Advertisement

Depth Perception – A Major Issue in Medical AR: Evaluation Study by Twenty Surgeons

  • Tobias Sielhorst
  • Christoph Bichlmeier
  • Sandro Michael Heining
  • Nassir Navab
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4190)

Abstract

The idea of in-situ visualization for surgical procedures has been widely discussed in the community [1,2,3,4]. While the tracking technology offers nowadays a sufficient accuracy and visualization devices have been developed that fit seamlessly into the operational workflow [1,3], one crucial problem remains, which has been discussed already in the first paper on medical augmented reality [4]. Even though the data is presented at the correct place, the physician often perceives the spatial position of the visualization to be closer or further because of virtual/real overlay.

This paper describes and evaluates novel visualization techniques that are designed to overcome misleading depth perception of trivially superimposed virtual images on the real view. We have invited 20 surgeons to evaluate seven different visualization techniques using a head mounted display (HMD). The evaluation has been divided into two parts. In the first part, the depth perception of each kind of visualization is evaluated quantitatively. In the second part, the visualizations are evaluated qualitatively in regard to user friendliness and intuitiveness. This evaluation with a relevant number of surgeons using a state-of-the-art system is meant to guide future research and development on medical augmented reality.

Keywords

Augmented Reality Volume Rendering Depth Perception Virtual Image Triangle Mesh 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    King, A.P., Edwards, P.J., Maurer, et al.: A system for microscope-assisted guided interventions. IEEE Trans. Med. Imag. 19, 1082–1093 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sauer, F., Khamene, A., Vogt, S.: An augmented reality navigation system with a single-camera tracker: System design and needle biopsy phantom trial. In: Dohi, T., Kikinis, R. (eds.) MICCAI 2002. LNCS, vol. 2489, pp. 116–124. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Birkfellner, W., Figl, M., Huber, K., et al.: A head-mounted operating binocular for augmented reality visualization in medicine design and initial evaluation. IEEE Trans. Med. Imag. 21, 991–997 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bajura, M., Fuchs, H., Ohbuchi, R.: Merging virtual objects with the real world: seeing ultrasound imagery within the patient. In: Proceedings of the 19th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, pp. 203–210. ACM Press, New York (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sauer, F., Khamene, A., Bascle, B., Vogt, S., Rubinob, G.J.: Augmented reality visualization in imri operating room: System description and pre-clinical testing. In: Proceedings of SPIE, Medical Imaging, vol. 4681, pp. 446–454 (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    King, A., Edwards, P., Maurer, et al.: Stereo augmented reality in the surgical microscope. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual. Env. 9, 360–368 (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Johnson, L.G., Edwards, P., Hawkes, D.: Surface transparency makes stereo overlays unpredictable: The implications for augmented reality. In: Medicine Meets Virtual Reality (MMVR), pp. 131–136. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cutting, J.E., Vishton, P.M.: Perceiving layout and knowing distances: The integration, relative potency, and contextual use of different information about depth. In: Epstein, W., Rogers, S. (eds.) Perception of Space and Motion, pp. 69–117 (1995)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hastreiter, P., Rezk-Salama, C., Tomandl, B., Eberhardt, K.E.W., Ertl, T.: Fast analysis of intracranial aneurysms based on interactive direct volume rendering and CTA. In: Wells, W.M., Colchester, A.C.F., Delp, S.L. (eds.) MICCAI 1998. LNCS, vol. 1496, pp. 660–669. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tobias Sielhorst
    • 1
  • Christoph Bichlmeier
    • 1
  • Sandro Michael Heining
    • 2
  • Nassir Navab
    • 1
  1. 1.Chair for Computer Aided Medical Procedures (CAMP)TU MunichGermany
  2. 2.Chirurgische Klinik und Poliklinik – InnenstadtLMU MunichGermany

Personalised recommendations