Predictive tracking: Difference between revisions
Xinreality (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tag: Reverted |
Xinreality (talk | contribs) Undo revision 34821 by Xinreality (talk) Tag: Undo |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{stub}} | ||
==Introduction== | ==Introduction== | ||
[[Predictive tracking]] is a fundamental technique used in both [[augmented reality]] (AR) and [[virtual reality]] (VR) systems that anticipates where a user's body parts or viewing direction will be in the near future. This computational method works by analyzing current motion patterns, velocity, and acceleration to estimate future positions before they occur<ref name="LaValle2016"></ref>. For example, when a VR game needs to display your virtual hand's position, it doesn't simply render where your hand currently is—it predicts where your hand will be several milliseconds in the future. | [[Predictive tracking]] is a fundamental technique used in both [[augmented reality]] (AR) and [[virtual reality]] (VR) systems that anticipates where a user's body parts or viewing direction will be in the near future. This computational method works by analyzing current motion patterns, velocity, and acceleration to estimate future positions before they occur<ref name="LaValle2016"></ref>. For example, when a VR game needs to display your virtual hand's position, it doesn't simply render where your hand currently is—it predicts where your hand will be several milliseconds in the future. | ||
The primary purpose of predictive tracking is to combat [[latency]] issues inherent in AR and VR systems. Without predictive algorithms, users would experience a noticeable delay between their physical movements and the corresponding visual feedback on their displays. This delay creates a disconnection that not only diminishes the sense of [[immersion]] but can also contribute to [[motion sickness]] and general discomfort<ref name="Abrash2014"></ref>. Through predictive tracking, the system estimates your future orientation and position based on your current input data, significantly reducing perceived | The primary purpose of predictive tracking is to combat [[latency]] issues inherent in AR and VR systems. Without predictive algorithms, users would experience a noticeable delay between their physical movements and the corresponding visual feedback on their displays. This delay creates a disconnection that not only diminishes the sense of [[immersion]] but can also contribute to [[motion sickness]] and general discomfort<ref name="Abrash2014"></ref>. Through predictive tracking, the system estimates your future orientation and position based on your current input data, significantly reducing perceived latency and creating a more natural and responsive experience. | ||
While much attention has traditionally focused on VR applications, predictive tracking is equally crucial for AR systems. In AR environments, graphical overlays must remain precisely aligned with real-world objects even as users move through space. These virtual elements must maintain their relative positions accurately, giving the illusion that they exist within the physical environment. Predictive tracking allows the [[graphics processing unit]] (GPU) to anticipate user movement and maintain proper alignment of virtual objects with physical ones, preserving the illusion of augmented space<ref name="Azuma1997"></ref>. | While much attention has traditionally focused on VR applications, predictive tracking is equally crucial for AR systems. In AR environments, graphical overlays must remain precisely aligned with real-world objects even as users move through space. These virtual elements must maintain their relative positions accurately, giving the illusion that they exist within the physical environment. Predictive tracking allows the [[graphics processing unit]] (GPU) to anticipate user movement and maintain proper alignment of virtual objects with physical ones, preserving the illusion of augmented space<ref name="Azuma1997"></ref>. | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
==History and Development== | ==History and Development== | ||
The concept of predictive tracking has roots in early [[computer vision]] and [[human-computer interaction]] research dating back to the 1990s | The concept of predictive tracking has roots in early [[computer vision]] and [[human-computer interaction]] research dating back to the 1990s. However, its critical importance for immersive technologies became apparent with the resurgence of consumer VR in the early 2010s<ref name="Oculus2013"></ref>. Early VR prototypes suffered from significant motion-to-photon latency issues, making predictive algorithms essential for creating viable consumer products. | ||
