skip to main content
10.1145/2468356.2468411acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
poster

Investigating visual discomfort with 3D displays: the stereoscopic discomfort scale

Published:27 April 2013Publication History

ABSTRACT

Notwithstanding their widespread diffusion, stereoscopic media have important drawbacks in terms of viewers' visual discomfort. Current assessment methods are mainly based on measures of objective parameters such as eye physiology or media characteristics. On the other hand, subjective methods only evaluate the personal experience related to the physiological symptoms. In this pilot study we developed and validated the Stereoscopic Discomfort Scale (SDS), a self-assessment tool for the subjective evaluation of physiological and psychological symptoms related to stereoscopic viewing. The results show evidence of internal consistency, unidimensionality and construct validity of the scale. Since SDS scores were also strongly correlated with facets of presence, we argue that the SDS could be a useful tool for the investigation of users' experience related to stereoscopic media.

References

  1. N.S. Holliman, N.A. Dodgson, G.E. Favalora, L. Pockett, Three-dimensional displays: a review and applications analysis, IEEE Trans. Broadcast. 57 (2) (2011) 362--371.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. M.T.M. Lambooij, W.A. IJsselsteijn, M. Fortuin, I. Heynderickx, Visual discomfort and visual fatigue in stereoscopic displays: a review, J. Imaging Sci. Technol. 43 (3) (2009) 1--14.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. M.T.M. Lambooij, W.A. IJsselsteijn, I. Heynderickx, Visual discomfort: assessment methods and modeling, Displays 32 (2010) 209--218.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. M.T.M. Lambooij, W.A. IJsselsteijn, M. Fortuin, B.J.W. Evans, I. Heynderickx, Measuring visual discomfort associated with 3-D displays, J. Soc. Inf. Displays, 18 (2010) 931--943.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. M. Lambooij, W.A. Ijsselsteijn, M. Fortuin, B.J.W. Evans, I. Heynderickx, Susceptibility to visual discomfort of 3-D displays by visual performance measures, IEEE Trans. Circuit Syst. Video Technol. 21 (12) (2011) 1913--1923.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. F.L. Kooi, A. Toet, Visual comfort of binocular and 3D displays, Displays, 25 (2004), 99--108.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Recommendation ITU-R BT.500--11, Methodology for the subjective assessment of the quality of television pictures, Question ITU-R 211/11.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. J.E. Sheedy, J. Hayes, J. Engle, Is all asthenopia the same?, Optom Vis. Sci. 80 (2003) 732--739.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Y. Nojiri, H. Yamanoue, A. Hanazato, and F. Okano, Measurement of parallax distribution and its application to the analysis of visual comfort for stereoscopic HDTV, in Proc. Stereoscopic Displays Virtual Reality Syst. X, 2003, vol. 5006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. S. Yang, T. Schlieski, S. Cooper, R. Doherty, P.J. Corriveau, J.E. Sheedy, Individual Differences and Seating Position Affect Immersion and Symptoms in Stereoscopic 3D Viewing, Optometry and Vision Science, Vol. 89, NO.7, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. P. J. H. Seuntiens, Visual Experience of 3D TV, Eindhoven University of Technology, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Advanced Television Systems Committee, Final Report of The ATSC Planning Team on 3D- TV Doc. PT1-049r1, 31 august 2011Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. T. Shibata, J. Kim, D. M. Hoffman, M. S. Banks, The zone of comfort: Predicting visual discomfort with stereo displays, Journal of Vision, 11 (8), 2011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. A.G. Solimini, A. Mannocci, D. Di Thiene. A pilot application of a questionnaire to evaluate visually induced motion sickness in spectators of tri-dimensional (3D) movies, Italian Journal of Public Health, 8, 197206, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Blazhenkova, O. & Kozhevnikov, M. (2009). The new object-spatial-verbal cognitive style model: Theory and measurement. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23(5), 638--663.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Tellegen, A., & Atkinson, G. (1974). Openness to absorbing and self-altering experiences ("absorption"), a trait related to hypnotic susceptibility. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 83, 268--277.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Marks, D.F. (1973). Visual imagery differences in the recall of pictures. British Journal of Psychology, 64, 17--24.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. J. Lessiter, J. Freeman, E. Keogh, J. Davidoff, "A cross-media Presence questionnaire: The ITC-Sense of Presence Inventory", Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 10, pp. 282--298, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Investigating visual discomfort with 3D displays: the stereoscopic discomfort scale

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CHI EA '13: CHI '13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      April 2013
      3360 pages
      ISBN:9781450319522
      DOI:10.1145/2468356

      Copyright © 2013 Copyright is held by the owner/author(s)

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 27 April 2013

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • poster

      Acceptance Rates

      CHI EA '13 Paper Acceptance Rate630of1,963submissions,32%Overall Acceptance Rate6,164of23,696submissions,26%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader