Objective: We provide a review and analysis of much of the published literature on binocular rivalry that is relevant to the design and use of head-worn displays (HWDs). Background: This review draws heavily from both the basic vision literature and applied HWD literature in order to help provide insight for minimizing the effects of binocular rivalry when HWDs are worn. Method: Included in this review are articles and books found cited in other works as well as articles and books obtained from an Internet search. Results: Issues discussed and summarized are (a) characteristics of binocular rivalry, (b) stimulus factors affecting rivalry, (c) cognitive variables affecting rivalry, and (d) tasks affected by rivalry. Conclusion: This paper offers a set of recommendations for minimizing the effects of binocular rivalry when HWDs are used as well as recommendations for future research. Application: Considerations of the basic vision literature on binocular rivalry will provide insight for future design solutions for HWDs.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abadi, R. (1976). Induction masking-A study of some inhibitory interactions during dichoptic viewing. Vision Research, 16, 269-275.
2.
Alais, D., & Blake, R. (1999). Grouping visual features during binocular rivalry . Vision Research, 39, 4341-4353.
3.
Alexander, L. (1951). The influence of figure-ground relationships on binocular rivalry. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41, 376-381.
4.
Anderson, J., Bechtoldt, H., & Gregory, L. (1978). Binocular integration in line rivalry. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 11, 399-402.
5.
Behar, I., Wiley, R., Levine, R., Rash, C., Walsh, D., & Cornum, R. (1990). Visual survey of Apache aviators (VISAA) (Tech. Rep. USAARL 90-15). Fort Rucker, AL: U.S. Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory.
6.
Blake, R. (1988). Dichoptic reading: Relative meaning in binocular rivalry. Perception and Psychophysics, 40, 133-141.
7.
Blake, R. (1989). A neural theory of binocular rivalry. Psychological Review, 96, 145-167.
8.
Blake, R. (2001). A primer on binocular rivalry, including current controversies. Brain and Mind, 2, 5-38.
9.
Blake, R., & Boothroyd, K. (1985). The precedence of binocular fusion over binocular rivalry. Perception and Psychophysics, 37, 114-124.
10.
Blake, R., & Camisa, J. (1979). On the inhibitory nature of binocular rivalry suppression. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 5, 315-323.
11.
Blake, R., & Fox, R. (1974). Adaptation to invisible gratings and the site of binocular rivalry suppression. Nature, 249, 488-490.
12.
Blake, R., O'Shea, R., & Mueller, T. (1992). Spatial zones of binocular rivalry in central and peripheral vision. Visual Neuroscience, 8, 469-478.
13.
Blake, R., Westendorf, D., & Yang, Y. (1991). Discriminating binocular fusion from false fusion . Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, 32, 2821-2825.
14.
Blake, R., Yu, K., Lokey, M., & Norman, H. (1998). Binocular rivalry and visual motion. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10, 46-60.
15.
Blake, R., Zimba, L., & Williams, D. (1985). Binocular correspondence and visual motion. Biological Cybernetics, 52, 391-397.
16.
Breese, B. (1899). On inhibition. Psychological Monographs , 3, 1-65.
17.
Chong, S., & Blake, R. (2006). Exogenous attention and endogenous attention influence initial dominance in binocular rivalry. Vision Research, 46, 1794-1803.
18.
Chong, S., Tadin, D., & Blake, R. (2005). Endogenous attention prolongs dominance durations in binocular rivalry. Journal of Vision, 5, 1004-1012.
19.
Collins, J., & Blackwell, L. (1974). Effects of eye dominance and retinal distance on binocular rivalry. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 39, 747-754.
20.
Collyer, S., & Bevan, W. (1970). Objective measurement of dominance control in binocular rivalry. Perception and Psychophysics, 8, 437-439.
21.
Coren, S. & Caplan, C. (1973). Patterns of ocular dominance. American Journal of Optometry and Archives of American Academy of Optometry , 50(4), 283-292.
22.
Draper, M., Viirre, E., Furness, T., & Gawron, V. (2001). Effects of image scale and system time delay on simulator sickness within head-coupled virtual environments. Human Factors, 43, 129-146.
23.
Draper, M., Viirre, E., Furness, T., & Parker, D. (1997). Theorized relationship between vestibulo-ocular adaptation and simulator sickness in virtual environments. In International Workshop on Motion Sickness (pp. 14-16). London: Medical Research Council, Human Movement and Balance Unit, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery.
24.
