MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2262900641 · doi:10.2312/egve.20151309

Analysis of Depth Perception with Virtual Mask in Stereoscopic AR

2015· article· en· W2262900641 on OpenAlexaff
Mai Otsuki, Hideaki Kuzuoka, Paul Milgram

Bibliographic record

VenueEurographics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAugmented Reality Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer visionStereoscopyAugmented realityDepth perceptionVirtual imageObject (grammar)Artificial intelligenceComputer sciencePerceptionIllusionTransparency (behavior)Computer graphics (images)Virtual realityOverlayObject detectionSegmentation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A practical application of Augmented Reality (AR) is see-through vision, a technique that enables a user to observe an inner object located behind a real object by superimposing the virtually visualized inner object onto the real object surface (for example, pipes and cables behind a wall or under a floor). A challenge in such applications is to provide proper depth perception when an inner virtual object image is overlaid on a real object. To improve depth perception in stereoscopic AR, we propose a method that overlays a random-dot mask on the real object surface. This method conveys to the observers the illusion of observing the virtual object through many small holes. We named this perception ''stereoscopic pseudo-transparency.'' Our experiments investigated (1) the effectiveness of the proposed method in improving the depth perception between the real object surface and the virtual object compared to existing methods, and (2) whether the proposed method can be used in an actual AR environment.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEurographicsSame topicAugmented Reality ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207