The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Vergence–accommodation conflicts hinder visual performance and cause visual fatigue
Open accessAbstract
Three-dimensional (3D) displays have become important for many applications including vision research, operation of remote devices, medical imaging, surgical training, scientific visualization, virtual prototyping, and more. In many of these applications, it is important for the graphic image to create a faithful impression of the 3D structure of the portrayed object or scene. Unfortunately, 3D displays often yield distortions in perceived 3D structure compared with the percepts of the real scenes the displays depict. A likely cause of such distortions is the fact that computer displays present images on one surface. Thus, focus cues-accommodation and blur in the retinal image-specify the depth of the display rather than the depths in the depicted scene. Additionally, the uncoupling of vergence and accommodation required by 3D displays frequently reduces one's ability to fuse the binocular stimulus and causes discomfort and fatigue for the viewer. We have developed a novel 3D display that presents focus cues that are correct or nearly correct for the depicted scene. We used this display to evaluate the influence of focus cues on perceptual distortions, fusion failures, and fatigue. We show that when focus cues are correct or nearly correct, (1) the time required to identify a stereoscopic stimulus is reduced, (2) stereoacuity in a time-limited task is increased, (3) distortions in perceived depth are reduced, and (4) viewer fatigue and discomfort are reduced. We discuss the implications of this work for vision research and the design and use of displays.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Slant from texture and disparity cues: Optimal cue combination
Hillis, J. M., Watt, S. J., Landy, M. S., & Banks, M. S. (2004) · Journal of Vision · doi:10.1167/4.12.1 · Cited by 421
Self-citationHowarth, P. A., & Costello, P. J. (1997) · Displays · doi:10.1016/s0141-9382(97)00011-5 · Cited by 171
Cited by
State of the art of virtual reality technology
Anthes, C., Garcia-Hernandez, R. J., Wiedemann, M., & Kranzlmuller, D. (2016) · 2016 IEEE Aerospace Conference · doi:10.1109/aero.2016.7500674 · Cited by 541
Eye tracking in virtual reality
Clay, V., König, P., & König, S. U. (2019) · Journal of Eye Movement Research · doi:10.16910/jemr.12.1.3 · Cited by 412
Eye Tracking in Virtual Reality: a Broad Review of Applications and Challenges
Adhanom, I. B., MacNeilage, P., & Folmer, E. (2023) · Virtual Reality · doi:10.1007/s10055-022-00738-z · Cited by 325
A review of virtual environments for training in ball sports
Miles, H. C., Pop, S. R., Watt, S. J., Lawrence, G. P., & John, N. W. (2012) · Computers & Graphics · doi:10.1016/j.cag.2012.04.007 · Cited by 270
Metadata
- Authors
- Hoffman, D. M., Girshick, A. R., Akeley, K., & Banks, M. S.
- Venue
- Journal of Vision
- Published
- 2008-03-28
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 33
- ISSN
- 1534-7362 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1991012411
- Cited by
- 1,625
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 122.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Vergence–accommodation conflicts hinder visual performance and cause visual fatigue. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1167/8.3.33
- The paper
- Hoffman, D. M., Girshick, A. R., Akeley, K., & Banks, M. S. (2008). Vergence–accommodation conflicts hinder visual performance and cause visual fatigue. Journal of Vision. https://doi.org/10.1167/8.3.33
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.