and depth of focus. Journal of the Society for Information Display, 3, 101-103, 1995. crossref(new window)

5.
Yano, S., Emoto, M., & Mitsuhashi, T. Two factors in visual fatigue caused by stereoscopic HDTV images, Displays, 25, 141-150, 2004. crossref(new window)

6.
Huang, K., Yang, J., Wu, C., Lee, K., & Hwang, S. System-crosstalk effect on stereopsis human factor study for 3-D displays, Proc. SPIE, 7524, 2010.

7.
Wang, L., Teunissen, K., Tu, Y., Chen, L., Zhang, P., Zhang, T., & Heynderi, I. Crosstalk Evaluation in Stereoscopic Displays, Journal of display technology, 7(4), 208-214, 2011. crossref(new window)

8.
Sands, J., Lawson, S. W., & Benyon, D. Do we need Stereoscopic displays for 3D Augmented Reality Target Selection Tasks?, Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Information Visualisation (IV''04), 633-638, 2004.

9.
Azuma, R.; Baillot, Y.; Behringer, R.; Feiner, S.; Julier, S.; MacIntyre, B. Recent Advances in Augmented Reality. Computer Graphics and Applications, 21, 34-47, 2001. crossref(new window)

10.
Swartout, W. Gratch, J. Hill, R.W. Hovy, E. Marsella, S. Rickel, J., & Traum, D. Toward virtual humans, AI Magazine 27, 96-108, 2006.

11.
Loomis, J.M. Knapp, J. Virtual and Adaptive Environments: Visual Perception of Egocentric Distance in Real and Virtual Environments, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 2003.

12.
Kham, K., & Lee, J. The effect of inter-pupillary distance on stereopsis, Korean Journal of Cognitive Science, 9, 37-49, 2003.

13.
Knapp, J.M. Loomis, J.M. Limited field of view of head-mounted displays is not the cause of distance underestimation in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 13, 572-577, 2004. crossref(new window)

14.
JONES, J. A., SUMA, E. A., KRUM, D. M., AND BOLAS, M. Comparability of narrow and wide field-of-view head-mounted displays for medium-field distance judgments. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Applied Perception (SAP''12). ACM, New York, 119-119, 2012.

15.
Maloney, L. T., & Landy, M. S. A statistical framework for robust fusion of detph information. In W. A. Pearlman (Ed.). Visual communications and image processing, Proceedings of the SPIE, 1199, 1154-1163, 1989. crossref(new window)

16.
Biilthoff, H. H. Shape from X: Psychophysics and computation. In Landy, M. S. & Movshon, J. A. (Eds), Computational models of visual processing (pp. 305-330). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1991.

17.
Westheimcr. G. & Levi, D. M. Depth attraction and repulsion of disparate fovea1 stimuli. Vision Research, 27, 1361-1368, 1987. crossref(new window)

18.
Howarth P. A. Potential hazards of viewing 3-D stereoscopic television, cinema, and computer games: A review. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 31, 111–122, 2011. crossref(new window)

19.
Hoffman D. M. Girshick A. R. Akeley K. Banks M. S. Vergence–accommodation conflicts hinder visual performance and cause visual fatigue. Journal of Vision, 8(3), 1-30, 2008. crossref(new window)

20.
Brenner, E., & van Damme, W. J. M. Judging distance from ocular convergence. Vision Research, 38, 493-498, 1998. crossref(new window)

21.
Sinai, M.J., Krebs, W.K., Darken, R.P., Rowland, J. H., and McCarley, J.S. Egocentric distance perception in a virtual environment using a perceptual matching task. Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 43, 1256-1260, 1999. crossref(new window)

22.
Philbeck J. W., Loomis J. M. Comparison of two indicators of perceived egocentric distance under full-cue and reduced-cue conditions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23, 72–85, 1997. crossref(new window)

23.
Matsushima, E. H., Douchkin, I. O., Ribeiro Filho, N. P., & Aparecido Da Silva, J. Perceptual constancy in judgments of egocentric distance: Prevailing binocular information. Arquivas Brasileiras de Oftalmologia, 6, 62-68, 2003. crossref(new window)

24.
Willemsen, P., Colton, M.B., Creem-Regehr, S. H., Thompson, W.B., The effects of head-mounted display mechanical properties and field-of-view on distancejudgments in virtual environments, ACM Transactions on Applied Perception, 6(2), 8:1-8:14, 2009. crossref(new window)

25.
Parker, A. J. Binocular depth perception and the cerebral cortex. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 8, 379-391, 2007. crossref(new window)

26.
Phillips, L., Interrante, V., Kaeding, M., Ries, B., & Anderson, L. Correlations between physiological response, gait, personality, and presence in immersive virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 21(2), 119-141, 2012. crossref(new window)

27.
Renner, R. S., Velichkovsky, B. M., and Helmert, J. R. The perception of egocentric distances in virtual environments - A review. ACM Computing Surveys, 46, 23:1-23:40, 2013. crossref(new window)