Visual perception of distance in 3D-augmented reality head-up displays
Tae Hee Lee
Computer Education, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, South Korea
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Young Ju Jeong
Software, Sookmyung Women's University, Seoul, South Korea
Correspondence
Young Ju Jeong, Software, Sookmyung Women's University, Cheongparo 47 gil 100, Seoul, South Korea.
Email: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorTae Hee Lee
Computer Education, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, South Korea
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Young Ju Jeong
Software, Sookmyung Women's University, Seoul, South Korea
Correspondence
Young Ju Jeong, Software, Sookmyung Women's University, Cheongparo 47 gil 100, Seoul, South Korea.
Email: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
A head-up display (HUD) is conveniently used to provide information on the display without changing the user's gaze. 3D HUDs, capable of projecting three-dimensional information beyond the 2D HUDs, enable the projection of augmented reality (AR) objects into the real world. Research on the perception of 3D AR HUDs is crucial for their efficient utilization and secure commercialization. In this study, we examined whether a 3D HUD is more comfortable than a 2D HUD in the context of viewing real-world environments and augmented reality objects together. Additionally, we analyzed participants' perception of distance and fatigue for AR objects at varying distances from the 3D HUD. The study found that using a 3D HUD in an AR environment resulted in less fatigue than using a 2D HUD, as determined by a Mann–Whitney statistical analysis. Participants were able to match the depth of AR objects in a 3D HUD within a range of 3 to 50 m, with similar diopter and parallax angular distance errors, regardless of the distance of the AR object. Visual fatigue increases with increasing distance from the virtual-image plane and can be modeled as a quadratic function in the domain of diopter and parallax angles.
REFERENCES
- 1Fadden S, Ververs PM, Wickens CD. Costs and benefits of head-up display use: a meta-analytic approach. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, vol. 42, Sage Publications; 1998. p. 16–20.
- 2Sojourner RJ, Antin JF. The effects of a simulated head-up display speedometer on perceptual task performance. Human Fact. 1990; 32(3): 329–339.
- 3Weihrauch M, Meloeny GG, Goesch TC. The first head up display introduced by general motors; 1989. SAE Technical Paper.
- 4Pauzie A. Head up display in automotive: a new reality for the driver. Design, User Experience, and Usability: Interactive Experience Design: 4th International Conference, DUXU 2015, Held as Part of HCI International 2015, Los Angeles, CA, USA, August 2-7, 2015, Proceedings, Part III 4, Springer; 2015. p. 505–516.
- 5Jeong C, Kim B, Yu S, Suh D, Kim M, Suh M. In-vehicle display HMI safety evaluation using a driving simulator. Int J Autom Technol. 2013; 14: 987–992.
- 6Morita K, Jin'ichi O, Okada T. Delay in response time of automobile driver due to gazing at an in-vehicle navigation display device. J Light Vis Environ. 1998; 22(2): 47.
- 7Bark K, Tran C, Fujimura K, Ng-Thow-Hing V. Personal Navi: benefits of an augmented reality navigational aid using a see-thru 3D volumetric HUD. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, Association for Computing Machinery; 2014. p. 1–8.
- 8Matsumoto T, Kusafuka K, Hamagishi G, Takahashi H. P-87: glassless 3D head up display using parallax barrier with eye tracking image processing. SID Symposium Digest of Technical Papers, vol. 49, Wiley Online Library; 2018. p. 1511–1514.
- 9Narzt W, Pomberger G, Ferscha A, et al. Augmented reality navigation systems. Univers Access Inform Soc. 2006; 4: 177–187.
10.1007/s10209-005-0017-5 Google Scholar
- 10Beck D, Park W. Perceived importance of automotive HUD information items: a study with experienced HUD users. IEEE Access. 2018; 6: 21901–21909.
- 11Currano R, Park SY, Moore DJ, Lyons K, Sirkin D. Little road driving HUD: heads-up display complexity influences drivers' perceptions of automated vehicles. Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Association for Computing Machinery; 2021. p. 1–15.
- 12Lee S-E, Sim MS, Yang C-M, Kim C-W. Evaluation of the legibility of the on-screen contents of in-vehicle transparent displays. J Inform Display. 2019; 20(3): 123–133.
- 13Broy N, Höckh S, Frederiksen A, et al. Exploring design parameters for a 3D head-up display. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Pervasive Displays, Association for Computing Machinery; 2014. p. 38–43.
