skip to main content
research-article

How late can you update gaze-contingent multiresolutional displays without detection?

Published:12 December 2007Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

This study investigated perceptual disruptions in gaze-contingent multiresolutional displays (GCMRDs) due to delays in updating the center of highest resolution after an eye movement. GCMRDs can be used to save processing resources and transmission bandwidth in many types of single-user display applications, such as virtual reality, video-telephony, simulators, and remote piloting. The current study found that image update delays as late as 60 ms after an eye movement did not significantly increase the detectability of image blur and/or motion transients due to the update. This is good news for designers of GCMRDs, since 60 ms is ample time to update many GCMRDs after an eye movement without disrupting perception. The study also found that longer eye movements led to greater blur and/or transient detection due to moving the eyes further into the low-resolution periphery, effectively reducing the image resolution at fixation prior to the update. In GCMRD applications where longer saccades are more likely (e.g., displays with relatively large distances between objects), this problem could be overcome by increasing the size of the region of highest resolution.

References

  1. Burr, D. C., Morrone, M. C., and Ross, J. 1994. Selective suppression of the magnocellular visual pathway during saccadic eye movements. Nature 371, 6947, 511--513.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Draper, M. H., Viirre, E. S., Furness, T. A., and Gawron, V. J. 2001. Effects of image scale and system time delay on simulator sickness within head-coupled virtual environments. Hum. Factors 43, 1, 129--146.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Duchowski, A. T., Cournia, N., and Murphy, H. 2004. Gaze-Contingent displays: A review. Cyberpsychol. Behav. 7, 6, 621--634.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Duchowski, A. T. and Çöltekin, A. 2007. Foveated gaze-contingent displays for peripheral LOD management, 3D visualization and stereo imaging. ACM Trans. Multimedia Comput. Commun. Appl. 3, 4 (this issue). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Frank, L. H., Casali, J. G., and Wierwille, W. W. 1988. Effects of visual display and motion system delays on operator performance and uneasiness in a driving simulator. Hum. Factors 30, 2, 201--217. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Geisler, W. S. and Perry, J. S. 1998. A real-time foveated multi-resolution system for low-bandwidth video communication. In Proceedings of the SPIE: The International Society for Optical Engineering 3299, 294--305.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Geisler, W. S. and Perry, J. S. 1999. Variable-Resolution displays for visual communication and simulation. Soc. Inf. Display, 30, 420--423.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Geri, G. A. and Zeevi, Y. Y. 1995. Visual assessment of variable-resolution imagery. J. Optic. Soc. Amer. A-Optic. Image Sci. 12, 10, 2367--2375.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Grunwald, A. J. and Kohn, S. 1994. Visual field information in low-altitude visual flight by line-of-sight slaved helmet-mounted displays. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybernet. 24, 1, 120--134.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Hodgson, T. L., Murray, P. M., and Plummer, A. R. 1993. Eye movements during “area of interest” viewing. In Perception and Cognition: Advances in Eye Movement Research, G. d'Ydewalle and J. V. Rensbergen, eds. Elsevier Science, New York, 115--123.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Komogortsey, O. and Khan, J. 2004. Predictive perceptual compression for real time video compression. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual ACM International Conference on Multimedia, New York, 220--227. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Kortum, P. T. and Geisler, W. S. 1996. Search performance in natural scenes: The role of peripheral vision. Investigat. Ophthamal. Visual Sci. 37, 3, S297.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Loschky, L. C. and McConkie, G. W. 2002. Investigating spatial vision and dynamic attentional selection using a gaze-contingent multi-resolutional display. J. Exper. Psychol. Appl. 8, 2, 99--117.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Loschky, L. C. and McConkie, G. W. 2000. User performance with gaze contingent multiresolutional displays. In Proceedings of the Eye Tracking Research and Applications Symposium, Palm Beach, FL, 97--103. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Loschky, L. C., McConkie, G. W., Yang, J., and Miller, M. E. 2005. The limits of visual resolution in natural scene viewing. Visual Cogn. 12, 6, 1057--1092.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Luebke, D., Hallen, B., Newfield, D., and Watson, B. 2000. Perceptually driven simplification using gaze-directed rendering. Tech. Rep. CS-2000-04, Department of Computer Science, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. McConkie, G. W. and Loschky, L. C. 2002. Perception onset time during fixations in free viewing. Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. Comput. 34, 4, 481--490.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Ohshima, T., Yamamoto, H., and Tamura, H. 1996. Gaze-Directed adaptive rendering for interacting with virtual space. In Proceedings of the Annual International IEEE Symposium on Virtual Reality, 103--110. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Parkhurst, D., Culurciello, E., and Neibur, E. 2000. Evaluating variable resolution displays with visual search: Task performance and eye movements. In Proceedings of the Eye Tracking Research and Applications Symposium, Palm Beach, FL, A. T. Duchowski, ed. 105--109. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Parkhurst, D. J. and Neibur, E. 2002. Variable resolution displays: A theoretical, practical and behavioral evaluation. Hum. Factors 44, 611--629.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Reingold, E. M. and Loschky, L. C. 2002. Saliency of peripheral targets in gaze-contingent multiresolutional displays. Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. Comput. 34, 4, 491--499.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Reingold, E. M., Loschky, L. C., McConkie, G. W., and Stampe, D. M. 2003. Gaze-Contingent multiresolutional displays: An integrative review. Hum. Factors 45, 2, 307--328.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Reingold, E. M. and Stampe, D. M. 2000. Saccadic inhibition and gaze contingent research paradigms. In Reading as a Perceptual Process, A. Kennedy et al., Eds. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 119--145.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Ross, J., Morrone, M. C., Goldberg, M. E., and Burr, D. C. 2001. Changes in visual perception at the time of saccades. Trends Neurosci. 24, 2, 113--121.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Sere, B., Marendaz, C., and Herault, J. 2000. Nonhomogenous resolution of images of natural scenes. Percept. 29, 12, 1403--1412.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Shioiri, S. 1993. Postsaccadic processing of the retinal image during picture scanning. Percept. Psychophys. 53, 3, 305--314.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Shioiri, S. and Ikeda, M. 1989. Useful resolution for picture perception as a function of eccentricity. Percept. 18, 347--361.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Thomas, M. and Geltmacher, H. 1993. Combat simulator display development. Inf. Display 9, 23--26.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Turner, J. A. 1984. Evaluation of an eye-slaved area-of-interest display for tactical combat simulation. In Proceedings of the 6th International Interservice/Industry Training Equipment Conference and Exhibition, 75--86.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. van Diepen, P. M. J. and Wampers, M. 1998. Scene exploration with Fourier-filtered peripheral information. Percept. 27, 10, 1141--1151.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Volkmann, F. C., Riggs, L. A., White, K. D., and Moore, R. K. 1978. Contrast sensitivity during saccadic eye movements. Vision Res. 18, 9, 1193--1199.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Watson, B. A., Walker, N., Hodges, L. F., and Worden, A. 1997. Managing level of detail through peripheral degradation: Effects on search performance with a head-mounted display. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 4, 4, 323--346. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Yang, J., Coia, T., and Miller, M. 2001. Subjective evaluation of retinal-dependent image degradations. In Proceedings of the Conference on Processing, Image Quality and Image Capture Systems, Springfield, VA. 142--147.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. How late can you update gaze-contingent multiresolutional displays without detection?

                  Recommendations

                  Comments

                  Login options

                  Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

                  Sign in

                  Full Access

                  PDF Format

                  View or Download as a PDF file.

                  PDF

                  eReader

                  View online with eReader.

                  eReader
                  About Cookies On This Site

                  We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

                  Learn more

                  Got it!