- From the, he's going to be talking about head mounted
projection display, and visual attention.
- Thank you for introducing. I'm sorry for the
inconvenience, there are like cuts on screen, but
I'll try to explain our project.
I'm Caglar Genc from Koc University, I'll be presenting
our study on head mounted projection displays
and their effect on our visual attention.
Nowadays, we are surrounded by
many augmented reality applications.
Meanwhile, the projectors are getting
smaller, smaller, and more smaller, that now
we can wield them on our bodies.
This situation creates new opportunities for
new augmented and mixed-reality applications.
And they are very beneficial because
they are projecting real image in real environment.
Natural depth cues that we can understand
or see them easily. On the other hand,
other augmented reality applications
are presenting virtual images on screens,
that it is not a natural viewing experience for us.
For that reason, projectors have been investigated
on many mounting options on the body.
Like shoulders, wrists, hip, chest and head.
In this study, we are specifially focusing on
head mounted projection displays,
because they are very advantageous in many ways.
For example, comparing to other mounting options
on the body, there are providing distortion free images,
because they are placed near to the eyes.
The image will be perceived distortionless.
Comparing to other head mounted devices,
you do not need any optical device in front of the eyes.
They're tolerable for incorrect placement,
so you don't need to be precise about wearing them.
And the field of view is not limited
by the frames of the screen.
And if you use special materials
like retroreflective materials, they can
provide bright and unique images for its users.
Among other advantages of viewable devices,
mobility is the key feature of these devices.
However, the issues related to visual performances
is not explored yet for head mounted projection displays.
Before going into the details of our study,
I want to explain briefly about the issues that
might be related to visual performances of these devices.
In augmented reality applications,
there are usually two ways of presenting information.
First of them is called world-referenced.
Right, the projected image, the presented image,
is referenced to a point in real environment.
The second one is called head-referenced
way of presenting information.
In that way, the presented information
moves with the user's head. Of course,
you can see the combination of these methods
in many augmented reality applications.
Previous research first claims that
head referenced way of presenting information
might be causing some performance decreases.
They are referring to a reflex called
Vestibulo-Occular Reflex. In natural conditions,
when we are looking at an object and moving
our heads, this reflex makes our eyes to move
opposite sides to the movement of our head.
In head referenced augmented reality applications however,
this reflex is claimed to be unnecessary and
might be the reason for performance decreases.
Related work investigating the visual performance
issues of these devices are mainly focused
more on other types of head mounted displays.
They are more focused on static displays
with static graphical user interfaces,
and they are insufficient for exploring
multiple moving objects in those graphical user interfaces.
For that reason, in order to explore the relation between
visual performance and mobility states
of head mounted projection display users,
involving the dynamic and static display
features of head mounted projection display,
we conducted a user study. In this user study,
we used our head mounted projection display
prototype which involved a mini PC called
Raspberry Pi, battery units, and a Pico projector.
In our study, there were three experimental conditions.
First of them, was control condition, where the
head mounted projection display is stabilized
on a tripod, and the participant was completing
the task while standing next to it.
The second condition was standing condition,
where the participant wore the head mounted
projection display and completed the tasks.
The third one, the last one, was walking conditions.
The participant in that condition was walking
and completing the tasks together.
In order to measure the visual performances
of participants, we borrowed two visual
attention tasks from psychology literature.
First of them was called multiple object tracking task.
It represented the dynamic display features
of our head mounted projection display.
The second one was called visual search task.
It represented the static display features
of head mounted projection displays.
So, in our study, these tasks were perceived
as games, so let's play one of them.
This is the multiple object tracking task.
In this task, there will be 10 balls appearing
at the screen, and five of them will blink at the beginning.
Then, they will start moving.
At the end, I want you to find out the five
blinking balls which blinked at the beginning.
So, here we go. Five blinking balls.
Of course, this is a video and I won't
expect you to choose, but in the experiments,
the participants were choosing the right balls.
The second task was visual search task.
In this task, in one trial there were
18 objects on screen, and one of them
in some trials, one of them was different,
and we wanted our participants to find out
if there is any different object in the screen.
Let's see, this one as well.
So now they're all the same, but there is a T over there.
By giving these tasks, we recorded their response times,
and their response accuracy, and by analyzing
these results, we found out that on static
display conditions, participants were successfully
perceived the static graphical elements
on screen on walking and standing conditions,
comparing to our control condition.
However, on dynamic displays,
while the participants were successful
for tracking the visual objects on screen
while standing, there were significant differences
on walking condition. So our results suggest that
it will be a good idea to use dynamic
graphical user interfaces where the user
of these devices are not expected to be walking.
In order to exemplify our results,
we created three design scenarios.
In one of them for example, in a museum setting
a user can look at a static display
giving the static information about navigation
while wandering around the museum.
And a dynamic and detailed information can be
presented when he or she is is in front of an artifact.
Or in a shopping scenario, navigational information
about a specific product while wandering around
the shopping area can be presented statically and
detailed information can be presented dynamically
while standing next to it, in front of it, sorry.
Now surgery, because the surgeons are not
wandering around, they can look at patient
information dynamically or statically.
So our next step will be implementing
one of these scenarios to get more
feedback about the usability of
head mounted projection displays.
Thank you for listening, I might have questions
if you have any. (crowd applauds)
- Alright, we have time for questions, if you have
questions you can either come up
to the mic or raise your hand.
- [Man From Crowd] Hello, I was just wondering
could you maybe talk a bit about
why perhaps there was no, there was like a
decrease in the motion condition, so where people,
the screen was dynamic and people were moving.
- I'm sorry, you're asking why there was a decrease?
- [Man From Crowd] Yes, so essentially your results
were static and had declined, could you
discuss perhaps why that was how it is?
- Well, it might be because of the duality
of doing walking action and weaving and information.
But in that case, we would expect the
static display condition is also
will be decreased in performances. So..
- [2nd Man From Crowd] Yibyin Abdul, Texas State University.
The question is, so you claimed that this setup
is tolerable for movement, but when a person
is especially walking or running, or any of those,
it strongly depends on how good it moved,
and I think it's almost impossible to fix it
perfectly on the head and it will move during
the movement and making some shifts.
So, did you take this into account somehow?
- You mean the device is moving?
- [Yibyin Abdul] Yeah, and it will also change the
angle of the projection and all of the paramenters
that you analyze.
- Yeah. We are trying to mention that.
In many augmented reality head mounted devices,
you need to be precise about putting them on,
and it shouldn't move while in mobility.
But in head mounted projection display case,
it can move but it won't be that much a problem.
The perceived image will be perceived
as it is on the real environment.
- [Yibyin Abdul] Actually, real life is sometimes
has much more difficult conditions than this.
- Yeah, you're right. That's why we're trying
to explore the usability issues while
implementing this into real life condition, thank you.
- Alright, well thanks. Let's thank our speaker again.
- Thank you. (crowd applauds)