Ehrlich, J. (1997). Simulator sickness and HMD configurations. Proceedings of SPIE: Telemanipulator and Telepresence Technologies IV, 3206, 170-178.
25.
Engle, E. (1956). The role of content in binocular resolution. American Journal of Psychology, 69, 87-91.
26.
Fahle, M. (1982). Binocular rivalry: Suppression depends on orientation and spatial frequency. Vision Research, 34, 709-720.
27.
Fox, R. (1991). Binocular rivalry. In D. M. Regan (Ed.), Binocular vision and psychophysics (Vol. 9, pp. 93-110). London: MacMillan.
28.
Fox, R., & Check, R. (1968). Detection of motion during binocular rivalry suppression . Journal of Experimental Psychology, 78, 388-395.
29.
Fox, R., & Herrmann, J. (1967). Stochastic properties of binocular rivalry alternation . Perception and Psychophysics, 2, 432-436.
30.
Fox, R., & Rasche, F. (1969). Binocular rivalry and reciprocal inhibition. Perception and Psychophysics, 5, 215-217.
31.
Galster, S., Bolia, R., & Brown, R. (2005). The efficacy of advanced visual display technologies in simulated airborne command and control environments (Tech. Rep. AFRL-HE-WP-TP-2005-0026) . Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH: Air Force Research Laboratory.
32.
Glumm, M., Marshak, W., Branscome, T., McWesler, M., Patton, D., & Mullins, L. (1998). A comparison of soldier performance using current land navigation equipment with information integrated on a helmet-mounted display (Tech. Rep. ARL-TR-1604). Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: Army Research Laboratory.
33.
Grigsby, S., & Tsou, B. (1994). Visual processing and partial-overlap head-mounted displays. Journal of the Society for Information Display, 2(2), 69-74.
34.
Hakkinen, J. (2004). A virtual display for mobile use. In Society for Information Display international symposium digest of technical papers (pp. 1586-1589). San Jose, CA: Society for Information Display.
35.
Hastorf, A., & Myro, G. (1959). The effect of meaning on binocular rivalry. Vision Research, 35, 1727-1739.
36.
Hayashi, R., Maeda, T., Shimojo, S., & Tachi, S. (2004). An integrative model of binocular vision: A stereo model utilizing interocularly unpaired points produces both depth and binocular rivalry. Vision Research, 44, 2367-2380.
37.
Helmholtz, H., von. (1962). Concerning the perceptions in general. In J. P. C. Southall (Ed.), Helmholtz's treatise on physiological optics: Vol. 3. The perceptions of vision (3rd ed., pp. 1-37). New York: Dover. (Original German work published 1866 )
38.
Hershberger, M., & Guerin, D. (1975). Binocular rivalry in helmet-mounted display applications (Tech. Rep. AMRL-TR-75-48). Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH: Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory.
39.
Hollins, M. (1980). The effect of contrast on the completeness of binocular rivalry suppression. Perception and Psychophysics , 27, 550-556.
40.
Hollins, M., & Leung, E. (1978). The influence of color on binocular rivalry. In J. C. Armington, J. Krausfopf, & B. R. Wotten (Eds.), Visual psychophysics and physiology (pp 181-190). New York: Academic Press.
41.
Holopigian, K. (1989). Clinical suppression and binocular rivalry suppression: The effects of stimulus strength on the depth of suppression. Vision Research, 29, 1325-1333.
42.
Howard, I. (2002). Seeing in depth: Vol. 1. Basic mechanisms. New York: I. Porteous.
43.
Howard, I., & Rogers, B. (1995). Binocular vision and stereopsis. New York: Oxford University Press.
44.
Humphriss, D. (1982). The psychological septum: An investigation into its function. American Journal of Optometry and Physiological Optics, 59, 639-641.
45.
James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology (Vol. 1). New York: Dover.
46.
Kaufman, L. (1963). On the spread of suppression and binocular rivalry . Vision Research, 3, 401-415.
47.
Keller, K., & Colucci, D. (1998). Perception in HMDs: What is it in head mounted displays (HMDs) that really make them all so terrible?Proceedings of SPIE: Helmet- and Head-Mounted Displays III, 3362, 46-53.
48.
Klymenko, V., Harding, T., Beasley, H., Martin, J., & Rash, C. (1999). The effect of helmet-mounted display field of view configurations on target acquisition (Tech. Rep. USAARL 99-19). Fort Rucker, AL: U.S. Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory .
49.
