“Optimizing VR for all users through adaptive focus displays” by Padmanaban, Konrad, Cooper and Wetzstein
Conference:
Type:
Entry Number: 77
Title:
- Optimizing VR for all users through adaptive focus displays
Presenter(s)/Author(s):
Abstract:
Personal computing devices have evolved steadily, from desktops to mobile devices, and now to emerging trends in wearable computing. Wearables are expected to be integral to consumer electronics, with the primary mode of interaction often being a near-eye display. However, current-generation near-eye displays are unable to provide fully natural focus cues for all users, which often leads to discomfort. This core limitation is due to the optics of the systems themselves, with current displays being unable to change focus as required by natural vision. Furthermore, the form factor often makes it difficult for users to wear corrective eyewear. With two prototype near-eye displays, we address these issues using display modes that adapt to the user via computational optics. These prototypes make use of focus-tunable lenses, mechanically actuated displays, and gaze tracking technology to correct common refractive errors per user, and provide natural focus cues by dynamically updating scene depth based on where a user looks. Recent advances in computational optics hint at a future in which some users experience better vision in the virtual world than in the real one.
References:
Fu-Chung Huang, Kevin Chen, and Gordon Wetzstein. 2015. The light field stereoscope: Immersive computer graphics via factored near-eye light field display with focus cues. ACM Trans. Graph. (SIGGRAPH) 34, 4 (2015). Google ScholarDigital Library
Paul V. Johnson, Jared A. Q. Parnell, Joohwan Kim, Christopher D. Saunter, Gordon D. Love, and Martin S. Banks. 2016. Dynamic lens and monovision 3D displays to improve viewer comfort. Opt. Express 24 (2016), 11808–11827. Issue 11.Google ScholarCross Ref
Robert Konrad, Emily A. Cooper, and Gordon Wetzstein. 2016. Novel optical configurations for virtual reality: Evaluating user preference and performance with focus-tunable and monovision near-eye displays. In Proc. SIGCHI. Google ScholarDigital Library
Robert Konrad, Nitish Padmanaban, Keenan Molner, Emily A. Cooper, and Gordon Wetzstein. 2017. Accommodation-invariant computational near-eye displays. ACM Trans. Graph. (SIGGRAPH) 36, 4 (2017). Google ScholarDigital Library
Frank L. Kooi and Alexander Toet. 2004. Visual comfort of binocular and 3D displays. Displays 25 (2004), 99–108. Google ScholarCross Ref
Marc Lambooij, Marten Fortuin, Ingrid Heynderickx, and Wijnand IJsselsteijn. 2009. Visual discomfort and visual fatigue of stereoscopic displays: A review. J. Imaging Sci. Technol. 53, 3 (2009). Google ScholarCross Ref
Sheng Liu, Dewen Cheng, and Hong Hua. 2008. An optical see-through head mounted display with addressable focal planes. In Proc. ISMAR. 33–42.Google Scholar
Nitish Padmanaban, Robert Konrad, Tal Stramer, Emily A. Cooper, and Gordon Wetzstein. 2017. Optimizing virtual reality for all users through gaze-contingent and adaptive focus displays. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 114 (2017), 2183–2188. Issue 9.Google ScholarCross Ref
Takashi Shibata, Joohwan Kim, David M. Hoffman, and Martin S. Banks. 2011. The zone of comfort: Predicting visual discomfort with stereo displays. J. Vis. 11, 8 (2011), 11. Google ScholarCross Ref
Shinichi Shiwa, Katsuyuki Omura, and Fumio Kishino. 1996. Proposal for a 3-D display with accommodative compensation: 3DDAC. J. Soc. Inf. Disp. 4, 4 (1996), 255–261. Google ScholarCross Ref
Susan Vitale, Leon Ellwein, Mary F. Cotch, Frederick L. Ferris, and Robert Sperduto. 2008. Prevalence of refractive error in the united states, 1999–2004. Arch. Ophthalmol. 126, 8 (2008). + Google ScholarCross Ref
Simon J. Watt and Louise C. Ryan. 2015. Age-related changes in accommodation predict perceptual tolerance to vergence-accommodation conflicts in stereo displays. J. Vis. 15 (2015), 267 [Abstract].
