DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Effects of Stimulus-background Contrast, Background Texture Density and Screen Disparity of Stimulus on Crosstalk Perception

자극과 배경의 대비, 배경 텍스쳐 밀도, 자극의 화면 시차가 크로스톡 지각에 미치는 영향

  • Received : 2012.12.27
  • Accepted : 2013.02.14
  • Published : 2013.03.30

Abstract

3D contents could cause unique 3D visual fatigue. Screen disparity, image blurring, and crosstalk are known to be the three major factors responsible for the fatigue. Among these, screen disparity and image blurring are content factors, that is, one can directly manipulate contents themselves to handle visual fatigue caused by these two factors. On the other hand, because crosstalk is closely tied to physical characteristics of 3D display, it is difficult or even impossible to reduce crosstalk-driven visual fatigue unless one replaces 3D display itself (for example, from active to passive display). However, the effects of crosstalk on 3D visual fatigue depends on visual stimulus features (that is, contents), and thus it is possible to manipulate stimulus features in order to handle visual fatigue caused by crosstalk. Hence, this research tested the effects of visual stimulus features on crosstalk (which then causes 3D visual fatigue). Using relative depth discrimination task, we tested the effects of stimulus-background contrast, background texture density, and screen disparity on the degree of perceived crosstalk. The results showed that crosstalk decreases with presence of background texture and with less degree of screen disparity.

Acknowledgement

Grant : 인체안전성을 위한 3D 기기/장비 중심의 휴먼팩터 연구

Supported by : 한국산업기술평가관리원

References

  1. Gillam, B. The perception of spatial layout from static optical information, in Perception of space and motion. edited by Epstein, W. and Rogers, S. Academic Press, California. 27, 1995.
  2. Howarth, P. A. Potential hazards of viewing 3‐D stereoscopic television, cinema and computer games: a review. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 31(2), pp.111-122. 2011. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-1313.2011.00822.x
  3. Takaki, Y. and Nago, N., Multi-projection of lenticular displays to construct a 256-view super multi-view display. Optics Express, 18(9), pp.8824-8835. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.18.008824
  4. Milgram. P. and Van der Horst. R. Alternating-field stereoscopic displays using light-scattering liquid crystal spectacles. Displays, 7, pp.67-72. 1986. https://doi.org/10.1016/0141-9382(86)90110-1
  5. Harris M.R., Geddes. A.J., and North. A. C. T. Frame-sequential stereoscopic system for use in television and computer graphics. Displays, 7, pp.12-16. 1986. https://doi.org/10.1016/0141-9382(86)90039-9
  6. Lane. B. Stereoscopic displays. Processing and display of three-dimensional data; Proceedings of the SPIE Meeting, San Diego, CA, USA. pp.20-32. 1983.
  7. Dodgson, N. A. Autostereo displays: 3D without glasses. EID: Electronic Information Displays, 1997.
  8. Kooi, F. L. and Toet, A. Visual comfort of binocular and 3-D displays. Displays, 25, pp.99-108, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.displa.2004.07.004
  9. IJsselsteijn. W. A., Seuntiens. P. H. J., and Meesters. L. M. J., 3D Videocommunication-Algorithms, Concepts and Real-Time Systems in Human-centred Communication, New York. pp.219-234, 2005.
  10. Woods A., Docherty. T., and Koch. R., Image Distortions in Stereoscopic Video Systems, Proc. SPIE 1915, pp.36-49. 1993.
  11. Hyung-Chul O. Li, Human Factor Research on the Measurement of Subjective Three Dimensional Fatigue, Journal of Broadcast Engineering of Korea, 15(5), pp.607-616, 2010. https://doi.org/10.5909/JBE.2010.15.5.607
  12. Wang, L., Tu, Y., Chen, L. , Zhang, P. , Teunissen, K.m and Heynderickx, I. Crosstalk acceptability in natural still images for different (auto) stereoscopic display technologies, Journal of the SID, 18(6), pp.405-414, 2010.
  13. Woodgate. G. and Harrold. J. High efficiency reconfigurable 2D/3D autostereoscopic display," SID Symp. Digest Tech. Papers, 34(1). pp.394-397, 2003.
  14. Rashbass. C. and Westheimer. G. Disjunctive eye movements. J Physiol. 159, pp.339-360. 1961. https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.1961.sp006812
  15. M. Siegel, Perceptions of crosstalk and the possibility of a zoneless autostereoscopic display. Proc. SPIE, 4297, 34-41. 2001.
  16. Diopter Kleiner, M., Brainard, D. and Pelli, D., What's new in Psychtoolbox-3?. Perception 36 ECVP Abstract Supplement. 2007
  17. Fry, G. Further experiments on the accommodative convergence relationship. American Journal of Optometry, 16, pp.325-334. 1939. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006324-193909000-00002
  18. Busettini, C., Miles, F. A., and Krauzlis, R. J. Short-latency disparity vergence responses and their dependence on a prior saccadic eye movement. Journal of Neurophysiology, 75(4), pp.1392-1410. 1996. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.1996.75.4.1392
  19. Duk-Joong Kim, Hyung-Chul O. Li, and ShinWoo Kim, Glasses-free Interactive 3D Display: The Effects of Viewing Distance, Orientation and Manual Interaction on Visual Fatigue, Journal of Broadcast Engineering of Korea, 17(4), pp.572-582, 2012. https://doi.org/10.5909/JBE.2012.17.4.572
  20. Giseok Kim, Jae-Soo Cho, and Gi-Mun Um, Robust Viewpoint Estimation Algorithm for Moving Parallax Barrier Mobile 3D Display, Journal of Broadcast Engineering of Korea, 17(5), pp.817-826, 2012. https://doi.org/10.5909/JBE.2012.17.5.817

Cited by

  1. Measurement and Modeling of Crosstalk and 3D Visual Fatigue Along with Horizontal Position in Mobile Glassless 3D Display Having Parallax Barrier vol.19, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.5909/JBE.2014.19.2.215