skip to main content
10.1145/3301275.3302263acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesiuiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Peripheral vision: a new killer app for smart glasses

Authors Info & Claims
Published:17 March 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

Most smart glasses have a small and limited field of view. The head-mounted display often spreads between the human central and peripheral vision. In this paper, we exploit this characteristic to display information in the peripheral vision of the user. We introduce a mobile peripheral vision model, which can be used on any smart glasses with a head-mounted display without any additional hardware requirement. This model taps into the blocked peripheral vision of a user and simplifies multi-tasking when using smart glasses. To display the potential applications of this model, we implement an application for indoor and outdoor navigation. We conduct an experiment on 20 people on both smartphone and smart glass to evaluate our model on indoor and outdoor conditions. Users report to have spent at least 50% less time looking at the screen by exploiting their peripheral vision with smart glass. 90% of the users Agree that using the model for navigation is more practical than standard navigation applications.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

p625-chaturvedi.mp4

mp4

136.7 MB

References

  1. Reynold Bailey, Ann McNamara, Aaron Costello, Srinivas Sridharan, and Cindy Grimm. 2012. Impact of Subtle Gaze Direction on Short-term Spatial Information Recall. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications (ETRA '12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 67--74. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Mark Billinghurst, Adrian Clark, Gun Lee, et al. 2015. A survey of augmented reality. Foundations and Trends® Human-Computer Interaction 8, 2-3 (2015), 73--272. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Mon-Chu Chen and Roberta L Klatzky. 2007. Displays attentive to unattended regions: presenting information in a peripheral-vision-friendly way. In International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Springer, 23--31. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Sunny Consolvo, Larry Arnstein, and B. Robert Franza. 2002. User Study Techniques in the Design and Evaluation of a Ubicomp Environment. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 73--90. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Enrico Costanza, Samuel A Inverso, Elan Pavlov, Rebecca Allen, and Pattie Maes. 2006. Eye-q: Eyeglass peripheral display for subtle intimate notifications. In Proceedings of the 8th conference on Human-computer interaction with mobile devices and services. ACM, 211--218. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Tim Dobbert. 2006. Matchmoving: the invisible art of camera tracking. John Wiley & Sons. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Kevin Fan, Jochen Huber, Suranga Nanayakkara, and Masahiko Inami. 2014. SpiderVision: extending the human field of view for augmented awareness. In Proceedings of the 5th Augmented Human International Conference. ACM, 49. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. David Finlay. 1982. Motion perception in the peripheral visual field. Perception (1982).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Uwe Gruenefeld, Tim Claudius Stratmann, Jinki Jung, Hyeopwoo Lee, Jeehye Choi, Abhilasha Nanda, and Wilko Heuten. {n. d.}. Guiding Smombies: Augmenting Peripheral Vision with Low-Cost Glasses to Shift the Attention of Smartphone Users. ({n. d.}).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. M Hahn and Y Kim. 2009. Designing Attention-Aware Peripheral Displays with Gaze-based Notification Control. In International Universal Communication Symposium 2009. 241--244.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Michael Haller. 2006. Emerging Technologies of Augmented Reality: Interfaces and Design: Interfaces and Design. Igi Global. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. SG Hart and L Staveland. 1986. NASA Task Load Index (TLX) V1. 0 Users Manual.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Yoshio Ishiguro and Jun Rekimoto. 2011. Peripheral vision annotation: noninterference information presentation method for mobile augmented reality. In Proceedings of the 2nd Augmented Human International Conference. ACM, 8. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Steven W Keele and Michael I Posner. 1968. Processing of visual feedback in rapid movements. Journal of experimental psychology 77, 1 (1968), 155.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Greg Kipper and Joseph Rampolla. 2012. Augmented Reality: an emerging technologies guide to AR. Elsevier. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Kangdon Lee. 2012. Augmented reality in education and training. TechTrends 56, 2 (2012), 13--21.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. W. Lu, B. L. H. Duh, and S. Feiner. 2012. Subtle cueing for visual search in augmentedreality. In 2012 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR). 161--166. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Kris Luyten, Donald Degraen, Gustavo Rovelo Ruiz, Sven Coppers, and Davy Vanacken. 2016. Hidden in Plain Sight: an Exploration of a Visual Language for Near-Eye Out-of-Focus Displays in the Peripheral View. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 487--497. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Andrew Maimone, Douglas Lanman, Kishore Rathinavel, Kurtis Keller, David Luebke, and Henry Fuchs. 2016. Building Wide Field of View Augmented Reality Eyewear with Pinlight Displays. (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. WC Maples, Wes DeRosier, Richard Hoenes, Rodney Bendure, and Sherl Moore. 2008. The effects of cell phone use on peripheral vision. Optometry-Journal of the American Optometric Association 79, 1 (2008), 36--42.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Daniel S Marigold. 2008. Role of peripheral visual cues in online visual guidance of locomotion. Exercise and sport sciences reviews 36, 3 (2008), 145--151.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Andrii Matviienko, Andreas Löcken, Abdallah El Ali, Wilko Heuten, and Susanne Boll. 2016. NaviLight: Investigating Ambient Light Displays for Turn-by-turn Navigation in Cars. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (MobileHCI '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 283--294. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Suzanne P McKee and Ken Nakayama. 1984. The detection of motion in the peripheral visual field. Vision research 24, 1 (1984), 25--32.