Slashdot Mirror


Researchers Fight VR Focus-Switching Headaches

An anonymous reader writes: One of the biggest problems virtual reality headsets have yet to overcome is the headaches they cause in a subset of users. For a lot of users, this is caused by needing to rapidly switch your focus between objects that are (virtually) near and far away. "Trying to focus on 'far away' objects on that stereoscopic screen means keeping a fixed focal distance but changing the 'vergence' angle of your eyes—in essence, going a little cross-eyed for a moment." Fortunately, researchers at Stanford have figured out a partial solution.

They "created a prototype headset (PDF) that includes a translucent LCD panel sitting about 1cm in front of a standard, opaque LCD. With some GPU pre-processing, this 'light field stereoscope' headset can display nearby objects on the front LCD and farther-away objects on the rear, creating what the researchers call a '4D' image that layers a basic virtual light field on top of the usual stereoscopic left/right eye 3D separation." This provides an easy, low-tech way to let the eyes focus more easily, and alleviate the strain that causes headaches.

32 of 46 comments (clear)

  1. Go Stanford by binarylarry · · Score: 1

    Yeah science, bitch!

    --
    Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    1. Re:Go Stanford by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

      In the future, people fine tuned to VR will get nauseous when subjected to reality. The few who can survive on the outside without barfing can steal the VR headset wearing prisoners' biscuits.

    2. Re:Go Stanford by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1

      Well... eventually the VR folks will die out, since procreating with your avatar produces no real world result*.

      Either way, eating someone else's tossed biscuits doesn't sound all that appealing.

      * well, not yet, anyhow.

      --
      This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
  2. Eye tracking by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 3, Informative

    It seems the long-term solution will involve eye tracking so that the device can "focus" with you. Tough problem, I imagine, to solve in such a tiny area without interfering with the experience. It would also likely need even better latency than the current setup, which is asking a lot.

    1. Re:Eye tracking by Sowelu · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm really looking forward to horror games that can use eye tracking. Keep something just on the edge of your vision, or hide things almost-not-quite-entirely in your blind spot.

    2. Re:Eye tracking by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      Yeah, this seems to beg for a more elegant solution, as it sounds like you'll never be able to build enough depth planes to really fix the problem. Cameras looking back at your eyes should theoretically be able to pinpoint where you're currently looking, and if precise enough, maybe even the depth to which you're focusing. This is already being researched with software used for people to manipulate a computer with only their eyes. The software can then feed this information back to the application to adjust the current focus point.

      If it worked as envisioned, it could very well add a additional level of realism/immersion to VR goggles. Still, I'd imagine we've got some time before we get beyond the basics into this sort of territory.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    3. Re:Eye tracking by lordofthechia · · Score: 1

      It seems the long-term solution will involve eye tracking so that the device can "focus" with you.

      I was thinking that would be ideal, however there is another issue to overcome with that solution, the Inter Pupillary Distance (IPD) would have to change with your focus.

      We have two IPDs - near and far. With current headsets you set the IPD to your far (or relaxed) IPD measurement. If your IPD is off (your pupils aren't in the center of focus of the lenses) then the image will appear blurry. So some sort of modification will have to be made to the optics or the IPD adjustment will have to be motorized and set to respond to your focus change.

      --
      Georgia Tech, the leader in Chia(tm) technology.
    4. Re:Eye tracking by monkeyxpress · · Score: 1

      Actually I think the long term solution looks to be holography. It is really quite phenomenal if you look into the physics of it, and it sounds like MagicLeap is making real progress in bringing something to market.

      That being said, it is only a theory that the focus issue is what is causing the nausea. It may be something else, or a combination of factors, in which case the long term solution is likely to be a drug that inhibits whatever mechanism causes the sickness.

    5. Re:Eye tracking by omnichad · · Score: 1

      A better solution is that instead of two screens, a projector projects a true light field toward your eyes. A virtual light field with only two focus levels is not really the first step on the way there.

      http://web.media.mit.edu/~gord...

  3. 4d = 3d, right? by Seor+Jojoba · · Score: 2

    Why would they say it's a 4D image? I'm going to count the dimensions they're using again. One... two.. three... Wait, are they counting time too?

    1. Re:4d = 3d, right? by suutar · · Score: 1

      really they're almost up to 2.5

    2. Re:4d = 3d, right? by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's more like "Dual 2D".

    3. Re:4d = 3d, right? by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      It really is 4D in a sense that a lightfield "pixel" has 4 coordinates : your regular x,y coordinates like in a traditional image plus two other coordinates that define the angle from where the light is coming. The resulting data fits in a 4-dimentional array.
      And even if the underlying world is just 3D, the lightfield image is still 4D.

    4. Re:4d = 3d, right? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      It's more like "Dual 2D".

      Yeah but marketing, we're up to 6D.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  4. But what about motion sickness by geekd · · Score: 1

    Ok, they got a handle on the headaches. Now what about the horrible, horrible motion sickness?

    1. Re:But what about motion sickness by Sowelu · · Score: 1

      Dramamine.

    2. Re:But what about motion sickness by marciot · · Score: 1

      I have a solution to the motion sickness problem. I am designing a totally immersive VR experience that allows you to feel what it is like to be paralyzed from head to toe. No matter how much you try to move your head around, the images presented to your eyes remains the same. As a bonus, this virtual reality experience only requires a Pentium and a VGA card, so you can experience it on a shoe string budget. And did I say, no motion sickness? It's gonna be the killer app for VR, I guarantee it!

    3. Re:But what about motion sickness by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      That's nothing! I can already do that with the added experience of having one of your eyes poked out. Plus, if you have a scene with no animals or wind, you can display it in a very portable manner with no electricity needed.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
  5. How big is this subset of user with headaches? by William+Baric · · Score: 1

    If only a small subset of users have this problems, then it's not really a big problem for VR headsets.

    1. Re:How big is this subset of user with headaches? by Linkreincarnate · · Score: 2

      Most people right now. There are a few workarounds though. You can make a virtual nose for instance. Also helmets that take up a bit of the screen helps too.

    2. Re:How big is this subset of user with headaches? by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      If only a small subset of users have this problems, then it's not really a big problem for VR headsets.

      It will be once it's a 30 second clip on the news. Tune in at 11.

    3. Re:How big is this subset of user with headaches? by DrXym · · Score: 1
      A small subset? I bet when VR goes public it will fall on its face (bot figuratively and literally) from the number of people who suffer disorientation, nausea, vertigo, headaches, eyestrain plus accidents from falling / tripping on things.

      The best games will be those where the person is seated virtually and in real life - racing cars, space & flight sims etc. Even those may suffer unless they figure out how to do huds and so on that minimize eye strain as people switch from looking at infinity to a panel only 30cm away inside the display.

      Of course, perhaps VR could be made to work the nausea and disorientation into the games. Imagine a Saving Private Ryan game where you are tossed around so much in the game you hurl your guts up. Just like being in a real landing craft!

    4. Re:How big is this subset of user with headaches? by war4peace · · Score: 1

      I suffer from headaches when watching 3D movies in cinema. My wife has nausea. My brother-in-law has headaches. Two of my three close friends get headaches. The third tested a VR in a store and embarrassed himself by performing an otherwise awesome explosive vomiting action. Would have looked great in a fart joke comedy movie.

      Yes, it's all anecdotal evidence, yet I highly doubt the "small subset" thingie.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
  6. Or just get old. by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 1

    Funny thing -- along about age 40 or so, that vergence-focus mismatch goes away all on its own, as your eye loses the ability to change focus. Not that there are that many advantages to aging, but this is definitely one.

  7. I once got my eyes stuck cross-eyed. by sheetsda · · Score: 2

    going a little cross-eyed for a moment

    Funny story involving close focusing and crossed eyes - So a couple years ago I watched about an hour or two worth of Family Guy from Netflix on my phone. I held the phone less than a foot away from my face while doing this, without any breaks. You know how they say don't cross your eyes for too long or they'll get stuck that way? Yeah... That actually happens. I had to walk around with one eye closed for the rest of the day (it didn't matter which one, I just couldn't do both or one would go all wonky). When I woke up the next morning I was fine again.

  8. Somebody already invented that ... by SirJorgelOfBorgel · · Score: 1

    ... and even patented it.

  9. Not easy or low-tech at all! by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

    This provides an easy, low-tech way to let the eyes focus more easily, and alleviate the strain that causes headaches.

    So it doubles the number of LCD panels, introduces one that is a different kind from the other, and changes the rendering process. How is that easy and low-tech? (Maybe the software just looks at the Z buffer to distinguish near and far?) Nice job though. This seems like a great trick and might just be the start of something even better.

  10. Now how about the real headache causer... by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

    Latency. VR headsets are going to cause motion sickness and headaches until their response time is as transparent to the user as the average PC game.

    --
    A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    1. Re:Now how about the real headache causer... by DrXym · · Score: 1

      The average PC game only has one view to render, a VR headset has a left and a right eye. So on the same hardware something will have to give - resolution or framerate. I can't see cutting framerate as acceptable since framerate affects latency. Some rendering budget might be clawed back by turning off certain effects like anti aliasing. Game design can also pare back on the pace of action / scenery too since not many people are going to fork out for a $500 card to play a VR game.

  11. Two layers or multiple layers? by marciot · · Score: 1

    It's unclear to me whether the two LCDs just give the user two individual planes to focus on, or whether through some computational wizardry two is enough to generate multiple virtual planes. If it is the latter, I am very impressed and am curious whether this technology could be applied to TVs or other devices.

  12. Re:Depth of Field in games by DrXym · · Score: 1

    Depth of field blur helps game devs since they can drop the level of detail of distant objects while still providing the player a complex panorama that appears to go off into the distance. Games like GTA V, Arkham Knight etc. use this trick. And on a 2D panel the eyes don't have to change focus depending on where you look on the screen so it doesn't cause eye strain.

  13. Lightfields capture 4D to observe 3D by LoneTech · · Score: 2

    The trick lies in the fact that the picture is a projection, not the scene. There do exist 3D displays, which are volumetric, but a lightfield display doesn't replicate the objects, only the light passing through the screen. This is just like a hologram (although digital lightfield processing is far from the fidelity of chemical holography). The more commonly advertised "3D" screens approximate the effect for two points that represent your eyes, which breaks down in several ways: The points may be misplaced, such as looking at the screen from anywhere but dead center at the right distance and with the estimated interpupilary distance (yeah, that's not happening, particularly with multiple viewers); this is common for TVs and such. For HMDs and VR, a growing issue is that the points are not points at all; your pupils have a shape, and dynamic optics used to focus (accomodate). That's what these displays are designed to address. A related issue in turn is that cinematographers are used to using blurring effects to suggest focus, which will conflict if you're not looking exactly where you were expected to.

    Light field imaging really does operate in 4D; two dimensions of position and two dimensions of angle. Normal stereoscopic imagery means using two cameras, each of which takes 2D angular images (e.g. the pixels represent a direction from the camera), and having them placed separately; this gives you a single step of third dimension, which is intended to exactly match the offset between your eyes. It's only an estimation as eyes have more axis of adjustability, including vergence and accomodation, and the direction of your eyes does affect your interpupilary distance for the same reason a panoramic camera setup needs a depth offsetting gimbal; the front end optics are in front of the rotation axis. Common stereoscopic displays like TVs and cinema have this as one of the less inaccurate tradeoffs, however, as the mere fact they don't know where you are (and there are frequently multiple watchers) means they can't show your perspective (if they did, you would see a wider field if you sat closer). A lightfield camera like a Lytro uses a lens array to distinguish such places on the lens itself. From that data you could focus to render 2D images, but a true lightfield display (like this one from Standford, the microlens projection system from MIT, or the very similar HMD shown by Nvidia) leaves that task to your eye's normal accomodation. Some lightfield systems simply use multiple cameras in an array; a few are designed for 3D and thus only have a linear array. Due to the unsolved problem of video transfer of true 4D lightfields, this is the category most 3D panoramic content falls in, which restricts the user to panning only (no yaw, little tilt, no translation) to avoid serious distortion.

    If you look at a stereoscopic image, and move your head a little, you see the scene shearing to make objects further away move the same direction; this effect is because the images shown to your eyes were made for a different perspective. An eye tracking stereoscopic display could avoid this (sadly, the New 3DS does not), and a true light field display would not need to; it already displays different perspectives in different directions. In principle you'd require a capture array the size of your screen, but display prototypes avoid that simply by using CG, and it's also less of a problem for VR than cinema. A common application has been lenticular 3D pictures, which frequently have 5 or more perspectives.