PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 9394632

Multiaccommodative stimuli in VR systems: problems & solutions.

Abstract

Virtual reality environments can introduce multiple and sometimes conflicting accommodative stimuli. For instance, with the high-powered lenses commonly used in head-mounted displays, small discrepancies in screen lens placement, caused by manufacturer error or user adjustment focus error, can change the focal depths of the image by a couple of diopters. This can introduce a binocular accommodative stimulus or, if the displacement between the two screens is unequal, an unequal (anisometropic) accommodative stimulus for the two eyes. Systems that allow simultaneous viewing of virtual and real images can also introduce a conflict in accommodative stimuli: When real and virtual images are at different focal planes, both cannot be in focus at the same time, though they may appear to be in similar locations in space. In this paper four unique designs are described that minimize the range of accommodative stimuli and maximize the visual system's ability to cope efficiently with the focus conflicts that remain: pinhole optics, monocular lens addition combined with aniso-accommodation, chromatic bifocal, and bifocal lens system. The advantages and disadvantages of each design are described and recommendation for design choice is given after consideration of the end use of the virtual reality system (e.g., low or high end, entertainment, technical, or medical use). The appropriate design modifications should allow greater user comfort and better performance.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

L Marran, C Schor. 1997. Multiaccommodative stimuli in VR systems: problems & solutions.. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872097778827070

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Closed-loop and open-loop accommodative vergence eye movements.

We examined accommodative vergence eye movements under conditions in which feedback about retinal-image slip was and was not present (i.e. closed-loop and open-loop conditions). We found that (a) in both conditions the two eyes started to move at the same time; (b) in the open-loop condition, vergence continued in both eyes; and (c) in the closed-loop condition, vergence continued in the occluded eye only, and the magnitude and velocity exceeded that of the occluded eye in the open-loop condition by a factor of two.

Accommodation, Ocular↗

Dynamics of the accommodation response to abrupt changes in target vergence as a function of age.

The dynamic accommodation responses to small, abrupt changes in an accommodation stimulus were studied in two experiments. In the first, responses of 19 subjects with ages distributed between 18 and 49 years were measured for step stimuli of +/- 1.05 D. In the second, responses to small step stimuli (+/- 0.75, +/- 1.75 D) were recorded for a group of six 'young' (mean age 22, range 16-26 years) and six 'old' (mean age 42, range 36-48 years) subjects. In both experiments, the low target vergences always lay within the accommodation range of all subjects. Whether the data were analysed in terms of simple reaction and response times, or in terms of the frequency response, no marked systematic changes with age were found in the dynamics of the response in either of the experiments. It is concluded that, for small stimuli within the amplitude of accommodation, the response dynamics over the adult age range studied remain remarkably constant, even though the amplitude progressively reduces with age as complete presbyopia is approached.

Accommodation, Ocular↗

Comparison of clinical characteristics of familial and sporadic acquired accommodative esotropia.

PURPOSE: To compare the clinical characteristics of patients with familial and nonfamilial acquired accommodative esotropia. METHODS: We recruited 48 patients from 33 families with acquired accommodative esotropia (an inward deviation of the eyes of 10 PD or more, a hypermetropia greater than or equal to +1.50 D, and an onset of esotropia at, or later than, 1 year of age). Our control group consisted of 20 patients with no known family history. Spherical error of refraction, stereoacuity, and need for strabismus surgery were determined and the 2 groups were compared. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference was found between the spherical equivalent error of refraction in familial cases (mean = +4.50 OD, +4.63 OS; range = +1.50 to +10.30 OD, +2.00 to +9.38 OS) versus those with nonfamilial disease (mean = +4.93 OD, +5.02 OS; range = +2.50 to +11.00 OD, +2.50 to +10.90 OS) (P =.47 OD; P =.47 OS). There also was no difference between the percentage of patients with familial disease who had some degree of stereoacuity (58%) and those without a family history (59%) (P > .99). Patients with familial acquired accommodative esotropia did not require more surgical interventions (26%) than those with nonfamilial acquired accommodative esotropia (30%) (P = .79). CONCLUSIONS: The general clinical characteristics of familial and nonfamilial acquired accommodative esotropia are very similar.

Accommodation, Ocular↗