Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Human Interface Factors Associated with HWDs

  • Reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook of Visual Display Technology

  • 307 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter provides a review of selected visual perception issues that impact the design and use of head-worn displays (HWDs). Issues discussed include interocular tolerance limits, binocular rivalry, accommodation-vergence mismatch, field of view, partial-overlap HWDs, perceptual constancy, head movements, and head tracking.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 1,399.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 1,999.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Abbreviations

HWD:

Head-worn display

LE:

Left eye

RE:

Right eye

VOR:

Vestibulo-ocular reflex

Further Reading

  • Benson A, Barnes K (1978) Vision during angular oscillation: the dynamic interaction of visual and vestibular mechanisms. Aviat Space Environ Med 49:340–345

    Google Scholar 

  • Blake R (1989) A neural theory of binocular rivalry. Psychol Rev 96:145–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blake R, Boothroyd K (1985) The precedence of binocular fusion over binocular rivalry. Percept Psychophys 37:114–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boydstun A, Rogers J, Tripp L, Patterson R (2009) Stereo depth perception survives significant interocular luminance differences. J Soc Info Disp 17:467–471

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breese B (1899) On inhibition. Psychol Monogr 3:1–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cakmakci O, Rolland J (2006) Head-worn displays: a review. J Display Tech 2:199–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis E (1997) Visual requirements in HWDs: what can we see and what do we need to see? In: Melzer J, Moffitt K (eds) Head mounted displays: designing for the user. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Edgar G, Pope J, Craig I (1993) Visual accommodation problems with head-up and helmet mounted displays. In: Bartlett C, Cowan M (eds) Proceedings of SPIE: display systems: high-resolution and large screen displays and helmet, head-up, and head-down display. SPIE, Bellingham

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis SR, Bucher UJ (1994) Distance perception of stereoscopically presented virtual objects optically superimposed on physical objects by a head mounted see-through display. In: Proceedings of the 38th annual meeting of the human factors and ergonomics society, Nashville

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis S, Bucher U, Menges B (1995) The relationship of binocular convergence and errors in judged distance to virtual objects. In: Proceedings of the international federation of automatic control. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher R (1994) Optics for head-mounted displays. Info Disp 10:12–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Foley J, Ribeiro-Filho N, Da Silva J (2004) Visual perception of extent and the geometry of visual space. Vis Res 44:147–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geri G, Pierce B, Patterson R (2008) Oculomotor contribution to the change in perceived speed with viewing distance. J Opt Soc Am A 25:2851–2857

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grunwald A, Kohn S (1994) Visual field information in low altitude visual flight and line-of-sight slaved helmet-mounted displays. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 24:120–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hess R, Liu C, Wang Y-Z (2003) Differential binocular input and local stereopsis. Vis Res 43:2303–2313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller K, Colucci D (1998) Perception in HWDs: what is it in head mounted displays (HWDs) that really make them all so terrible? In: Lewandowski R, Haworth L, Girolamo H (eds) Proceedings of SPIE: helmet- and head-mounted displays III. SPIE, Bellingham

    Google Scholar 

  • Klymenko V, Harding T, Beasley H, Martin J (1999) The effect of helmet mounted display field of view configurations on target acquisition (Technical report no. 99-19). U.S. Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory, Fort Rucker

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kruk R, Longridge T (1984) Binocular overlap in a fiber optic helmet mounted display. In: Proceedings of the 1984 image conference III. The IMAGE Society, Bethesda

    Google Scholar 

  • Laramee R, Ware C (2002) Rivalry and interference with a head mounted display. ACM Trans Comput Hum Interact 9:238–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levelt W (1965) On binocular rivalry. Institute for Perception RVO-TNO, Soesterberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Luo X, Kenyon R, Kamper D, Sandin D, De-Fanti T (2007) The effects of scene complexity, stereovision, and motion parallax on size constancy in a virtual environment. In: Kenyon R (ed) Virtual reality conference, 2007. IEEE, Piscataway, pp 59–66

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Melzer J, Moffitt K (1997) HWD design – putting the user first. In: Melzer J, Moffitt K (eds) Head mounted displays: designing for the user. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Meng X, Chen Y, Qian N (2004) Both monocular and binocular signals contribute to motion rivalry. Vis Res 44:45–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakayama K, Shimojo S (1990) Da Vinci stereopsis: depth and subjective occluding contours from unpaired image points. Vis Res 30:1811–1825

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norman H, Norman J, Bilotta J (2000) The temporal course of suppression during binocular rivalry. Perception 29:831–841

