Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.5909/JBE.2013.18.2.225

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

Park, JongJin (Kwangwoon University)
Li, Hyung-Chul O. (Kwangwoon University)
Kim, ShinWoo (Kwangwoon University)
Publication Information
Journal of Broadcast Engineering / v.18, no.2, 2013 , pp. 225-236 More about this Journal
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.
Keywords
Perceived crosstalk; Background texture density; Screen disparity;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 3  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
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.   DOI   ScienceOn
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.   DOI
4 Milgram. P. and Van der Horst. R. Alternating-field stereoscopic displays using light-scattering liquid crystal spectacles. Displays, 7, pp.67-72. 1986.   DOI   ScienceOn
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.   DOI   ScienceOn
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.   DOI   ScienceOn
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.   과학기술학회마을   DOI   ScienceOn
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.   DOI
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.   DOI
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.   DOI
19 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.   과학기술학회마을   DOI   ScienceOn
20 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.   과학기술학회마을   DOI   ScienceOn