ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Improving static and dynamic registration in an optical see-through HMD
Full text PdfPdf (311 KB),  PsPs (1.65 MB)
Source International Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques archive
Proceedings of the 21st annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques table of contents
Pages: 197 - 204  
Year of Publication: 1994
ISBN:0-89791-667-0
Authors
Ronald Azuma  Department of Computer Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, CB 3175 Sitterson Hall; UNC; Chapel Hill, NC
Gary Bishop  Department of Computer Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, CB 3175 Sitterson Hall; UNC; Chapel Hill, NC
Sponsor
SIGGRAPH: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 10,   Downloads (12 Months): 88,   Citation Count: 62
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/192161.192199
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

In Augmented Reality, see-through HMDs superimpose virtual 3D objects on the real world. This technology has the potential to enhance a user's perception and interaction with the real world. However, many Augmented Reality applications will not be accepted until we can accurately register virtual objects with their real counterparts. In previous systems, such registration was achieved only from a limited range of viewpoints, when the user kept his head still. This paper offers improved registration in two areas. First, our system demonstrates accurate static registration across a wide variety of viewing angles and positions. An optoelectronic tracker provides the required range and accuracy. Three calibration steps determine the viewing parameters. Second, dynamic errors that occur when the user moves his head are reduced by predicting future head locations. Inertial sensors mounted on the HMD aid head-motion prediction. Accurate determination of prediction distances requires low-overhead operating systems and eliminating unpredictable sources of latency. On average, prediction with inertial sensors produces errors 2-3 times lower than prediction without inertial sensors and 5-10 times lower than using no prediction at all. Future steps that may further improve registration are outlined.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
Albrecht, R. E. An adaptive digital filter to predict pilot head look direction for helmet-mounted displays. MS Thesis, University of Dayton, Ohio (July 1989).
 
2
3
4
 
5
Beer, Ferdinand P. and E. Russell Johnston, Jr. Vector Mechanics for Engineers: Statics and Dynamics (5th ed). McGraw-Hill, 1988.
 
6
Caudell, Thomas P. and David W. Mizell. Augmented Reality: An Application of Heads-Up Display Technology to Manual Manufac-turing Processes. Proceedings of Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (Jan. 1992), 659-669.
 
7
Chou, Jack C.K. Quaternion Kinematic and Dynamic Differential Equations. IEEE Trans Robotics and Automation 8, 1 (Feb. 1992), 53-64.
 
8
Cohen, Jonathan, and Mark Olano. Low Latency Rendering on Pixel-Planes 5. UNC Chapel Hill Dept. of Computer Science technical report TR94-028 (1994).
9
10
11
 
12
13
14
15
 
16
 
17
Jagacinski, Richard J., and Donald L. Monk. Fitts' Law in Two Di-mensions with Hand and Head Movements. Journal of Motor Be-havior 17, 1 (1985), 77-95.
 
18
Janin, Adam L., David W. Mizell, and Thomas P. Caudell. Calibra-tion of Head-Mounted Displays for Augmented Reality Applications. Proceedings of IEEE VRAIS '93 (Seattle, WA, Sept. 18-22, 1993), 246-255.
 
19
Kalman, R. E., and R. S. Bucy. New Results in Linear Filtering and Prediction Theory. Trans ASME, J. Basic Eng., Series 83D (Mar. 1961), 95-108.
 
20
Krueger, Myron W. Simulation versus artificial reality. Proceedings of IMAGE VI Conference (Scottsdale, AZ, 14-17 July 1992), 147- 155.
 
21
 
22
Lewis, Frank L. Optimal Estimation. John Wiley & Sons, 1986.
23
 
24
List, Uwe H. Nonlinear Prediction of Head Movements for Helmet-Mounted Displays. Technical report AFHRL-TP-83-45 {AD-A136590}, Williams AFB, AZ: Operations Training Division (1984).
 
25
Murray, P.M. and B. Barber. Visual Display Research Tool. AGARD Conference Proceedings No. 408 Flight Simulation (Cambridge, UK, 30 Sept. - 3 Oct. 1985).
 
26
Paley, W. Bradford. Head-Tracking Stereo Display: Experiments and Applications. SPIE Vol. 1669 Stereoscopic Displays and Applica-tions III (San Jose, CA, Feb. 12-13, 1992), 84-89.
 
27
Press, William H., et al. Numerical Recipes in C. Cambridge Uni-versity Press, 1988.
 
28
Rebo, Robert. A Helmet-Mounted Virtual Environment Display Sys-tem. MS Thesis, Air Force Institute of Technology (Dec 1988).
 
29
30
 
31
 
32
Shaw, Chris and Jiandong Liang. An Experiment to Characterize Head Motion in VR and RR Using MR. Proceedings of 1992 Western Com-puter Graphics Symposium (Banff, Alberta, Canada, April 6-8, 1992), 99-101.
 
33
Sims, Dave. New Realities in Aircraft Design and Manufacture. IEEE CG&A 14, 2 (March 1994), 91.
 
34
Smith Jr., B. R. Digital head tracking and position prediction for hel-met mounted visual display systems. Proceedings of AIAA 22nd Aerospace Sciences Meeting (Reno, NV, Jan. 9-12, 1984).
 
35
So, Richard H. Y. and Michael J. Griffin. Compensating Lags in Head-Coupled Displays Using Head Position Prediction and Image Deflec-tion. Journal of Aircraft 29, 6 (Nov-Dec 1992), 1064-1068.
36
 
37
Welch, Brian L., Ron Kruk, et al. Flight Simulator Wide Field-of-View Helmet-Mounted Infinity Display System. Technical report AFHRL-TR-85-59, WilliamsAFB,AZ, Operations Training Division (May 1986).

CITED BY  62

Collaborative Colleagues:
Ronald Azuma: colleagues
Gary Bishop: colleagues