[[John Carmack]], while working as CTO at Oculus, popularized the implementation of predictive tracking algorithms in consumer VR and emphasized their importance in reducing perceived latency. His work on "timewarp," a rendering technique that incorporates prediction to update images just before display, became fundamental to modern VR systems<ref name="Carmack2013"></ref>. | [[John Carmack]], while working as CTO at Oculus, popularized the implementation of predictive tracking algorithms in consumer VR and emphasized their importance in reducing perceived latency. His work on "timewarp," a rendering technique that incorporates prediction to update images just before display, became fundamental to modern VR systems<ref name="Carmack2013"></ref>. | ||
As VR hardware evolved from external camera tracking to [[inside-out tracking]] systems, predictive algorithms grew more sophisticated. The introduction of high-precision [[inertial measurement units]] (IMUs) with multiple accelerometers and gyroscopes provided better data for prediction models. By 2016, major VR platforms had incorporated advanced predictive tracking as a standard feature, with continuous improvements focusing on edge cases like rapid acceleration and sudden direction changes<ref name="Yao2014 | As VR hardware evolved from external camera tracking to [[inside-out tracking]] systems, predictive algorithms grew more sophisticated. The introduction of high-precision [[inertial measurement units]] (IMUs) with multiple accelerometers and gyroscopes provided better data for prediction models. By 2016, major VR platforms had incorporated advanced predictive tracking as a standard feature, with continuous improvements focusing on edge cases like rapid acceleration and sudden direction changes<ref name="Yao2014"></ref>. | ||
== | ==Latency Sources== | ||
Understanding the sources of latency in AR and VR systems is crucial to implementing effective predictive tracking solutions. A specialized device known as a [[latency tester]] measures "motion-to-photon" latency within a headset—the time delay between physical movement and the corresponding visual update on the display. The longer this delay, the more uncomfortable and less immersive the experience becomes. | Understanding the sources of latency in AR and VR systems is crucial to implementing effective predictive tracking solutions. A specialized device known as a [[latency tester]] measures "motion-to-photon" latency within a headset—the time delay between physical movement and the corresponding visual update on the display. The longer this delay, the more uncomfortable and less immersive the experience becomes. | ||
Several distinct factors contribute to | Several distinct factors contribute to the overall system latency: | ||
*'''Processing Delay''' - The time required to process sensor data through prediction algorithms can add significant latency if not optimized properly. This includes data acquisition from sensors, filtering operations, and running the prediction algorithms themselves<ref name="Carmack2015"></ref>. | |||
*'''Processing Delay''' - The time required to process sensor data through prediction algorithms can add significant latency if not optimized properly. This includes data acquisition from sensors, filtering operations, and running the prediction algorithms themselves<ref name="Carmack2015"></ref> | |||
*'''Rendering Delays''' - Complex scene rendering requires extensive computational resources as the processor works to position every pixel correctly, particularly in high-resolution VR displays. Modern VR headsets with 4K or higher resolution per eye place enormous demands on GPUs, potentially introducing render queue delays<ref name="Vlachos2015"></ref>. | *'''Rendering Delays''' - Complex scene rendering requires extensive computational resources as the processor works to position every pixel correctly, particularly in high-resolution VR displays. Modern VR headsets with 4K or higher resolution per eye place enormous demands on GPUs, potentially introducing render queue delays<ref name="Vlachos2015"></ref>. | ||
*'''Data Smoothing''' - Sensor data inherently contains noise that must be filtered to prevent jittery visuals. Low-level smoothing algorithms reduce this noise but can introduce latency as they need to sample data over time to generate smoothed outputs<ref name=" | *'''Data Smoothing''' - Sensor data inherently contains noise that must be filtered to prevent jittery visuals. Low-level smoothing algorithms reduce this noise but can introduce latency as they need to sample data over time to generate smoothed outputs<ref name="LaValle2014"></ref>. | ||
