Image Size and the Range of Clear and Single Binocular Vision in 3D Displays.

SIGNIFICANCE: The range of clear and single binocular vision differs between 3D displays and clinical prism vergences, but this difference is unexplained. This difference prevents clinicians from predicting the range of clear and single binocular vision in 3D-viewing patients. In this study, we tested a hypothesis for this difference. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether changing fixation target size in 3D viewing significantly affects the vergence ranges and, if so, then to determine whether the target size effect is driven by fusional vergence gain changes, threshold of blur changes, or both. METHODS: Twenty-one visually normal adults aged 18 to 28 years viewed 3D images at 40 cm in an electronic stereoscopic. The fixation target, a Maltese cross, moved in depth at 2∆/s by way of changing crossed or uncrossed disparity until blur and diplopia ensued. We used four target sizes: (1) small (width × height, 0.21° × 0.63°), (2) medium (1.43° × 4.3°), (3) large (3.6° × 10.8°), and (4) 3D (size changing congruently with disparity). The effect of target size on responses was tested by mixed ANOVAs. RESULT: Mean convergence blurs and breaks increased with target size by 40% (P < .001) and 71% (P < .001), respectively, and in divergence by 33% (P = .03) and 30% (P = .04), respectively. The increases in break magnitude with target size implicate fusional vergence gain change in the size effect. Increasing target size raised the threshold of blur from 1.06 to 1.82 D in convergence and from 0.97 to 1.48 D in divergence (P = .008). CONCLUSIONS: Growing fixation target size in 3D viewing increases fusional vergence gain and blur thresholds, which together increase the limits of clear and single binocular vision. Therefore, the clarity of a 3D image depends not only on its disparity but also on the size of the viewed image.

Clear and Single Binocular Vision in Near 3D Displays.

SIGNIFICANCE: Accommodation/convergence mismatch induced by 3D displays can cause discomfort symptoms such as those induced by accommodation/convergence mismatch in clinical vergence testing. We found that the limits of clear and single vision during vergence tests are very different between 3D and clinical tests. Clinical vergences should not be used as substitutes for measures of vergences in 3D displays. PURPOSE: The purposes of this study were to determine whether the limits of clear and single binocular vision derived from phoropter prism vergence tests match the limits measured in a 3D display and to determine whether vergence mode, smooth versus jump, affected those limits in the 3D display. METHODS: We tested the phoropter prism vergence limits of clear and single vision at 40 cm in 47 binocular young adults. In separate sessions, we tested, in a 3D display, the analogous 40-cm vergence limits for smooth vergence and jump vergence. The 3D fixation target was a Maltese cross whose visual angle changed congruently with target disparity. RESULTS: Our mean phoropter vergence blur and break values were similar to those reported in previous studies. The mean smooth divergence limit was less in the 3D display (9.8Δ) than in the phoropter (12.8Δ). Most smooth convergence limits were much larger in the 3D display than in the phoropter, reaching the 35Δ limit of the 3D display without blur or diplopia in 24 subjects. Mean jump vergence limits were significantly smaller than smooth vergence limits in the 3D display. CONCLUSIONS: The limits of clear and single binocular vision derived from phoropter vergence tests were not a good approximation of the analogous limits in our 3D display.