Klymenko, V., Harding, T., Beasley, H., & Rash, C. (2001). Visual search performance in HMDs with partial overlapped binocular fields of view (Tech. Rep. USAARL 2001-05). Fort Rucker, AL: U.S. Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory .
50.
Klymenko, V., Verona, R., Martin, J., Beasley, H., & McLean, W. (1994). Factors affecting the perception of luning in monocular regions of partial binocular overlap displays (Tech. Rep. USAARL 94-47). Fort Rucker, AL: U.S. Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory.
51.
Kooi, F. (1993). Binocular configurations of a night-flight head-mounted display. Displays, 14(1), 11-20.
52.
Kooi, F. (1997). Visual strain: A comparison of monitors and head-mounted displays. Proceedings of SPIE: Imaging Sciences and Display Technologies, 2949, 162-171.
53.
Kovacs, I., Papathomas, T., Yang, M., & Fehér, A. (1996). When the brain changes its mind: Interocular grouping during binocular rivalry. Proceedings of the National Academies of Science, 93, 15508-15511.
54.
Kruk, R.V., & Longridge, T. (1984). Binocular overlap in a fiber optic helmet mounted display. In Proceedings of the 1984 Image Conference III (pp. 363-378). CSA, Bethesda, MD: The IMAGE Society.
55.
Lack, L. (1969). The effect of practice on binocular rivalry control . Perception and Psychophysics, 6, 397-400.
56.
Lack, L. (1978). Selective attention and the control of binocular rivalry. The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton.
57.
Laramee, R., & Ware, C. (2002). Rivalry and interference with a head-mounted display . ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 9(3), 238-251.
58.
Lee, S., & Blake, R. (2004). A fresh look at interocular grouping during binocular rivalry. Vision Research, 44, 983-991.
59.
Lehky, S. (1995). Binocular rivalry is not chaotic. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 259, 71-76.
60.
Levelt, W. (1965). On binocular rivalry. Soesterberg , Netherlands: Institute for Perception, RVO-TNO.
61.
Lippert, T. (1990). Fundamental monocular/binocular HMD human factors . Proceedings of SPIE: Helmet-Mounted Displays II, 1290, 185-191.
62.
Liu, L., & Schor, C. (1994). The spatial properties of binocular suppression zone. Vision Research, 34, 937-947.
63.
Liu, L., Tyler, C., & Schor, C. (1992). Failure of rivalry at low contrast: Evidence of a suprathreshold binocular summation process. Vision Research , 32, 1471-1479.
64.
Melzer, J., & Moffitt, K. (1997). Head mounted displays: Designing for the user . New York: McGraw-Hill.
65.
Meng, M., & Tong, F. (2004). Can attention selectively bias bistable perception? Differences between binocular rivalry and ambiguous figures. Journal of Vision, 4, 539-551.
66.
Morphew, M., Shively, J., & Casey, D. (2004). Helmet mounted displays for unmanned aerial vehicle control. Proceedings of SPIE: Helmet- and Head-Mounted Displays IX: Technologies and Applications, 5442, 93-103.
67.
Neisser, U., & Becklen, R. (1975). Selective looking: Attending to visually specified events. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 480-494.
68.
Norman, H., Norman, J., & Bilotta, J. (2000). The temporal course of suppression during binocular rivalry. Perception, 29, 831-841.
69.
Ono, H., Hasdorf, A., & Osgood, C. (1966). Binocular rivalry as a function of incongruity of meaning. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 7, 225-233.
70.
Ooi, T., & He, Z. (1999). Binocular rivalry and visual awareness: The role of attention. Perception, 28, 551-574.
71.
Ooi, T., & Loop, M. (1994). Visual suppression and its effect upon color and luminance sensitivity. Vision Research, 34, 2997-3003.
72.
O'Shea, R. (1987). Chronometric analysis supports fusion rather than suppression theory of binocular vision. Vision Research, 27, 781-791.
73.
O'Shea, R., Blake, R., & Wolfe, J. (1994). Binocular rivalry and fusion under scotopic luminance . Perception, 23, 771-784.
74.
O'Shea, R., & Crassini, B. (1984). Binocular rivalry occurs without simultaneous presentation of rival stimuli. Perception and Psychophysics , 36, 266-276.
75.
O'Shea, R., Sims,A., & Govan, D. (1997). The effect of spatial frequency and field size on the spread of exclusive visibility in binocular rivalry. Vision Research, 37, 175-183.
76.
Patterson, R. (1990). Spatiotemporal properties of stereoacuity. Optometry and Vision Science, 67, 123-128.
77.
Patterson, R., Winterbottom, M., & Pierce, B. (2006). Perceptual issues in the use of head-mounted visual displays. Human Factors, 48, 555-573.
78.
Peli, E. (1990). Visual issues in the use of a head-mounted monocular display. Optical Engineering, 29, 883-892.
79.
Peli, E. (1998). The visual effects of head-mounted display (HMD) are not distinguishable from those of desk-top computer display. Vision Research, 38, 2053-2066.
80.
Peli, E. (1999). Optometric and perceptual issues with head-mounted display (HMD). In P. Mouroulis (Ed.), Visual instrumentation: Optical design and engineering principles (pp. 205-276). New York: McGraw-Hill.
81.
Rash, E., Verona, R., & Crowley, J. (1990). Human factors and safety considerations of night vision systems flight using thermal imaging systems. Proceedings of SPIE: Helmet-Mounted Displays II, 1290, 142-164.
82.
Rolland, J., Biocca, F., Hamza-Lup, F., Ha, Y., & Martins, R. (2005). Development of head-mounted projection displays for distributed, collaborative, augmented reality applications. Presence, 14, 528-549.
83.
Schall, J., Nawrot, M., Blake, R., & Yu, K. (1993). Visual guided attention is neutralized when informative cues are visible but unperceived. Vision Research, 33, 2057-2064.
84.
Shimojo, S., & Nakayama, K. (1990). Real world occlusion constraints and binocular rivalry. Vision Research, 30, 69-80.
85.
Smith, E., Levi, D., Harwerth, R. & White, J. (1982). Color vision is altered during the suppression phase of binocular rivalry. Science, 218, 802-804.
86.
van Dam, L., & van Ee, R. (2006). The role of saccades in exerting voluntary control in perceptual and binocular rivalry. Vision Research, 46, 787-799.
87.
Velger, M. (1998). Helmet-mounted displays and sights. Boston, MA: Artech House.
88.
Wade, N., de Weert, C., & Swanston, M. (1984). Binocular rivalry with moving patterns. Perception and Psychophysics, 35, 111-122.
89.
Wales, R., & Fox, R. (1970). Increment detection thresholds during binocular rivalry suppression. Perception and Psychophysics, 8, 90-94.
90.
Walker, P. (1975). The subliminal perception of movement and the "suppression" in binocular rivalry. British Journal of Psychology , 66, 347-356.
91.
Walker, P., & Powell, D. (1979). The sensitivity of binocular rivalry to changes in the nondominant stimulus. Vision Research, 19, 247-249.
92.
Washburn, M., Faison, C., & Scott, R. (1934). A comparison between the Miles A-B-C method and retinal rivalry as tests of ocular dominance. American Journal of Psychology, 46, 633-636.
93.
Wenzel, B., Castillo, A., & Baker, G. (2002). Assessment of the virtual environment safe-for-maintenance trainer (VEST) (Tech. Rep. AFRL-HE-AZ-TP-2002-0011). Mesa, AZ: Air Force Research Laboratory.
94.
Winterbottom, M., Patterson, R., Covas, C., Rogers, J., & Pierce, B. (2006). Binocular rivalry and attention in helmet-mounted display applications. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 50th Annual Meeting (pp. 2061-2066). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
95.
Winterbottom, M., Patterson, R., Pierce, B., &Taylor, A. (2006). Visual suppression of monocularly presented symbology against a fused background in simulation and training environment. Proceedings of SPIE: Helmet- and Head-Mounted Displays XI: Technologies and Applications, 6224, 2.1-2.10.
96.
Wolfe, J. (1986). Stereopsis and binocular rivalry. Psychological Review, 93, 269-282.
97.
Yang, Y., Rose, D., & Blake, R. (1992). On the variety of percepts associated with dichoptic viewing of dissimilar monocular stimuli. Perception, 21, 47-62.
98.
Yeh, M., & Wickens, C. (2001). Display signaling in augmented reality: Effects of cue reliability and image realism on attention allocation and trust calibration . Human Factors, 43, 355-365.
99.
Yu, K., & Blake, R. (1992). Do recognizable figures enjoy an advantage in binocular rivalry? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 1158-1173.
100.
Zimba, L., & Blake, R. (1983). Binocular rivalry and semantic processing: Out of sight, out of mind. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 9, 807-815.