*'''Framerate Delays''' - When framerates drop below the display's refresh rate (typically 90-120Hz for modern VR systems), the system must wait for frame completion before updating the display. These delays are particularly noticeable during computationally intensive scenes<ref name="Abrash2015"></ref>. | *'''Framerate Delays''' - When framerates drop below the display's refresh rate (typically 90-120Hz for modern VR systems), the system must wait for frame completion before updating the display. These delays are particularly noticeable during computationally intensive scenes<ref name="Abrash2015"></ref>. | ||
*'''Sensing Delays''' - [[Camera sensors]] and optical tracking systems experience inherent delays due to exposure time, data transfer, and processing. For optical tracking systems that rely on infrared or visible light reflections from tracked objects, these delays can be particularly significant<ref name="McGill2015"></ref>. | *'''Sensing Delays''' - [[Camera sensors]] and optical tracking systems experience inherent delays due to exposure time, data transfer, and processing. For optical tracking systems that rely on infrared or visible light reflections from tracked objects, these delays can be particularly significant<ref name="McGill2015"></ref>. | ||
*'''Display Persistence''' - Traditional LCD displays hold each pixel in its state until updated, creating a smearing effect during head movement. While modern VR displays use low-persistence OLED or LCD technology that reduces this effect, there's still a small but measurable delay between when pixels receive new information and when they fully change state<ref name="Abrash2013"></ref>. | *'''Display Persistence''' - Traditional LCD displays hold each pixel in its state until updated, creating a smearing effect during head movement. While modern VR displays use low-persistence OLED or LCD technology that reduces this effect, there's still a small but measurable delay between when pixels receive new information and when they fully change state<ref name="Abrash2013"></ref>. | ||
| Line 49: | Line 37: | ||
While each of these delays contributes to the overall latency budget, predictive tracking specifically targets the combined effect by anticipating future positions and orientations. Effective predictive algorithms can significantly reduce perceived latency, though they cannot eliminate it entirely. | While each of these delays contributes to the overall latency budget, predictive tracking specifically targets the combined effect by anticipating future positions and orientations. Effective predictive algorithms can significantly reduce perceived latency, though they cannot eliminate it entirely. | ||
==How | ==How Far Should It Predict into the Future?== | ||
The appropriate prediction time horizon varies based on several system-specific factors. The starting point for calibrating prediction time is typically to measure the end-to-end latency of the entire system and then optimize prediction parameters accordingly. | |||
In practice, predictive tracking often needs to account for multiple future time points simultaneously for several reasons: | In practice, predictive tracking often needs to account for multiple future time points simultaneously for several reasons: | ||
| Line 76: | Line 51: | ||
*'''Activity-Specific Tuning''' - Different applications may require different prediction parameters. A fast-paced VR game might benefit from more aggressive prediction to handle rapid movements, while a precision CAD application might use more conservative prediction to prioritize accuracy over responsiveness<ref name="Sutherland2018"></ref>. | *'''Activity-Specific Tuning''' - Different applications may require different prediction parameters. A fast-paced VR game might benefit from more aggressive prediction to handle rapid movements, while a precision CAD application might use more conservative prediction to prioritize accuracy over responsiveness<ref name="Sutherland2018"></ref>. | ||
Typical prediction horizons in contemporary VR and AR systems range from 20 to 50 milliseconds, though this can vary based on all the factors mentioned above. Generally, the prediction horizon should roughly match the system's motion-to-photon latency, with some adjustments based on empirical testing and user feedback. | Typical prediction horizons in contemporary VR and AR systems range from 20 to 50 milliseconds, though this can vary based on all the factors mentioned above. Generally, the prediction horizon should roughly match the system's motion-to-photon latency, with some adjustments based on empirical testing and user feedback. | ||
| Line 87: | Line 57: | ||
Several predictive tracking algorithms have become standard in the AR and VR industry, each with its own strengths and limitations: | Several predictive tracking algorithms have become standard in the AR and VR industry, each with its own strengths and limitations: | ||
