1 / 11

On Seeing Transparent Surfaces in Stereoscopic Displays

On Seeing Transparent Surfaces in Stereoscopic Displays. Inna Tsirlin-Zaharescu, Robert S. Allison and Laurie M. Wilcox. Motivation. Small number of psychophysical studies addressed stereo-transparency (Akerstrom & Todd 1988, Gepshtein & Cooperman 1998, Wallace & Mamassian 2004).

ramona-cummings
Download Presentation

On Seeing Transparent Surfaces in Stereoscopic Displays

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. On Seeing Transparent Surfaces in Stereoscopic Displays Inna Tsirlin-Zaharescu, Robert S. Allison and Laurie M. Wilcox

  2. Motivation • Small number of psychophysical studies addressed stereo-transparency (Akerstrom & Todd 1988, Gepshtein & Cooperman 1998, Wallace & Mamassian 2004) • Stereo-transparency presents a difficult problem both theoretically and computationally • Goals • Investigate the number of overlaid planes limiting the perception of stereo-transparency • Study the combined effects of density, disparity and number of planes on the percept of stereo-transparency.

  3. Methods • Stimuli were 12.6o square RDS’s depicting n overlaid planes of dots with inter-plane depth separation d. • In Glass planes dots were arranged in a horizontal-shift Glass pattern. • Task: the observers were asked to report the number ofplanes and the number of Glass planes they perceived. • Stimulus parameters: • Density: 2, 6.3, 10, 15.7 dots/deg2 • Inter-plane separation: 1.9’, 3.8’, 5.7’, 7.6’ • Number of planes: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

  4. DEMO

  5. 2 PLANES 3 PLANES 100 50 0 100 50 0 DENSITY 5 PLANES 2 dots/deg2 2 dots/deg2 1.9 3.8 5.7 7.6 1.9 3.8 5.7 7.6 100 50 0 6.3 dots/deg2 6.3 dots/deg2 5 PLANES 4 PLANES 100 50 0 100 50 0 10 dots/deg2 10 dots/deg2 PERCENT CORRECT 15.7 dots/deg2 15.7 dots/deg2 PERCENT CORRECT 1.9 3.8 5.7 7.6 1.9 3.8 5.7 7.6 6 PLANES 100 50 0 DENSITY 1.9 3.8 5.7 7.6 INTER-PLANE DISPARITY (min. of arc) 1.9 3.8 5.7 7.6 INTER-PLANE DISPARITY (min. of arc)

  6. Discussion Detrimental effects on stereo-transparency Possible explanation Small disparities Disparity pooling Increase in disparity beyond an optimal value Size-disparity correlation Adapted from McKee & Verghese 2002 Increase in density Increase in the number of planes

  7. Density-disparity interaction

  8. Conclusions • We are able to segregate up to 3 planes under all conditions and up to 5 planes under optimal conditions. • Increasing the number of planes, density and disparity beyond an optimal value degrades performance • The interaction of these parameters plays an important role in stereo-transparency and cannot be ignored in future research • Stereoscopic modeling based on a combination of position-shift and phase-shift energy detectors cannot account for the experimental results.

  9. Thank you! Questions?

  10. Right image Left image Uniqueness constraint Continuity constraint Motivation • Stereo-transparency presents a difficult problem both theoretically and computationally • Small number of psychophysical studies addressed stereo-transparency • Used RDS stimuli with only 2 overlaid planes • Varied RDS parameters in isolation

  11. True Transparency Pseudo- transparency Types of stereo-transparency

More Related