See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/335794702

Distance Estimation In Virtual Reality And Augmented Reality: A Survey

Conference Paper · May 2019

DOI: 10.1109/EIT.2019.8834182

CITATIONS READS

28 2,682

2 authors:

Fatima El Jamiy Ronald Marsh

University of North Dakota University of North Dakota
17 PUBLICATIONS   324 CITATIONS    59 PUBLICATIONS   381 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Super Resolution View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Fatima El Jamiy on 23 September 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Distance Estimation In Virtual Reality And
Augmented Reality: A Survey
Fatima El Jamiy
Computer Science Department
University Of North Dakota
Grand Forks, North Dakota, USA
fatima.eljamiy@ndus.edu
Abstract—The purpose of Virtual Reality (VR) is to provide
a consistent simulation of the realistic world and make
interaction between different worlds and objects possible.
Perceiving depth and distance correctly in VR is essential, but,
many previous work showed an underestimation of distance in
Virtual Reality with Head Mounted Displays (HMDs). The
present work gives a literature review of the design challenges
of such systems, distance perception issue in VR, and study
perceptual research in virtual environments. We will give a
review of the history of the work and efforts done in visual
perception to measure the perceived distance. A particular focus
will be on distance estimates methods and techniques in VR and
AR developed throughout these work. Depth perception is one
of the important elements in virtual reality. The perceived depth
is influenced by Head Mounted Displays (HMD) that
inevitability decrease the virtual content’s depth perception.
Keywords—Virtual Reality, Augmented Reality, Perception,
Distance Estimation, Head Mounted Displays
I. INTRODUCTION
Virtual Reality (VR) provides a typical environment
system to study perception research, because different features
of the world can be handled and controlled through the VR
system. Experiments that cannot be done in the real world, in
real time, including unprecedented operations of a
comprehensive visual world allows to study the elements
influencing space and distance perception. Many research
conducted confirmed a consistent underestimation of
measured distance in VR with HMDs. This distance
underestimation is not yet completely understood, and using
photorealistic rendering does not help in improving the
accuracy of the perceived distance.
Virtual reality environments suffer from several
limitations. Among the main limitations, the quality and size
of HMD displays. The screen resolution of most HMD
displays is restricted, and the field of view is restricted
compared with the real field of view. Another limitation that
impact the VR system is the peripheral optic flow that can be
changed when the displays peripheral geometry is deformed
by the optics. Additional limitations concern the
representation of the perceived distance in the HMD displays.
Eye movements are influenced by the HMD light used to
make it focus at near ranges, which remove the parallax and
as a result loose depth. In order to benefit from VR systems to
study perception, it is necessary to take into consideration
these limitations that are challenging to cope with and should
be solved. The same result is concluded by all research done
confirming a compression of depth perception in VR and
the effect of each input cue in the creation process of the
perceived distance and depth.
XXX-X-XXXX-XXXX-X/XX/$XX.00 ©20XX IEEE
Ronald Marsh
Computer Science Department
University Of North Dakota
Grand Forks, North Dakota, USA
ronald.marsh@und.edu
Studying depth perception issue to improve it requires the use
of various methods to measure the perceived distance. These
techniques and their effectiveness are investigated in this
paper.
On the other hand, Augmented Reality (AR) is growing
fast and pledge to enhance human potential in different areas.
A design challenge for AR systems is assuring that virtual
objects are accurately positioned in the real world. Correct
distance perception though is difficult to achieve in AR
systems and some research showed a great compression of
distances in AR systems as VR systems. This paper will
present the main research done to understand and explain this
issue.
The paper is structured as follows: Section 2 gives a
background on perception, depth cues and the main methods
used to measure distance in Virtual Reality. In section 3, we
represent a review of related work on Virtual Reality depth
perception. Section 4 examined related work in Augmented
Reality depth perception. We conclude our paper in Section 5.
II. BACKGROUND
A. Perception and Depth cues
The process of creating a real description of the real
world is a complex system that involve many computing
resources. The operation involving the generation of the
image on the human eye and its processing by the brain is not
completely understood. Creating a virtual environment system
able to have a full simulation of the human visual system is
not reachable yet, because many input parameters called depth
cues are involved in the computation of depth and distance and
are not yet fully discerned.
Visual perception has been an active research for a
decade with a lot of work done to demystify the depth
perception mechanism. Depth perception occurs from the
incorporation of various visual depth cues. Research done to
understand depth perception process involves studying the
depth cues, the visual characteristics, and the mechanism of
how these parameters are performed by the human visual
system and integrated together by the brain to generate the
representation of the visual real world.
As mentioned by Loomis [12], Loomis et. Al [13], and
Loomis et. Al [14], they tried to explain and run experiments
to understand how this visual function works. They examined
the process of mapping between real space and its creation,
the relationship between the perceived space and motor action.
Depth cues involve two cues types; monocular cues and
binocular cues:
 • Uses one eye
• Involve : occlusions, lightning, motion parallax,
Monocular cues accomodation, and perseptive

• Uses two eyes

• Execution of accommodation-convergence reflex
Binocular cues
• Application of disparities to infer the perceived scene

B. Virtual Reality
In 1992, Aukstakalnis and Blatner proposed a generic
definition of Virtual Reality. They consider VR as a mean for
users to visualize and interact with varied and complex
computers and data. They introduced three components to
take into account to allow a user to interact in real time in the
virtual environment (see Fig 1). These components are
Immersion, Interaction and Imagination.

Fig. 2. Three mediations of the Reality

Fig. 1. The three Is
Tisseau [38] defines Virtual Reality as a universe of
models that proposes the triple mediation of the senses, the
action and the mind (see Fig 2). This mediation of the senses
allows the perception of the real, the mediation of the actions
makes it possible to carry out experiments while the mediation
of the mind allows a mental representation of the reality.
Fatima and Ronald [41] explained in their work the basic
components of perception and Virtual Reality and how these
componenets communicate and interact with each other to
perform and process depth perception.
More recently, Fuchs et al. [39] proposed two definitions
of VR, a technical definition and a functional one:
• Technical definition of VR: VR is a scientific and
technical domain exploiting computers and behavioral
interfaces in order to simulate in a virtual world the behavior
of of 3D entities, which interact in real time with each other,
and with one or more pseudo-natural immersion users via
sensorimotor channels;
• Functional definition of VR: virtual reality will allow
to get out of the physical reality to change virtually time, place
and type of interaction: interaction with an environment
simulating reality or interaction with an imaginary or
symbolic world. Finally, Fuchs et al. [39] proposed a
definition that encompasses all definitions. For this purpose,
they are based on the ultimate goal of VR: “ The ultimate goal
of VR is to enable one or more sensory-motor and cognitive
activity in an artificial world, created digitally which can be
imaginary, symbolic or a simulation of certain aspects of the
real world”.
To summarize the different definitions of VR and AR,
Milgram and Khisino [40] proposed a unification of concepts
by proposing a continuum linking VR and AR (Fig 3).
C. Distance Perception Methods
Depth perception process is an unseen cognitive condition
and therefore not attainable directly. Using human capacity to
compare between things and quantities, research use
egocentric distance comparison to judge depth and distance.
 Fig. 3. Virtual Reality Continuum

According to Cutting and Vishton [1], human distance TABLE I. THE VISUAL SPACE TYPES

perception still not completely discerned even after being

considerably studied for almost 100 years. The work done
over these years helped in demystifying the most basics to
comprehend how distance perception works, and most
importantly, generated different experimental measurements
and protocols. Measuring distance perception is challenging,
it cannot be assessed directly because it is a conscious event,
and for that reason, the different experimental techniques
include quantifying judgments reported by a subject. The
main employed methods to measure distance perception
include matching tasks, verbal reports, and bisection task. In
the matching task, the position of a marker in one orientation
is adjusted by a subject to correspond to the distance to an
objective. In verbal reporting, subjects use a unit of
measurements to give and communicate a distance between
them and an object. Whereas, in the bisection task, subjects
position a mark in the middle of the distance between them
and an object.
Thompson et al. [2] discuss other measurement protocols
that are also used to quantify the distance parameter blindly,
such as blind walking and blind reaching where the subject try
to reach an already seen object with eyes covered.
As mentioned by Cutting and Vishton [2], the visual space
is splited into three subspaces. The personal space, the action
space, and the distant space.
a) Blind walking method:
Thompson et al.[2] specifies that blind walking is
considered as the main technique used to assess and quantify
distance judgments. In this technique, a subject sees an object
and then walk towards it with covered eyes. Waller and
Richardson work [3] demonstrate blind walking’s dominance
as a technique, where their experiments showed the
performance of this task by subjects with a marked precision.
Furthermore, the perceived distance measured without bias in
the real world is proven by the blind walking task that is
mostly close to the expected value. Nevertheless, Loomis and
Philbeck [4] showed that blind walking does not perform well
in distances beyond 20 m. It seems that the method has limited
distance performance.
a) Verbal Reporting method:
Verbal reporting is used to assess distance for the three
types of subspaces, personal, action and distance distances.
The personal space Up to 2m, targets can be
grasped and handled by hands
The action space Between 2 and 30m. Within
this subspace, actions such as
walking and running are
possible and allows to grasp
objects, throw them and also
communicate and carry out
conversations.
The distant space Beyond 30m; in this
subspace, running and
walking are performed and
includes targets that can be
reached or moved away from.
The subject in this technique is in a motionless position. Da
Silva [5] utilizes verbal reporting to investigate distances as
long as 9 km.But, different research has shown that distances
with verbal reports are commonly compressed, and Loomis
and Philbeck [6] investigated more the impact of cognitive
ability on verbal reporting method. The reported distance by
verbal reports are considered objective since they do not
require arranging and controlling objects by hands. All these
matters have been a drive for more research to come up with
other possible measurement techniques.
b) Bisection method:
The literature shows that many research have been
conducted to find and study the best methods to assess
distances. Bisection according to Da Silva [5] is also used to
examine distances as long as hundreds of meters. Humans
naturally move and control their bodies accurately and with a
high degree of proficiency, specifically, within personal and
action space. This is why the perceived space is a major key
for any distance estimation technique.
Gilinsky [7] performed experiments showing a great
compression in distance reported using bisection. However,
these results were not enough strong since only two subjects
were involved. Bodenheimer et al. [8]; Da Silva, [5]; Purdy
and Gibson [9]; Rieser, Ashmead, Talor, & Youngquist [10]
conducted the same experiment but with hundreds of
observers and showed that real world distances were precisely
reported using bisection. Interesting results were reported by
Lappin et al. [11] that demonstrated a considerable impact of
the environment context on distance estimations. Estimations
were different from the same experiment in two different
environments.
III. DEPTH PERCEPTION IN VIRTUAL REALITY
Swan et al. [15], Waller and Richardson [16], and
Thompson et al. [2] did a rigorous work in studying distance
estimation in virtual environment. Their work investigated
distance estimations in virtual environment with Head
Mounted Displays in action subspace. A constant and
recurrent result from their work is that distances in virtual
environment are underestimated comparing with the real
world perceived distances.
Waller and Richardson [3] performed three experiments
to investigate the fundamental process of the impact of virtual
environment interaction and the circumstances that may be
generated under it. A rich set of experiments included 28
distance estimations in various laboratories. 14 experiments
were conducted for VR estimations and 14 others for real
world distance estimations. Experiment 1 was performed to
make subjects first interact with the immersive virtual
environment and then assess distances. Subjects
overestimated distances in the physical world, and this
explains that interacting with the VE recalibrated the
perceptual system. Experiment 2 concluded that the
interaction process does not need the visual information to
give accurate distance judgment, only the body information is
sufficient. Results got by the authors showed that the real
world estimations averaged 99.9% of the actual distance while
VR distance estimations averaged 71% of the actual distance.
Jones et al. [17]; Mohler, Creem-Regehr, and Thompson
[18]; Waller and Richardson [3] conducted studies to
investigate the performance of the distance estimation when
subjects are not isolated from the real world. Results proved
that the distance estimation accuracy were improved when
subjects move and interact with the virtual environment and
react and control their actions.
Experiments run by Waller and Richardson [3] did not
employ bisection as a technique to measure distance.
However, two other work have applied bisection to investigate
distance judgment in Virtual Reality Head Mounted Displays:
Bodenheimer et al. [8] and Williams, Johnson, Shores, and
Narasimham [19]. Results from both works showed a great
compression in VR, although Bodenheimer et al. [8]
demonstrated an expansion of bisected intervals in personal
space with short distances, and accurate bisected intervals in
the physical world.
Realism is a key element in identifying the correct
distance estimation and depth perception. It is considered a
crucial question issue in virtual reality as depth perception is
essential in various motor based actions performed in virtual
reality such as reaching, pointing, grasping and intercepting.
According to Gibson [20], monocular cues such as motion
parallax, dynamic shadows, textured objects impact the visual
experience, that is in case enhanced, it does enhance the
based-body interactions. This is true for real world
environment, the rich it is with depth cues, the more accurate
it is. However, as Murgia and Sharkey [21] investigated in
their work, in the virtual environment, depth estimation is not
accurate no matter how is the environment, either rich or poor
with depth cues. Results from experiments run by Knapp and
Loomis [22] and Willemsen et al. [23] showed a consistent
underestimation of distances measured using HMD when
compared with the same judgment in the real world. Same
results were gotten by Messing et al. [24], and Thompson et
al. [25], distance judgments were underestimated using HMD.
From the literature, many research works have
suggested different explanations of depth underestimation in
both, real world and virtual world with head mounted displays.
Knapp and Loomis in [22] studied the impact of the field of
view on depth underestimation in virtual environment using
HMD. Results showed that field of view has no influence on
determining depth perception. Willemsen et al. [26] studied
mechanical qualities and their contribution to the distance
misestimation issue in VR HMD. Results showed that the
mechanical part has a great deal with depth misestimation in
VR. Other research done by Thompson [25] concluded that
the absence of realism element in the scene coming from
graphical computer based does not influence the depth
perception in VE. Interrante et al. [27] studied how the
difference between the real world and the environment world
causes depth perception issue. Observers are conscious that
the experimental environment is not real. The work of Mon-
Williams and Tresilian [28] studied other depth cues and their
influence on depth perception such as accommodation and
convergence or directed actions.
IV. DEPTH PERCEPTION IN AUGMENTED REALITY
Augmented Reality (AR) implicates incorporating
virtual objects into real world. AR systems deploy lightning
and shadows as main depth cues to allow the virtual scene to
be flawlessly integrated and mixed with the real environment,
which makes virtual scene more real. However, this is not an
easy task since realism as a property of a generated scene is
not easy to quantify because it is complicated to specify if this
scene is the same as the real one.
In the literature, many works have done to figure out the
depth perception issue in Virtual Reality. However, few
experiments for the same purpose were conducted for
Augmented Reality. Many of these research examined virtual
objects seen with Head Mounted Displays, and performed
blind walking to measure distances in action subspaces. Swan
et al. [15] demonstrated in his work that distances in AR are
underestimated comparing with distances in the real world,
but the results of underestimation in AR were commonly
lower than the ones from VR. Another work though by Jones
et al. [29] performed an experiment comparing distances in
different three environments; real world, VR and AR. Results
showed that distances were not underestimated in AR but they
were in VR. But, Grechkin et al. [30] found different results
asserting the opposite of these results, where distances were
underestimated in both AR and VR. Nevertheless, Jones et al.
[17] revealed the reasons behind these opposite results, where
the results in his work found that a key factor is involved and
tune the underestimation in AR. The key is moving and getting
familiar with the scene in the real world, make observers make
correct estimates in both AR and VR for the same scene, while
they underestimate distances if they stay stationary without
moving around the real world scene as happened in the
experiment done by Grechkin et al. [30].
What can be concluded from these chain of works is that
because observers are used to see virtual objects in real world
and can walk around the physical scene, the underestimation
of distances of AR using HMD is unlikely to happen as it will
be in VR.
The studies presented in the first paragraph, all
investigated depth perception in optical see through AR
systems by wearing an HMD and see the scene through optical
combiners. However, few studies have been conducted to
investigate depth perception in video see through AR,
involving wearing a VR HMD to view the world with an
attached camera. Messing and Durgin [31] examined distance
estimates in AR in an environment using monocular HMD and
blind walking technique. Results proved an underestimation
equal to the same found for VR. In 2013 and 2014, two works
in the literature focused on studying the influence of stereo
viewing and auxiliary augmentations with stereo camera and
HMD. Kytö et al. [32] performed this experiment in these
conditions using verbal reports as a technique to assess
distances, and they found distance estimates performances
were improved. Kytö, Mäkinen et al. [33], on the other hand,
run the same experiments in the same condition environment
using matching tasks instead of verbal reports as a technique
to measure distances, and they got the same results improving
the distance accuracy. Authors believe that in order to
completely and thoroughly understand and investigate the
impact of optical and video see through AR on AR distances
estimates, it is essential to compare both in the same
experiment with the two conditions using the same
measurement method. To the authors knowledge, no
experiments of this kind has been done yet.
Other research were done to study depth perception in
AR using other devices types; tablet and phone based AR. Dey
et al . [34], Dey et al. [35], Dey and Sandor [36] and Sandor
et al. [37] studied depth perception in tablet and phone based.
They developed various depth cues techniques and checked
their efficiency in distance space employing verbal report
method to evaluate distances. Dey et al. [35] did the same
experiment to validate if the screen size and resolution has any
impact on depth perception. Results showed that large screen
considerable enhanced distance estimate.
V. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION
The evident underestimation of distances as found by most
of the research done recently is an occult problem not
completely discerned by research community. Throughout the
work done in this area, authors reported that seeing the virtual
world through Virtual Reality HMD is the main cause behind
the compression of distances in this type of environment
compared with distances in the real world. So, studying how
the virtual system with HMD operates will help in
understanding how perception works in this environment and
what are the factors impacting depth perception. In this paper,
we mainly reviewed the state of the art of design challenges
and limitations related to Virtual Reality and Augmented
Reality. This survey is also a full overview of the main
methods and techniques used to measure perceived distance
with the main results found by authors in different works
performed to study depth perception.
This survey is a part of a project that the laboratory is
working on to study depth perception in real time rendering
systems in VR HDMs.
REFERENCES
[1] J. E. Cutting, and P. M. Vishton, “Perceiving layout and knowing
distances: The integration, relative potency, and contextual use of
different information about depth,” In W. Epstein & S. J. Rogers Eds.,
Perception of space and motion. Handbook of perception and
cognition, San Diego, CA, pp. 69–117, 1995.
[2] W. B. Thompson, , R. Fleming, S. Creem-Regehr, and J. K. Stefanucci,
“Visual perception from a computer graphics perspective,” Boca
Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2011.
[3] D. Waller, and A. R. Richardson, “Correcting distance estimates by
interacting with immersive virtual environments: Effects of task and
available sensory information,” Journal of Experimental Psychology.
Applied, 14 (1), 61–72, 2008.
[4] J. M. Loomis and J. W. Philbeck, “Measuring spatial perception with
spatial updating and action,” In M. Behrmann, R. L. Klatzky, & B.
Macwhinney (Eds.), Embodiment, ego-space, and action (pp. 1–43).
New York, NY: Psychology Press., 2008.
[5] J. A. D. Da Silva, “Scales for perceived egocentric distance in a large
open field: Comparison of three psychophysical methods,” The
American Journal of Psychology, 98 (1), 119–144, 1985.
[6] J. M. Loomis, and J. W. Philbeck, “Measuring spatial perception with
spatial updating and action,” In M. Behrmann, R. L. Klatzky, & B.
Macwhinney (Eds.), Embodiment, ego-space, and action, pp. 1–43,
New York, NY: Psychology Press. 2008.
[7] A. S. Gilinsky, “Perceived size and distance in visual space,”
Psychological Review, 58 (6), 460–482, 1951.
[8] B. Bodenheimer, J. Meng, H. Wu, G. Narasimham, B. Rump, T. P.
McNamara, T. H. Carr, and J.J. Rieser, “Distance estima- tion in
virtual and real environments using bisection,” In R. Fleming & M.
Langer (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th Symposium on Applied
Perception in Graphics and Visualization, pp. 35–40, ACM Press,
2007.

[9] J. Purdy and E. J. Gibson, “Distance judgment by the method of
fractionation,” Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50 (6), 374–380,
1955.
[10] J. J. Rieser, D. H. Ashmead, C. R. Talor, and G. A. Youngquist, “Visual
perception and the guidance of locomotion without vision to previously
seen targets;” Perception, 19 (5), 675–689, 1990.
[11] J. S. Lappin, A. L. Shelton, and J. J. Rieser, “Environmental context
influences visually perceived distance,” Perception & Psychophysics,
68 (4), 571–581, 2006.
[12] J. Loomis, “Distal attribution and presence,” Presence, vol. 1, pp. 113–
119, 1992. 

[13] J. M. Loomis, J. A. Da Silva, J. W. Philbeck, and S. S. Fukusima,
“Visual perception of location and distance,” Current Directions in
Psychological Science, vol. 5, pp. 72–77, 1996. 

[14] J. M. Loomis and J. M. Knapp, “Visual perception of egocentric
distance in real and virtual environments,” In L. J. Hettinger and M. W.
Haas (Eds.), Virtual and Adaptive Environments, pp. 21–46, 2003. 

[15] J. E. Swan, A. Jones, E. Kolstad, M. A. Livingston, and H. S.
Smallman, “Egocentric depth judgments in optical, see-through
augmen- ted reality,” IEEE Transactions on Visualization and
Computer Graphics, 13 (3), 429–442, 2007.
[16] D. Waller , and A. R. Richardson, “Correcting distance estimates by
interacting with immersive virtual environments: Effects of task and
available sensory information,” Journal of Experimental Psychology.
Applied, 14 (1), 61–72, 2008.
[17] J. A. Jones, J. E. Swan, G. Singh, and S. R. Ellis, “Peripheral visual
information and its effect on distance judgments in virtual and
augmented environments,” In S. Creem-Regehr, & K. Myszkowski
(Eds.), Proceedings of the ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium on Applied
Perception in Graphics and Visualization (APGV), pp. 29–36, New
York, NY: ACM Press, 2011.
[18] B. J. Mohler, S. H. Creem-Regehr, and W. B. Thompson, “The
influence of feedback on egocentric distance judgments in real and
virtual environments,” In R. Fleming & S. Kim (Eds.), Proceedings of
the 3rd Symposium on Applied Perception in Graphics and
Visualization, New York, NY: ACM Press, pp. 9–14, 2006.
[19] B. Williams, D. Johnson, L. Shores, and G.Narasimham, “Distance
perception in virtual environments,” In S. H. Creem-Regehr & K.
Myszkowski (Eds.), Presented at the ACM Symposium on Applied
Perception in Graphics and Visualization, New York, NY: ACM Press,
p. 193, 2008.
[20] J. Gibson, The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. London: [37] C. Sandor, A. Cunningham, A. Dey, and V. V. Mattila, “An augmented
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1986. reality X-ray system based on visual saliency,” In V. L. Park & T.
[21] A. Murgia and P. M. Sharkey, “Estimation of distances in virtual Höllerer (Eds.), Presented at the International Symposium on Mixed
environments using size constancy,” The International Journal of and Augmented Reality (ISMAR 2010). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE, pp. 27–
Virtual Reality, vol. 1, pp. 67–74, 2009. 36, 2010.
[22] J. M. Knapp and J. M. Loomis, “Limited field of view of head-mounted [38] Gerval J.P., Popovici M., Ramdani M., El Kalai O., Boskoff V. and
displays is not the cause of distance under- estimation in virtual Tisseau J. (2002). “Virtual Environments for Children”, In Proceedings
environments,” Presence, vol. 13, pp. 572–577, 2004. 
 International Conference on Computers and Advanced Technology
Education (CATE), Cancun, Mexico, 416-420.
[23] P. Willemsen, M. B. Colton, S. H. Creem-Regehr, and W. B.
Thompson, “The effects of head-mounted display mechanical [39] M. Auvray and P. Fuchs, “Perception, immersion et interaction
properties and field of view on distance judgments in virtual sensorimotrices en environnement virtuel,” In A. Grumbach & E.
environments,” ACM Trans. Appl. Percept., vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 1–14, Klinger (Eds.), R´ealit´e Virtuelle et Cognition. Num´ero sp´ecial de
2009. Intellectica, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 23–35, 2007
[24] R. Messing and F. H. Durgin, “Distance perception and the visual [40] Milgram, P., & Kishino, F. (1994). A taxonomy of mixed reality visual
horizon in head-mounted displays,” ACM Trans. Appl. Percept., vol. 2, displays. IEICE TRANSACTIONS on Information and Systems,
no. 3, pp. 234–250, 2005. 77(12), 1321–1329.
[25] W. B. Thompson, P. Willemsen, A. A. Gooch, S. H. Creem- regehr, J. [41] Fatima El Jamiy and Ronald Marsh, “A Survey on Depth Perception
M. Loomis, and A. C. Beall, “Does the quality of the computer graphics in Head Mounted Displays: Distance Estimation in Virtual Reality,
matter when judging distances in visually immersive environments?” Augmented Reality and Mixed Reality,” IET Image Processing, 8pp.
2002. 2019.
[26] P. Willemsen, A. A. Gooch, W. B. Thompson, and S. H. Creem-
Regehr, “Effects of stereo viewing conditions on dis- tance perception
in virtual environments,” Presence: Teleoper. Virtual Environ., vol. 17,
no. 1, pp. 91–101, 2008.
[27] V. Interrante, B. Ries, and L. Anderson, “Distance perception in
immersive virtual environments, revisited,” in Proc. Virtual Reality
Conference, 2006, pp. 3–10.
[28] M. Mon-Williams and J. R. Tresilian, “Ordinal depth infor- mation
from accommodation?” Ergonomics, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 391–404, Mar
2000.
[29] J. A. Jones, J. E. Swan, G. Singh, E. Kolstad, and S. R. Ellis, “The
effects of virtual reality, augmented reality, and motion parallax on
egocentric depth perception,” In L. T. De Paolis, A. Mongelli (Eds.),
Augmented Reality, Virtual Reality, and Computer Graphics: Third
International Conference, AVR 2016, Proceedings, Lecce, Italy: ACM
Press., pp. 388–396, June 15-18, 2016.
[30] T. Y. Grechkin, T. D. Nguyen, J. M. Plumert, , J. F. Cremer and J. K.
Kearney, “How does presentation method and measurement pro- tocol
affect distance estimation in real and virtual environments?,” ACM
Transactions on Applied Perception, 7 (4), pp. 1–18, 2010.
[31] R. Messing, and F. H. Durgin, “Distance perception and the visual
horizon in head-mounted displays,” ACM Transactions on Applied
Perception, 2 (3), pp. 234–250, 2005.
[32] M. Kytö, A. Mäkinen, J. Häkkinen, and P. Oittinen, “Improving
relative depth judgments in augmented reality with auxiliary augmen-
tations,” ACM Transactions on Applied Perception, 10 (1), pp. 1–21,
2013.
[33] M. Kytö, A. Mäkinen, T. Tossavainen, and P. Oittinen, “Stereoscopic
depth perception in video see-through augmented reality within action
space,” Journal of Electronic Imaging, 23 (1), 2014.
[34] A. Dey, A. Cunningham, and C. Sandor, “Evaluating depth perception
of photorealistic mixed reality visualizations for occluded objects in
outdoor environments,” In T. Komura & Q. Peng (Eds.), Proceedings
of the 17th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and
Technology, New York, NY: ACM Press., pp. 211–218, 2010.
[35] A. Dey, G. Jarvis, C. Sandor, and G. Reitmayr, “Tablet versus phone:
Depth perception in handheld augmented reality,” In M. Gandy, K.
Kiyokawa, & G. Reitmayr (Eds.), Presented at the International
Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR), Piscataway,
NJ: IEEE., pp. 187–196, 2012
[36] A. Dey, and C. Sandor, “Lessons learned: Evaluating visualizations for
occluded objects in handheld augmented reality,” International Journal
of Human–Computer Studies, 72 (10–11), 704–716, 2014.

View publication stats