*''' | *'''Alpha-Beta-Gamma (ABG) Filter''' - This predictor continuously estimates acceleration and velocity to forecast future positions. Unlike more complex filters, ABG uses minimal historical data, making it computationally efficient but potentially less accurate for complex movements. It prioritizes responsiveness over noise reduction, making it suitable for scenarios where quick reaction time is critical<ref name="Faragher2012"></ref>. | ||
*''' | *'''Dead Reckoning''' - A straightforward algorithm that extrapolates future positions based on the current position and velocity, assuming constant velocity. While computationally inexpensive, dead reckoning's accuracy degrades quickly when users change direction or speed, making it primarily useful as a fallback method or for very short prediction horizons<ref name="Welch2002"></ref>. | ||
*''' | *'''Kalman Filter and Extended Kalman Filter''' - Derived from control theory, these sophisticated algorithms balance noise reduction with accurate prediction by continuously updating a statistical model of system behavior. The standard Kalman filter works well for linear movements, while the Extended Kalman Filter (EKF) handles nonlinear motion patterns common in human movement. While computationally more demanding than simpler methods, Kalman-based approaches provide superior accuracy for complex movements and have become industry standards<ref name="Welch2006"></ref>. | ||
*''' | *'''Particle Filters''' - For highly unpredictable movements, particle filters (also known as Sequential Monte Carlo methods) maintain multiple possible future trajectories simultaneously, weighted by probability. These are particularly useful for hand tracking and gesture recognition where movements can be erratic and multi-modal<ref name="Isard1998"></ref>. | ||
*'''Double Exponential Smoothing''' - This statistical technique gives more weight to recent observations while still considering historical data. It's particularly effective for tracking movements with gradual acceleration or deceleration patterns, such as head rotations that naturally speed up and slow down<ref name="LaViola2003"></ref>. | *'''Double Exponential Smoothing''' - This statistical technique gives more weight to recent observations while still considering historical data. It's particularly effective for tracking movements with gradual acceleration or deceleration patterns, such as head rotations that naturally speed up and slow down<ref name="LaViola2003"></ref>. | ||
*''' | *'''Artificial Neural Networks''' - Modern AR and VR systems increasingly incorporate machine learning approaches to prediction. Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs) and Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks can learn complex patterns in human movement, potentially outperforming traditional algorithms for users with consistent movement styles. These approaches require training data but can adapt to individual users over time<ref name="Orozco2019"></ref>. | ||
*'''Hybrid Approaches''' - State-of-the-art predictive tracking often combines multiple algorithms, using fast methods for immediate response and more sophisticated algorithms to refine predictions. For example, a system might use dead reckoning for immediate feedback while a Kalman filter computes a more accurate prediction in parallel<ref name="Greer2020"></ref>. | *'''Hybrid Approaches''' - State-of-the-art predictive tracking often combines multiple algorithms, using fast methods for immediate response and more sophisticated algorithms to refine predictions. For example, a system might use dead reckoning for immediate feedback while a Kalman filter computes a more accurate prediction in parallel<ref name="Greer2020"></ref>. | ||
Selection of the appropriate algorithm depends on hardware capabilities, movement characteristics, and application requirements. Modern commercial systems often implement proprietary variants that combine elements from multiple approaches, optimized for specific hardware platforms. | Selection of the appropriate algorithm depends on hardware capabilities, movement characteristics, and application requirements. Modern commercial systems often implement proprietary variants that combine elements from multiple approaches, optimized for specific hardware platforms. | ||
==Implementation Considerations== | ==Implementation Considerations== | ||
| Line 149: | Line 87: | ||
