Utility of stereoscopic displays for indirect-vision driving and robot teleoperation

REFERENCES

• Alpaslan, Z. Y., A. A. Sawchuk, A. A. Rizzo III, and S. Yeh.2006. “Effects of Gender, Application, Experience, and Constraints on Interaction Performance Using Autostereoscopic Displays.” Proceedings of SPIE (Stereoscopic Displays and Virtual Reality Systems XIII), Vol. 6055.
   Google Scholar
• Bando, T., A.Iijima, and S.Yano. 2012. “Visual Fatigue Caused by Stereoscopic Images and the Search for the Requirement to Prevent Them: A Review.” Displays33: 76–83.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blavier, A., and A. S.Nyssen. 2009. “Influence of 2D and 3D View on Performance and Time Estimation in Minimal Invasive Surgery.” Ergonomics52: 1342–1349.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Draper, J. V., S. Handel, and C. C. Hood. 1991. “Three Experiments with Stereoscopic Television: When It Works and Why.” Proceedings of IEEE International conference on Systems, Man, & Cybernetics2: 1047–1052.
   Google Scholar
• Drascic, D.1991. “An Investigation of Monoscopic and Stereoscopic Video for Teleoperation.” Master's thesis, University of Toronto.
   Google Scholar
• Drascic, D., and J. Grodski. 1993. “Defense Teleoperation and Stereoscopic Video.” Proceedings of SPIE (Stereoscopic Displays and Applications IV)1915: 58–69.
   Google Scholar
• Drexler, J. M., J. Y. C.Chen, S. A.Quinn, and D.Solomon.2012. Effects of Display Dimension and Viewpoint Synchronization on Robot Teleoperation Performance in a Simulated Environment. Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: U.S. Army Research Laboratory Technical Report (ARL-TR-6255).
   Google Scholar
• Durkee, K., M. Paley, K. Kudzma, and D. Reiners.2010. “Evaluation of 2D and 3D Displays to Validate the Integration of Human Performance Analysis Methods into Submarine Acquisitions.” In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 54th Annual Meeting, 2196–2200.
   Google Scholar
• Froner, B., N. S.Holliman, and S. P.Liversedge. 2008. “A Comparative Study of Fine Depth Perception on Two-View 3D Displays.” Displays29: 440–450.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• General Dynamics Land Systems. 2007. Vetronics Technology Integration: A Synopsis (unpublished internal report).
   Google Scholar
• Green, J., E. Dougherty, and E. Savacool. 2003. “Stereovision System for Shipboard Cranes.” Proceedings of Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, & Education Conference (I/ITSEC).
   Google Scholar
• Grossman, T., and R. Balakrishnan. 2006. “An Evaluation of Depth Perception on Volumetric Displays.” Proceedings of the Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces (AVI 2006), 193–200.
   Google Scholar
• Hart, S., and L.Staveland. 1988. “Development of NASA TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research.” In Human Mental Workload, edited by P.Hancock, and N.Meshkati, 139–183. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Holzhausen, K., F. D.Pitrella, and H.Wolf. 1993. “Human Engineering Experiments Using a Telerobotic Vehicle.” In Vision in Vehicles-IV, edited by A. G.Gale, I. D.Brown, S. P.Taylor, and C. M.Haslegrave,223–230. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Howarth, P. A.2011. “Potential Hazards of Viewing 3-D Stereoscopic Television, Cinema and Computer Games: A Review.” Ophthalmic & Physiological Optics31: 111–122.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huber, J. W., N.Taffinder, R. C. G.Russell, and A.Darzi.2003. “The Effects of Different Viewing Conditions on Performance in Simulated Minimal Access Surgery.” Ergonomics46: 999–1016.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kawai, S., V. A.Summers, C. L.Mackenzie, C. J.Ivens, and T.Yamamoto.2002. “Grasping an Augmented Object to Analyse Manipulative Force Control.” Ergonomics45: 1091–1102.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kennedy, R. S., N. E.Lane, K. S.Berbaum, and M. G.Lilienthal.1993. “Simulator Sickness Questionnaire: An Enhanced Method for Quantifying Simulator Sickness.” International Journal of Aviation Psychology3: 203–220.
   Google Scholar
• Lambooij, M., W.IJsselsteijn, M.Fortuin, and I.Heynderickx.2009. “Visual Discomfort in Stereoscopic Displays: A Review.” Journal of Imaging Science and Technology53: 1–14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mcintire, J. P., P. R. Havig, and E. E. Geiselman. 2012. “What is 3D Good for? A Review of Human Performance on Stereoscopic 3D Displays.” Proceedings of SPIE (Head- and Helmet-Mounted Displays XVII), Vol. 8383.
   Google Scholar
• Merritt, J. O., V. G. CuQlock-Knopp, and K. Myles. 1997. “Enhanced Perception of Terrain Hazards in Off-Road Path Choice: Stereoscopic 3D Versus 2D Displays.” Proceedings of SPIE (Targets and Backgrounds)3062: 101–104.
   Google Scholar
• Merritt, J. O., V. G. CuQlock-Knopp, M. Kregel, J. Smoot, and W. Monaco.2005. “Perception of Terrain Drop-Offs As a Function of L–R Viewpoint Separation in Stereoscopic Video.” Proceedings of SPIE (Helmet- and Head- Mounted Displays X)5800: 169–176.
   Google Scholar
• Noyes, J. M., and D. P.Bruneau. 2007. “A Self-Analysis of the NASA-TLX Workload Measure.” Ergonomics50: 514–519.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ntuen, C. A., M.Goings, M.Reddin, and K.Holmes.2008. “Comparison Between 2-D & 3-D Using an Autostereoscopic Display: The Effects of Viewing Field and Illumination on Performance and Visual Fatigue.” International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics39: 388–395.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pezzaniti, J. L., R. Edmondson, J. Vaden, B. Hyatt, D. B. Chenault, D. Kingston, V. M. Geulen, S. Newell, and B. Pettijohn.2009. “3D Vision System Assessment.” Proceedings of Stereoscopic Displays and Applications XX (SPIE-IΣ&T Electronic Imaging, SPIE) Vol. 7237.
   Google Scholar
• Rosen, P., Z. Pizlo, C. Hoffmann, and V. S. Popescu.2004. “Perception of 3D Spatial Relations for 3D Displays.” Proceedings of SPIE (Stereoscopic Displays and Virtual Reality Systems XI) 5291: 9–16.
   Google Scholar
• Rosenberg, L. B.1993. “The Effect of Interocular Distance upon Operator Performance Using Stereoscopic Displays to Perform Virtual Depth Tasks.” In Proceedings of IEEE Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium27–32. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
   Google Scholar
• Scribner, D., and J. Gombash. 1998. The Effect of Stereoscopic and Wide Field of View Conditions on Teleoperator Performance (ARL Tech. Rep. ARL-TR-1598).Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: Army Research Laboratory.
   Google Scholar
• Singer, M., J.Ehrlich, S.Cinq-Mars, and J.Papin.1995. Task Performance in Virtual Environments: Stereoscopic Versus Monoscopic Displays and Head-Coupling (Tech. Rep. 1034)Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral & Social Sciences.
   Google Scholar
• Spain, E., and T. Hughes. 1991. “Objective Assessments of Mobility with an Early Unmanned Ground Vehicle (UGV) Prototype Viewing System.” (NOSC Tech. Rep. AD-A237317).
   Google Scholar
• Umeda, A. Y., S. W. Martin, and J. O. Merritt. 1991. “Remote Vision Systems for Teleoperated Ground Vehicles.” Proceedings of NATO Defense Research Group on Robotics in the Air-Land Battle, 2008. http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?AD = AΔA236765&Λoχατιoν = Y2&δoχ = GetTRDoc.pdf].
   Google Scholar
• Van Beurden, M. H. P. H., W. A. IJsselsteijn, and J. F. Juola. 2012. “Effectiveness of Stereoscopic Displays in Medicine: A Review.” 3D Research 3: 3.
   Google Scholar
• Walker, E. C.2009. Soldier Operational Exercise 1.0 Test Report for the Robotic Vehicle Control Architecture (RVCA). Warren, MI: U.S. Army Tank-Automotive Research, Development, and Engineering Center.
   Google Scholar