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ogle K (1938) Induced size effect: I. Anew phenomenon in binocular space-perception associated with the relative sizes of the images of the two eyes. Arch Ophthalmol 20:604–623

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owens D, Leibowitz H (1976) Oculomotor adjustments in darkness and the specific distance tendency. Percept Psychophys 20:2–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owens D, Leibowitz H (1980) Accommodation, convergence, and distance perception in low illumination. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 57:540–550

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Padmos P, Milders M (1992) Quality criteria for simulator images: a literature review. Hum Factors 34:727–748

    Google Scholar 

  • Patterson R (2015) Human factors of stereoscopic 3D displays. Springer, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Patterson R, Winterbottom M, Pierce B (2006) Perceptual issues with the use of head-mounted displays. Hum Factors 48:555–573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patterson R, Winterbottom M, Pierce B, Fox R (2007) Binocular rivalry and head-mounted displays. Hum Factors 49:1083–1096

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peli E (1990) Visual issues in the use of a head-mounted monocular display. Opt Eng 29:883–892

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pierce B, Howard I (1997) Types of size disparity and the perception of surface slant. Perception 23:1503–1517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pierce B, Arrington K, Moreno M (1999) Motion and stereoscopic tilt perception. J Soc Info Disp 3:193–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rash C, Mozo B, McEntire B, Licina J (1996) RAH- 66 Comanche health hazard and performance issues for the helmet integrated display and sighting system (Technical report no. 97-1). U.S. Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory, Fort Rucker

    Google Scholar 

  • Rolland JP, Fuchs H (2000) Optical versus video see-through head-mounted displays in medical visualization. Presence Teleop Virt Environ 9(3):287–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rolland JP, Gibson W, Ariely D (1995) Towards quantifying depth and size perception in virtual environments. Presence Teleop Virt Environ 4(1):24–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schall J, Nawrot M, Blake R, Yu K (1993) Visual guided attention is neutralized when informative cues are visible but unperceived. Vis Res 33:2057–2064

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • So R, Griffin M (1992) Compensation lags in head-coupled displays using head position prediction and image deflection. AIAA J Aircraft 29:1064–1068

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toates F (1972) Accommodation function of the human eye. Physiol Rev 52:828–863

    Google Scholar 

  • Toates F (1974) Vergence eye movements. Doc Ophthalmol 37:153–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsou B, Shenker M (2000) Visual factors associated with headmounted displays. In: Bass M (ed) Handbook of optics, vol III, Visual optics: issues pertinent to the optical designer. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Velger M (1998) Helmet-mounted displays and sights. Artech House, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • von Hofsten C (1976) The role of convergence in visual space perception. Vis Res 16:193–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang B, Ciuffreda K (2006) Depth of focus of the human eye: theory and clinical applications. Surv Ophthalmol 51:75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wann J, Ruston S, Mon-Williams M (1995) Natural problems for stereoscopic depth perception in virtual environments. Vis Res 35:2731–2736

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wells M, Griffin M (1984) Benefits of helmet-mounted display image stabilization under whole-body vibration. Aviat Space Environ Med 55:13–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells M, Griffin M (1987a) A review and investigation of aiming and tracking performance with helmet-mounted sights. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern SMC-17:210–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wells M, Griffin M (1987b) Flight trial of a helmet-mounted display image stabilization system. Aviat Space Environ Med 55:319–322

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells M, Griffin M (1988) Tracking with the head during whole-body vibration. In: Patrick J, Duncan K (eds) Training, human decision making and control. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells M, Haas M (1990) Head movements during simulated air-to-air engagements. In: Lewandowski R (ed) Proceedings of SPIE: helmet-mounted displays II. SPIE, Bellingham

    Google Scholar 

  • Winterbottom M, Patterson R, Pierce B, Taylor A (2006) Visual suppression of monocularly presented symbology against a fused background in simulation and training environment. Proc SPIE Helmet Head Mounted Disp XI Technol Appl 6224:2.1–2.10

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Air Force Research Laboratory, Bldg 852, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH, 45433, USA

    Robert Earl Patterson

Authors
  1. Robert Earl Patterson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert Earl Patterson .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Display Technology Center, Panel Integration Division I, Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI), Chutung, Hsinchu, Taiwan

    Janglin Chen

  2. Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, United Kingdom

    Wayne Cranton

  3. Veritas et Visus, Temple, Texas, USA

    Mark Fihn

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this entry

Cite this entry

Patterson, R.E. (2016). Human Interface Factors Associated with HWDs. In: Chen, J., Cranton, W., Fihn, M. (eds) Handbook of Visual Display Technology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14346-0_135

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation