Visual discomfort and depth-of-field

Visual discomfort has been reported for certain visual stimuli and under particular viewing conditions, such as stereoscopic viewing. In stereoscopic viewing, visual discomfort can be caused by a conflict between accommodation and convergence cues that may specify different distances in depth. Earlier research has shown that depth-of-field, which is the distance range in depth in the scene that is perceived to be sharp, influences both the perception of egocentric distance to the focal plane, and the distance range in depth between objects in the scene. Because depth-of-field may also be in conflict with convergence and the accommodative state of the eyes, we raised the question of whether depth-of-field affects discomfort when viewing stereoscopic photographs. The first experiment assessed whether discomfort increases when depth-of-field is in conflict with coherent accommodation-convergence cues to distance in depth. The second experiment assessed whether depth-of-field influences discomfort from a pre-existing accommodation-convergence conflict. Results showed no effect of depth-of-field on visual discomfort. These results suggest therefore that depth-of-field can be used as a cue to depth without inducing discomfort in the viewer, even when cue conflicts are large. © 2013 L O'Hare, T Zhang, H T Nefs, P B Hibbard

Phenomenal regression to the real object in physical and virtual worlds

© 2014, Springer-Verlag London. In this paper, we investigate a new approach to comparing physical and virtual size and depth percepts that captures the involuntary responses of participants to different stimuli in their field of view, rather than relying on their skill at judging size, reaching or directed walking. We show, via an effect first observed in the 1930s, that participants asked to equate the perspective projections of disc objects at different distances make a systematic error that is both individual in its extent and comparable in the particular physical and virtual setting we have tested. Prior work has shown that this systematic error is difficult to correct, even when participants are knowledgeable of its likelihood of occurring. In fact, in the real world, the error only reduces as the available cues to depth are artificially reduced. This makes the effect we describe a potentially powerful, intrinsic measure of VE quality that ultimately may contribute to our understanding of VE depth compression phenomena

First- and second-order contributions to depth perception in anti-correlated random dot stereograms.

The binocular energy model of neural responses predicts that depth from binocular disparity might be perceived in the reversed direction when the contrast of dots presented to one eye is reversed. While reversed-depth has been found using anti-correlated random-dot stereograms (ACRDS) the findings are inconsistent across studies. The mixed findings may be accounted for by the presence of a gap between the target and surround, or as a result of overlap of dots around the vertical edges of the stimuli. To test this, we assessed whether (1) the gap size (0, 19.2 or 38.4 arc min) (2) the correlation of dots or (3) the border orientation (circular target, or horizontal or vertical edge) affected the perception of depth. Reversed-depth from ACRDS (circular no-gap condition) was seen by a minority of participants, but this effect reduced as the gap size increased. Depth was mostly perceived in the correct direction for ACRDS edge stimuli, with the effect increasing with the gap size. The inconsistency across conditions can be accounted for by the relative reliability of first- and second-order depth detection mechanisms, and the coarse spatial resolution of the latter