Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Clinically Normal Stereopsis Does Not Ensure a Performance Benefit from Stereoscopic 3D Depth Cues

  • 3DR Express
  • Published:
3D Research

Abstract

To investigate the effect of manipulating disparity on task performance and viewing comfort, twelve participants were tested on a virtual object precision placement task while viewing a stereoscopic 3D (S3D) display. All participants had normal or corrected-to-normal visual acuity, passed the Titmus stereovision clinical test, and demonstrated normal binocular function, including phorias and binocular fusion ranges. Each participant completed six experimental sessions with different maximum binocular disparity limits. The results for ten of the twelve participants were generally as expected, demonstrating a large performance advantage when S3D cues were provided. The sessions with the larger disparity limits typically resulted in the best performance, and the sessions with no S3D cues the poorest performance. However, one participant demonstrated poorer performance in sessions with smaller disparity limits but improved performance in sessions with the larger disparity limits. Another participant’s performance declined whenever any S3D cues were provided. Follow-up testing suggested that the phenomenon of pseudo-stereoanomaly may account for one viewer’s atypical performance, while the phenomenon of stereoanomaly might account for the other. Overall, the results demonstrate that a subset of viewers with clinically normal binocular and stereoscopic vision may have difficulty performing depth-related tasks on S3D displays. The possibility of the vergence–accommodation conflict contributing to individual performance differences is also discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Blake, R., & Wilson, H. (2011). Binocular Vision. Vision Research, 51, 754–770.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Fielder, A. R., & Moseley, M. J. (1996). Does stereopsis matter in humans? Eye, 10, 233–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Froner, B. (2011). Stereoscopic 3D technologies for accurate depth tasks: A theoretical and empirical study. Durham Thesis, Durham University. (Available online at) http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/3324/. Accessed 7 Aug 2014.

  4. Fujisaki, H., Yamashita, H., Kihara, K., & Ohtsuka, S. (2012). Individual differences in the use of binocular and monocular depth cues in 3D-graphics environments. SID 2012 Digest, pp. 1190–1193.

  5. Fujisaki, H., Yamashita, H., Kihara, K., & Ohtsuka, S. (2013). Ratio of pseudo-stereoanomalous young adults and improvement of their stereopsis in 3D-graphics environments: Study for depth perception based on the use of disparity and shading cues. ITE Transactions on Media Technology and Applications (MTA), 1(3), 93–99.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Jones, R. (1977). Anomalies of disparity detection in the human visual system. Journal of Physiology, 264, 621–640.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Kihara, K., Fujisaki, H., Ohtsuka, S., Miyao, M., Shimamura, J., Arai, H., & Taniguchi, Y. (2013). Age differences in the use of binocular disparity and pictorial depth cues in 3D-graphics environments. SID 2013 Digest, pp. 501–504.

  9. Kooi, F. L., & Toet, A. (2004). Visual comfort of binocular and 3D displays. Displays, 25, 99–108.

  10. Kooi, F. L., Dekker, D., van Ee, R., & Brouwer, A.-M. (2010). Real 3D increases perceived depth over anaglyphs but does not cancel stereo-anomaly. Displays, 31, 132–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kytö, M., Hakala, J., Oittinen, P., & Häkkinen, J. (2012). Effect of camera separation on the viewing experience of stereoscopic images. Journal of Electronic Imaging, 21(1), 1–011011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Landers, D. D., & Cormack, L. K. (1997). Asymmetries and errors in perception of depth from disparity suggest a multicomponent model of disparity processing. Perception and Psychophysics, 59(2), 219–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. McIntire, J. P., Havig, P. R., & Geiselman, E. (2012). What is 3D good for? A review of human performance on stereoscopic 3D displays. Proceedings of SPIE 8383, (vol. 83830X).

  14. McIntire, J. P., Havig, P. R., & Geiselman, E. (2014). Stereoscopic 3D displays and human performance: A comprehensive review. Displays, 35, 18–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. McIntire, J. P., Wright, S. T., Harrington, L. K., Havig, P. R., Watamaniuk, S. N. J., & Heft, E. L. (2014). Optometric measurements predict performance but not comfort on a virtual object placement task with a stereoscopic three-dimensional display. Optical Engineering, 53(6) (Special Section On Human Vision), 061711.