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Michel Millodot. 2014. Dictionary of optometry and visual science. Elsevier Health Sciences.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. William A Monaco, Joel T Kalb, and Chris A Johnson. 2007. Motion detection in the far peripheral visual field. Army Research Laboratory Report ARL-MR-06 (2007).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Gerald M Murch. 1984. Physiological principles for the effective use of color. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 4, 11 (1984), 48--55. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Takuro Nakuo and Kai Kunze. 2016. Smart glasses with a peripheral vision display. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing: Adjunct. ACM, 341--344. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Jason Orlosky, Qifan Wu, Kiyoshi Kiyokawa, Haruo Takemura, and Christian Nitschke. 2014. Fisheye vision: peripheral spatial compression for improved field of view in head mounted displays. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM symposium on Spatial user interaction. ACM, 54--61. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Oskar Palinko, Andrew L Kun, Zachary Cook, Adam Downey, Aaron Lecomte, Meredith Swanson, and Tina Tomaszewski. 2013. Towards augmented reality navigation using affordable technology. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications. ACM, 238--241. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Christopher Plaue and John Stasko. 2007. Animation in a peripheral display: distraction, appeal, and information conveyance in varying display configurations. In Proceedings of Graphics Interface 2007. ACM, 135--142. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Benjamin Poppinga, Niels Henze, Jutta Fortmann, Wilko Heuten, and Susanne Boll. 2012. AmbiGlasses-Information in the Periphery of the Visual Field.. In Mensch & Computer. 153--162.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. I Rakkolainen, M Turk, and T Höllerer. 2016. A Superwide-FOV Optical Design for Head-Mounted Displays. (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Umair Rehman and Shi Cao. 2015. Augmented Reality-Based Indoor Navigation Using Google Glass as a Wearable Head-Mounted Display. In Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC), 2015 IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 1452--1457.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Donghao Ren, Tibor Goldschwendt, YunSuk Chang, and Tobias Höllerer. 2016. Evaluating wide-field-of-view augmented reality with mixed reality simulation. In Virtual Reality (VR), 2016 IEEE. IEEE, 93--102.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Kara Rogers. 2010. The eye: the physiology of human perception. The Rosen Publishing Group.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Tobias Sielhorst, Marco Feuerstein, and Nassir Navab. 2008. Advanced medical displays: A literature review of augmented reality. Journal of Display Technology 4, 4 (2008), 451--467.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Wanda J Smith. 1979. A review of literature relating to visual fatigue. In Proceedings of the human factors and Ergonomics Society annual meeting, Vol. 23. Sage Publications, 362--366.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Srinivas Sridharan and Reynold Bailey. 2015. Automatic Target Prediction and Subtle Gaze Guidance for Improved Spatial Information Recall. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium on Applied Perception (SAP '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 99--106. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Hans Strasburger, Ingo Rentschler, and Martin Jüttner. 2011. Peripheral vision and pattern recognition: A review. Journal of vision 11, 5 (2011), 13--13.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Ianchulev T, Minckler DS, Hoskins H, and et al. 2014. Wearable technology with head-mounted displays and visual function. JAMA 312, 17 (2014), 1799--1801. arXiv:/data/journals/jama/931027/jld140032.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Chek Tien Tan and Donny Soh. 2010. Augmented reality games: A review. Proceedings of Gameon-Arabia, Eurosis (2010).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Harry Moss Traquair, George Ian Scott, and Norman McOmish Dott. 1957. Clinical perimetry. Kimpton.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Kazuhiko Ukai and Peter A Howarth. 2008. Visual fatigue caused by viewing stereoscopic motion images: Background, theories, and observations. Displays 29, 2 (2008), 106--116.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Alexander H Wertheim. 2012. Tutorials on motion perception. Vol. 20. Springer Science & Business Media.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Bruce J West. 1993. Patterns, information and chaos in neuronal systems. Vol. 2. World Scientific. 65 pages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Robert Xiao and Hrvoje Benko. 2016. Augmenting the Field-of-View of Head-Mounted Displays with Sparse Peripheral Displays. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/augmenting-field-view-head-mounted-displays-sparse-peripheral-displays/ Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Robert Xiao and Hrvoje Benko. 2016. Augmenting the Field-of-View of Head-Mounted Displays with Sparse Peripheral Displays. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 1221--1232. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Wataru Yamada and Hiroyuki Manabe. 2016. Expanding the Field-of-View of Head-Mounted Displays with Peripheral Blurred Images. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. ACM, 141--142. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Donggang Yu, Jesse Sheng Jin, Suhuai Luo, Wei Lai, and Qingming Huang. 2009. A useful visualization technique: a literature review for augmented reality and its application, limitation & future direction. In Visual information communication. Springer, 311--337.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Peripheral vision: a new killer app for smart glasses

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          IUI '19: Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces
          March 2019
          713 pages
          ISBN:9781450362726
          DOI:10.1145/3301275

          Copyright © 2019 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 17 March 2019

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          IUI '19 Paper Acceptance Rate71of282submissions,25%Overall Acceptance Rate746of2,811submissions,27%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader