Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2009
Collision judgment when using an augmented-vision head-mounted display device.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Luo Gang, Woods Russell L, Peli Eli
Аннотация
PURPOSE: A device was developed to provide an expanded visual field to patients with tunnel vision by superimposing minified edge images of the wide scene, in which objects appear closer to the heading direction than they really are. Experiments were conducted in a virtual environment to determine whether users would overestimate collision risks.
METHODS: Given simulated scenes of walking or standing with intention to walk toward a given direction (intended walking) in a shopping mall corridor, participants (12 normally sighted and 7 with tunnel vision) reported whether they would collide with obstacles appearing at different offsets from variable walking paths (or intended directions), with and without the device. The collision envelope (CE), a personal space based on perceived collision judgments, and judgment uncertainty (variability of response) were measured. When the device was used, combinations of two image scales (5x minified and 1:1) and two image types (grayscale or edge images) were tested.
RESULTS: Image type did not significantly alter collision judgment (P > 0.7). Compared to the without-device baseline, minification did not significantly change the CE of normally sighted subjects for simulated walking (P = 0.12), but increased CE by 30% for intended walking (P < 0.001). Their uncertainty was not affected by minification (P > 0.25). For the patients, neither CE nor uncertainty was affected by minification (P > 0.13) in both walking conditions. Baseline CE and uncertainty were greater for patients than normally sighted subjects in simulated walking (P = 0.03), but the two groups were not significantly different in all other conditions.
CONCLUSIONS: Users did not substantially overestimate collision risk, as the x5 minified images had only limited impact on collision judgments either during walking or before starting to walk.
METHODS: Given simulated scenes of walking or standing with intention to walk toward a given direction (intended walking) in a shopping mall corridor, participants (12 normally sighted and 7 with tunnel vision) reported whether they would collide with obstacles appearing at different offsets from variable walking paths (or intended directions), with and without the device. The collision envelope (CE), a personal space based on perceived collision judgments, and judgment uncertainty (variability of response) were measured. When the device was used, combinations of two image scales (5x minified and 1:1) and two image types (grayscale or edge images) were tested.
RESULTS: Image type did not significantly alter collision judgment (P > 0.7). Compared to the without-device baseline, minification did not significantly change the CE of normally sighted subjects for simulated walking (P = 0.12), but increased CE by 30% for intended walking (P < 0.001). Their uncertainty was not affected by minification (P > 0.25). For the patients, neither CE nor uncertainty was affected by minification (P > 0.13) in both walking conditions. Baseline CE and uncertainty were greater for patients than normally sighted subjects in simulated walking (P = 0.03), but the two groups were not significantly different in all other conditions.
CONCLUSIONS: Users did not substantially overestimate collision risk, as the x5 minified images had only limited impact on collision judgments either during walking or before starting to walk.