*'''Platform-Specific Tuning''' - Different hardware platforms have unique latency characteristics that affect prediction requirements. Mobile VR systems typically have higher latency than tethered systems, requiring more aggressive prediction, while high-end PC-based systems may use more conservative approaches that prioritize stability<ref name="Google2019"></ref>. | *'''Platform-Specific Tuning''' - Different hardware platforms have unique latency characteristics that affect prediction requirements. Mobile VR systems typically have higher latency than tethered systems, requiring more aggressive prediction, while high-end PC-based systems may use more conservative approaches that prioritize stability<ref name="Google2019"></ref>. | ||
Effective implementation requires balancing these considerations against the specific requirements of the target application and hardware platform. | Effective implementation requires balancing these considerations against the specific requirements of the target application and hardware platform. | ||
| Line 185: | Line 121: | ||
*'''Platform Diversity''' - The wide range of AR and VR hardware platforms creates challenges for developers implementing prediction algorithms. Each platform has unique sensors, processing capabilities, and display technologies that affect optimal prediction parameters. Cross-platform applications must adapt to these differences or risk inconsistent experiences<ref name="Bowman2007"></ref>. | *'''Platform Diversity''' - The wide range of AR and VR hardware platforms creates challenges for developers implementing prediction algorithms. Each platform has unique sensors, processing capabilities, and display technologies that affect optimal prediction parameters. Cross-platform applications must adapt to these differences or risk inconsistent experiences<ref name="Bowman2007"></ref>. | ||
Researchers and developers continue to address these challenges through more sophisticated algorithms, improved hardware, and adaptive approaches that dynamically adjust to changing conditions. | Researchers and developers continue to address these challenges through more sophisticated algorithms, improved hardware, and adaptive approaches that dynamically adjust to changing conditions. | ||
| Line 206: | Line 138: | ||
*'''Cross-Device Standardization''' - As the industry matures, standardized predictive tracking APIs and metrics may emerge, allowing developers to create consistent experiences across platforms while leveraging platform-specific optimizations behind standardized interfaces<ref name="Khronos2017"></ref>. | *'''Cross-Device Standardization''' - As the industry matures, standardized predictive tracking APIs and metrics may emerge, allowing developers to create consistent experiences across platforms while leveraging platform-specific optimizations behind standardized interfaces<ref name="Khronos2017"></ref>. | ||
These advancements promise to further reduce perceived latency, improve tracking accuracy, and enhance the overall quality of AR and VR experiences across all application domains. | These advancements promise to further reduce perceived latency, improve tracking accuracy, and enhance the overall quality of AR and VR experiences across all application domains. | ||
| Line 229: | Line 157: | ||
Each of these techniques addresses different aspects of the overall tracking and rendering pipeline. A state-of-the-art AR or VR system typically combines multiple approaches, with predictive tracking serving as a central component that ties together many other optimizations. | Each of these techniques addresses different aspects of the overall tracking and rendering pipeline. A state-of-the-art AR or VR system typically combines multiple approaches, with predictive tracking serving as a central component that ties together many other optimizations. | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
| Line 249: | Line 163: | ||
<ref name="Abrash2014">Abrash, M. (2014). "What VR Could, Should, and Almost Certainly Will Be Within Two Years." Steam Dev Days, Seattle.</ref> | <ref name="Abrash2014">Abrash, M. (2014). "What VR Could, Should, and Almost Certainly Will Be Within Two Years." Steam Dev Days, Seattle.</ref> | ||
<ref name="Azuma1997">Azuma, R. T. (1997). "A Survey of Augmented Reality." Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 6(4), pp. 355-385.</ref> | <ref name="Azuma1997">Azuma, R. T. (1997). "A Survey of Augmented Reality." Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 6(4), pp. 355-385.</ref> | ||
<ref name="Oculus2013">Oculus VR (2013). "Measuring Latency in Virtual Reality Systems." Oculus Developer Documentation.</ref> | <ref name="Oculus2013">Oculus VR (2013). "Measuring Latency in Virtual Reality Systems." Oculus Developer Documentation.</ref> | ||
<ref name="Carmack2013">Carmack, J. (2013). "Latency Mitigation Strategies." Oculus Connect Keynote.</ref> | <ref name="Carmack2013">Carmack, J. (2013). "Latency Mitigation Strategies." Oculus Connect Keynote.</ref> | ||
