Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Human Interface Factors Associated with HWDs

  • Reference work entry
Handbook of Visual Display Technology

  • 689 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 899.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

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

References

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  4. 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 

  5. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  7. 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 

  8. Rolland JP, Fuchs H (2000) Optical versus video see-through head-mounted displays in medical visualization. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ MIT Press 9(3):287–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Patterson R (2009) Human factors of stereo displays: an update. J Soc Inf Disp 17:987–996

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 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 (Tech. Rep. 97-1). U.S. Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory, Fort Rucker

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  32. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  34. 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 

  35. 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 

  36. 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 

  37. 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  41. 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 

  42. 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 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 

  45. Wells M, Griffin M (1987) 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 

  46. 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 

  47. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  49. 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 

  50. 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 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 

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

    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 (Senior Research Psychologist)

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. Industrial Technology Research Institute, Hsinchu, Taiwan

    Janglin Chen

  2. Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK

    Wayne Cranton

  3. Veritas et Visus, Texas, USA

    Mark Fihn

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this entry

Cite this entry

Patterson, R.E. (2012). Human Interface Factors Associated with HWDs. In: Chen, J., Cranton, W., Fihn, M. (eds) Handbook of Visual Display Technology. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-79567-4_135

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation