Effects of Long-Term Exposure on Sensitivity and Comfort with Stereoscopic Displays
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stereoscopic 3D media has recently increased in appreciation and availability. This popularity has led to concerns over the health effects of habitual viewing of stereoscopic 3D content; concerns that are largely hypothetical. Here we examine the effects of repeated, long-term exposure to stereoscopic 3D in the workplace on several measures of stereoscopic sensitivity (discrimination, depth matching, and fusion limits) along with reported negative symptoms associated with viewing stereoscopic 3D. We recruited a group of adult stereoscopic 3D industry experts and compared their performance with observers who were (i) inexperienced with stereoscopic 3D, (ii) researchers who study stereopsis, and (iii) vision researchers with little or no experimental stereoscopic experience. Unexpectedly, we found very little difference between the four groups on all but the depth discrimination task, and the differences that did occur appear to reflect task-specific training or experience. Thus, we found no positive or negative consequences of repeated and extended exposure to stereoscopic 3D in these populations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it