  16. McIntire, J. P., Wright, S. T., Harrington, L. K., Havig, P. R., Watamaniuk, S. N. J., & Heft, E. L. (under review). Microstereopsis is good, but orthostereopsis is better: Precision alignment task performance and viewer discomfort with a stereoscopic 3D display. Journal of Electronic Imaging.

  17. McIntire, J. P., Wright, S. T., Harrington, L. K., Havig, P. R., Watamaniuk, S. N. J., & Heft, E. L. (under review). Binocular fusion ranges and stereoacuity predict positional and rotational task performance on a stereoscopic 3D display. Journal of Display Technology.

  18. Mustillo, P. (1985). Binocular mechanisms mediating crossed and uncrossed stereopsis. Psychological Bulletin, 97(2), 187–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Patterson, R., & Fox, R. (1984). The effect of testing method on stereoanomaly. Vision Research, 24(5), 403–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Richards, W. (1970). Stereopsis and stereoblindness. Experimental Brain Research, 10, 380–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Richards, W. (1971). Anomalous stereoscopic depth perception. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 61(3), 410–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Rosenberg, L. (1993). The effect of interocular distance upon operator performance using stereoscopic displays to perform virtual depth tasks. Proceedings of the IEEE VRAIS '93, pp. 27–31.

  23. Rozhkova, G. I., & Vasiljeva, N. N. (2010). A computer-aided method for the evaluation of fusional reserves with objective control of fusion break. Human Physiology, 36(3), 364–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Shimono, K. (1984). Evidence for the subsystems in stereopsis: fine and coarse stereopsis. Japanese Psychological Research, 26(3), 168–172.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Tyler, C. (1990). A stereoscopic view of visual processing streams. Vision Research, 30(11), 1877–1895.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. van Ee, R. (2003). Correlation between stereoanomaly and perceived depth when disparity and motion interact in binocular matching. Perception, 32(1), 67–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. van Ee, R., & Richards, W. (2002). A planar and a volumetric test for stereoanomaly. Perception, 31, 51–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Watson, A. B., & Pelli, D. G. (1983). QUEST: A Bayesian adaptive psychometric method. Perception and Psychophysics, 33(2), 113–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Special thanks to the United States Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine (USAFSAM) Operationally-based Visual Assessment (OBVA) laboratory for the use of their clinical optometric facilities, and for their assistance in the data collection, analysis, and interpretation (especially Alex Van Atta, who created the custom stereoacuity threshold program). This work was derived from the first author’s PhD dissertation, completed in May 2014 at Wright State University’s Department of Psychology, with the human subject data collected at the Air Force Research Laboratory, Battlespace Visualization Branch, Wright-Patterson AFB. Thanks to all the participants who volunteered to contribute their valuable time.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory, 711 Human Performance Wing, 2255 H Street, Building 248, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH, 45433, USA

    John P. McIntire, Paul R. Havig & Eric L. Heft

  2. Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp., Fairborn, OH, 45324, USA

    Lawrence K. Harrington

  3. U.S. Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine, 2510 5th Street, Building 840, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH, 45433, USA

    Steve T. Wright

  4. Psychology Department, Wright State University, 3640 Colonel Glenn Hwy, 335 Fawcett Hall, Dayton, OH, 45435, USA

    Scott N. J. Watamaniuk

Authors
  1. John P. McIntire
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paul R. Havig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lawrence K. Harrington
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Steve T. Wright
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Scott N. J. Watamaniuk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Eric L. Heft
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John P. McIntire.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

McIntire, J.P., Havig, P.R., Harrington, L.K. et al. Clinically Normal Stereopsis Does Not Ensure a Performance Benefit from Stereoscopic 3D Depth Cues. 3D Res 5, 20 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13319-014-0020-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13319-014-0020-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation