Microstereopsis is good, but orthostereopsis is better: precision alignment task performance and viewer discomfort with a stereoscopic 3D display

John P. McIntire; Paul R. Havig; Lawrence K. Harrington; Steve T. Wright; Scott N. J. Watamaniuk; Eric Heft

doi:10.1117/12.2297378

16 May 2018 Microstereopsis is good, but orthostereopsis is better: precision alignment task performance and viewer discomfort with a stereoscopic 3D display

John P. McIntire, Paul R. Havig, Lawrence K. Harrington, Steve T. Wright, Scott N. J. Watamaniuk, Eric Heft

Author Affiliations +

Proceedings Volume 10666, Three-Dimensional Imaging, Visualization, and Display 2018; 106660Q (2018) https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2297378
Event: SPIE Commercial + Scientific Sensing and Imaging, 2018, Orlando, FL, United States

Abstract

Two separate experiments examined user performance and viewer discomfort during virtual precision alignment tasks while viewing a stereoscopic 3D (S3D) display. In both experiments, virtual camera separation was manipulated to correspond to no stereopsis cues (zero separation), several levels of microstereopsis (20, 40, 60, and 80%), and orthostereopsis (100% of interpupillary distance). Viewer discomfort was assessed before and after each experimental session, measured subjectively via self-report on the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ). Objective measures of binocular status (phoria and fusion ranges) and standing postural stability were additionally evaluated pre and postsessions. Overall, the results suggest binocular fusion ranges may serve as useful objective indicators of discomfort from S3D viewing, perhaps as supplemental measures to standard subjective reports. For the group as a whole, the S3D system was fairly comfortable to view, although roughly half of the participants reported some discomfort, ranging from mild to severe, and typically with the larger camera separations. Microstereopsis conferred significant performance benefits over the no-stereopsis conditions, so microstereoscopic camera separations might be of great utility for non-critical viewing applications. However, performance was best with near-orthostereoscopic or orthostereoscopic camera separations. Our results support the use of orthostereopsis for critical, high-precision manual spatial tasks performed via stereoscopic 3D display systems, including remote surgery, robotic interaction with dangerous or hazardous materials, and related teleoperative spatial tasks.

Conference Presentation

Citation Download Citation

John P. McIntire, Paul R. Havig, Lawrence K. Harrington, Steve T. Wright, Scott N. J. Watamaniuk, and Eric Heft "Microstereopsis is good, but orthostereopsis is better: precision alignment task performance and viewer discomfort with a stereoscopic 3D display", Proc. SPIE 10666, Three-Dimensional Imaging, Visualization, and Display 2018, 106660Q (16 May 2018); https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2297378

ACCESS THE FULL ARTICLE

INSTITUTIONAL
Select your institution to access the SPIE Digital Library.

SELECT YOUR INSTITUTION

PERSONAL
Sign in with your SPIE account to access your personal subscriptions or to use specific features such as save to my library, sign up for alerts, save searches, etc.

PERSONAL SIGN IN

No SPIE Account? Create one

PURCHASE THIS CONTENT

SUBSCRIBE TO DIGITAL LIBRARY

50 downloads per 1-year subscription

Members: $195

Non-members: $335 ADD TO CART

25 downloads per 1 - year subscription

Members: $145

Non-members: $250 ADD TO CART

PURCHASE SINGLE ARTICLE

Includes PDF, HTML & Video, when available