Dataset Information

Dynamic lens and monovision 3D displays to improve viewer comfort.

ABSTRACT: Stereoscopic 3D (S3D) displays provide an additional sense of depth compared to non-stereoscopic displays by sending slightly different images to the two eyes. But conventional S3D displays do not reproduce all natural depth cues. In particular, focus cues are incorrect causing mismatches between accommodation and vergence: The eyes must accommodate to the display screen to create sharp retinal images even when binocular disparity drives the eyes to converge to other distances. This mismatch causes visual discomfort and reduces visual performance. We propose and assess two new techniques that are designed to reduce the vergence-accommodation conflict and thereby decrease discomfort and increase visual performance. These techniques are much simpler to implement than previous conflict-reducing techniques. The first proposed technique uses variable-focus lenses between the display and the viewer's eyes. The power of the lenses is yoked to the expected vergence distance thereby reducing the mismatch between vergence and accommodation. The second proposed technique uses a fixed lens in front of one eye and relies on the binocularly fused percept being determined by one eye and then the other, depending on simulated distance. We conducted performance tests and discomfort assessments with both techniques and compared the results to those of a conventional S3D display. The first proposed technique, but not the second, yielded clear improvements in performance and reductions in discomfort. This dynamic-lens technique therefore offers an easily implemented technique for reducing the vergence-accommodation conflict and thereby improving viewer experience.

SUBMITTER: Johnson PV

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5025225 | biostudies-literature | 2016 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Dynamic lens and monovision 3D displays to improve viewer comfort.

Johnson Paul V PV Parnell Jared Aq JA Kim Joohwan J Saunter Christopher D CD Love Gordon D GD Banks Martin S MS

Optics express 20160501 11

Stereoscopic 3D (S3D) displays provide an additional sense of depth compared to non-stereoscopic displays by sending slightly different images to the two eyes. But conventional S3D displays do not reproduce all natural depth cues. In particular, focus cues are incorrect causing mismatches between accommodation and vergence: The eyes must accommodate to the display screen to create sharp retinal images even when binocular disparity drives the eyes to converge to other distances. This mismatch cau ...[more]

PMID: 27410105

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTo assess the results of partial monovision (PMV) in comparison to a bilateral monofocal implantation (MMV).MethodsThe PMV group was treated bilaterally with a monofocal intraocular lens (IOL) implantation, followed 3 months later by the implantation of a multifocal AddOn® lens (+ 3.00 D) into the non-dominant eye. The MMV group received a bilateral monofocal IOL implantation intending to achieve a slight anisometropia (0.0 D/ - 0.50 D). The near visual acuity (UNVA), intermediate visual acuity (UIVA), distance visual acuity (UDVA), defocus curve, and Lang-Stereotest II were conducted uncorrected, binocular, and minimum 3 months after the last operation. For the contrast sensitivity test, the patients were refractively corrected. The Quality of Vision Questionnaire (QoV), Visual Function Questionnaire (VF-14), spectacle independence, and general satisfaction were also assessed.ResultsA total of 27 PMV patients and 28 MMV patients without ocular diseases relevant to visual acuity were examined. The PMV group was significantly better at UNVA (0.11 ± 0.08 logMAR vs 0.56 ± 0.16 logMAR) and between - 2.00 and - 4.00 D in the defocus curve (p < 0.001). At the UIVA, the PMV group was slightly better (0.11 ± 0.10 logMAR vs 0.20 ± 0.18 logMAR) but not significant (p = 0.054). The UDVA (- 0.13 ± 0.09 logMAR vs - 0.09 ± 0.14 logMAR) (p = 0.315) and contrast sensitivity (p = 0.667) revealed no differences between the groups. The stereo vision was in favor of PMV (p = 0.008). Spectacle independence was statistically better for PMV at distance, intermediate, and near (distance p = 0.012; intermediate p < 0.001; near p < 0.001). In the VF-14 Questionnaire, the PMV was statistically superior (p < 0.001). The QoV Questionnaire showed no differences regarding frequency and severity of visual disturbances. Both groups were highly satisfied (p = 0.509).ConclusionPatients with PMV are more independent of glasses and are able to read without disadvantages in distance vision, due to halos and glare. The concept of PMV is well suited for the desire of eyeglass independence, without optical side effects.

Dataset Information

Dynamic lens and monovision 3D displays to improve viewer comfort.

Publications

Dynamic lens and monovision 3D displays to improve viewer comfort.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets