The impacts of lens and stereo camera separation on perceived slant in Virtual Reality head-mounted 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 AR and VR headsets have displays and lenses that are either fixed or adjustable to match a limited range of user inter-pupillary distances (IPDs). Projective geometry predicts a misperception of depth when either the displays or virtual cameras used to render images are misaligned with the eyes. However, misalignment between the eyes and lenses might also affect binocular convergence, which could further distort perceived depth. This possibility has been largely ignored in previous studies. Here, we evaluated this phenomenon in a VR headset in which the inter-lens and inter-axial camera separations are coupled and adjustable. In a baseline condition, both were matched to observers' IPDs. In two other conditions, the inter-lens and inter-axial camera separations were set to the maximum and minimum allowed by the headset. In each condition, observers were instructed to adjust a fold created by two intersecting, textured surfaces until it appeared to have an angle of 90°. The task was performed at three randomly interleaved viewing distances, monocularly and binocularly. In the monocular condition, observers underestimated the fold angle and there was no effect of viewing distance on their settings. In the binocular conditions, we found that when the lens and camera separation were less than the viewer's IPD, they exhibited compression of perceived slant relative to baseline. The reverse pattern was seen when the lens and camera separation were larger than the viewer's IPD. These results were well explained by a geometric model that considers shifts in convergence due to lens and display misalignment with the eyes, as well as the relative contribution of monocular cues.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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