- 14Bremers AWD, Yöntem AO, Li K, Chu D, Meijering V, Janssen CP. Perception of perspective in augmented reality head-up displays. Int J Human-Comput Stud. 2021; 155: 102693.
- 15Swan JE, Jones A, Kolstad E, Livingston MA, Smallman HS. Egocentric depth judgments in optical, see-through augmented reality. IEEE Trans Visual Comput Graph. 2007; 13(3): 429–442.
- 16Creem-Regehr SH, Willemsen P, Gooch AA, Thompson WB. The influence of restricted viewing conditions on egocentric distance perception: implications for real and virtual indoor environments. Perception. 2005; 34(2): 191–204.
- 17Knapp JM, Loomis JM. Limited field of view of head-mounted displays is not the cause of distance underestimation in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoper Virt Environ. 2004; 13(5): 572–577.
- 18Wu B, Ooi TL, He ZJ. Perceiving distance accurately by a directional process of integrating ground information. Nature. 2004; 428(6978): 73–77.
- 19Plumert JM, Kearney JK, Cremer JF, Recker K. Distance perception in real and virtual environments. ACM Trans Appl Percept (TAP). 2005; 2(3): 216–233.
10.1145/1077399.1077402 Google Scholar
- 20Dudley J, Yin L, Garaj V, Kristensson PO. Inclusive immersion: a review of efforts to improve accessibility in virtual reality, augmented reality and the metaverse. Virt Real. 2023; 27: 1–32.
- 21Combe T, Chardonnet J-R, Merienne F, Ovtcharova J. CAVE and HMD: distance perception comparative study. Virt Real. 2023; 27(3): 2003–2013.
- 22Hornsey RL, Hibbard PB. Contributions of pictorial and binocular cues to the perception of distance in virtual reality. Virt Real. 2021; 25(4): 1087–1103.
- 23Hibbard PB, Haines AE, Hornsey RL. Magnitude, precision, and realism of depth perception in stereoscopic vision. Cognit Res: Princip Implicat. 2017; 2: 1–11.
- 24Im H-J, Lee B-J, Hong H, Shin H-H. Auto-stereoscopic 60 view 3D using slanted lenticular lens arrays. J Inform Display. 2007; 8(4): 23–26.
10.1080/15980316.2007.9652042 Google Scholar
- 25Dodgson NA. Autostereoscopic 3D displays. Computer. 2005; 38(8): 31–36.
- 26Huang F-C, Luebke DP, Wetzstein G. The light field stereoscope. SIGGRAPH Emerging Technologies, Association for Computing Machinery; 2015. p. 24.
- 27Kitamura Y, Konishi T, Yamamoto S, Kishino F. Interactive stereoscopic display for three or more users. Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, Association for Computing Machinery; 2001. p. 231–240.
- 28Banks MS, Held RT, Girshick AR. Perception of 3-D layout in stereo displays. Inform Display. 2009; 25(1): 12–16.
10.1002/j.2637-496X.2009.tb00009.x Google Scholar
- 29Watt SJ, Akeley K, Ernst MO, Banks MS. Focus cues affect perceived depth. J Vis. 2005; 5(10): 7.
- 30Lambooij M, IJsselsteijn W, Fortuin M, Heynderickx I, et al. Visual discomfort and visual fatigue of stereoscopic displays: a review. J Imag Sci Technol. 2009; 53(3): 30201–1.
10.2352/J.ImagingSci.Technol.2009.53.3.030201 Google Scholar
- 31Shibata T, Kim J, Hoffman DM, Banks MS. Visual discomfort with stereo displays: effects of viewing distance and direction of vergence-accommodation conflict. Stereoscopic Displays and Applications XXII, vol. 7863, SPIE; 2011. p. 222–230.
- 32Tam WJ, Speranza F, Yano S, Shimono K, Ono H. Stereoscopic 3D-TV: visual comfort. IEEE Trans Broadcast. 2011; 57(2): 335–346.
- 33Soomro SR, Urey H. Visual acuity response when using the 3D head-up display in the presence of an accommodation-convergence conflict. J Inform Display. 2020; 21(2): 93–101.
- 34Cutting JE, Vishton PM. Perceiving Layout and Knowing Distances: The Integration, Relative Potency, and Contextual Use of Different Information About Depth: Elsevier; 1995.
10.1016/B978-012240530-3/50005-5 Google Scholar
- 35Epstein W, Rogers S. Perception of Space and Motion: Elsevier; 1995.
10.1016/B978-012240530-3/50003-1 Google Scholar