<ref name="Yao2014">Yao, R., Heath, T., Davies, A., Forsyth, T., Mitchell, N., & Hoberman, P. (2014). "Oculus VR Best Practices Guide." Oculus VR.</ref> | <ref name="Yao2014">Yao, R., Heath, T., Davies, A., Forsyth, T., Mitchell, N., & Hoberman, P. (2014). "Oculus VR Best Practices Guide." Oculus VR.</ref> | ||
<ref name="Carmack2015">Carmack, J. (2015). "The Oculus Rift, Oculus Touch, and VR Games at E3." Oculus Blog.</ref> | <ref name="Carmack2015">Carmack, J. (2015). "The Oculus Rift, Oculus Touch, and VR Games at E3." Oculus Blog.</ref> | ||
<ref name="Vlachos2015">Vlachos, A. (2015). "Advanced VR Rendering." Game Developers Conference.</ref> | <ref name="Vlachos2015">Vlachos, A. (2015). "Advanced VR Rendering." Game Developers Conference.</ref> | ||
<ref name=" | <ref name="LaValle2014">LaValle, S. M., Yershova, A., Katsev, M., & Antonov, M. (2014). "Head tracking for the Oculus Rift." IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 187-194.</ref> | ||
<ref name="Abrash2015">Abrash, M. (2015). "Why Virtual Reality Isn't (Just) the Next Big Platform." Oculus Connect 2 Keynote.</ref> | <ref name="Abrash2015">Abrash, M. (2015). "Why Virtual Reality Isn't (Just) the Next Big Platform." Oculus Connect 2 Keynote.</ref> | ||
<ref name="McGill2015">McGill, M., Boland, D., Murray-Smith, R., & Brewster, S. (2015). "A Dose of Reality: Overcoming Usability Challenges in VR Head-Mounted Displays." Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 2143-2152.</ref> | <ref name="McGill2015">McGill, M., Boland, D., Murray-Smith, R., & Brewster, S. (2015). "A Dose of Reality: Overcoming Usability Challenges in VR Head-Mounted Displays." Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 2143-2152.</ref> | ||
<ref name="Abrash2013">Abrash, M. (2013). "Down the VR Rabbit Hole: Fixing Latency in Virtual Reality." Game Developers Conference.</ref> | <ref name="Abrash2013">Abrash, M. (2013). "Down the VR Rabbit Hole: Fixing Latency in Virtual Reality." Game Developers Conference.</ref> | ||
<ref name="Xu2018">Xu, R., Chen, S., Han, Y., & Wu, D. (2018). "Achieving Low Latency Mobile Cloud Gaming Through Frame Dropping and Extrapolation." IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 28(8), pp. 1932-1946.</ref> | <ref name="Xu2018">Xu, R., Chen, S., Han, Y., & Wu, D. (2018). "Achieving Low Latency Mobile Cloud Gaming Through Frame Dropping and Extrapolation." IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 28(8), pp. 1932-1946.</ref> | ||
<ref name="Livingston2008">Livingston, M. A., & Ai, Z. (2008). "The Effect of Registration Error on Tracking Distant Augmented Objects." Proceedings of the 7th IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality, pp. 77-86.</ref> | <ref name="Livingston2008">Livingston, M. A., & Ai, Z. (2008). "The Effect of Registration Error on Tracking Distant Augmented Objects." Proceedings of the 7th IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality, pp. 77-86.</ref> | ||
<ref name="Jerald2009">Jerald, J., & Whitton, M. (2009). "Relating Scene-Motion Thresholds to Latency Thresholds for Head-Mounted Displays." IEEE Virtual Reality Conference, pp. 211-218.</ref> | <ref name="Jerald2009">Jerald, J., & Whitton, M. (2009). "Relating Scene-Motion Thresholds to Latency Thresholds for Head-Mounted Displays." IEEE Virtual Reality Conference, pp. 211-218.</ref> | ||
| Line 274: | Line 178: | ||
<ref name="Kennedy1993">Kennedy, R. S., Lane, N. E., Berbaum, K. S., & Lilienthal, M. G. (1993). "Simulator Sickness Questionnaire: An Enhanced Method for Quantifying Simulator Sickness." The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 3(3), pp. 203-220.</ref> | <ref name="Kennedy1993">Kennedy, R. S., Lane, N. E., Berbaum, K. S., & Lilienthal, M. G. (1993). "Simulator Sickness Questionnaire: An Enhanced Method for Quantifying Simulator Sickness." The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 3(3), pp. 203-220.</ref> | ||
<ref name="Sutherland2018">Sutherland, M., & Sutherland, J. (2018). "Adaptation in XR Experiences." SIGGRAPH Asia Technical Briefs, Article 29.</ref> | <ref name="Sutherland2018">Sutherland, M., & Sutherland, J. (2018). "Adaptation in XR Experiences." SIGGRAPH Asia Technical Briefs, Article 29.</ref> | ||
<ref name="Faragher2012">Faragher, R. (2012). "Understanding the Basis of the Kalman Filter Via a Simple and Intuitive Derivation." IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 29(5), pp. 128-132.</ref> | <ref name="Faragher2012">Faragher, R. (2012). "Understanding the Basis of the Kalman Filter Via a Simple and Intuitive Derivation." IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 29(5), pp. 128-132.</ref> | ||
<ref name=" | <ref name="Welch2002">Welch, G., & Foxlin, E. (2002). "Motion Tracking: No Silver Bullet, but a Respectable Arsenal." IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 22(6), pp. 24-38.</ref> | ||
<ref name=" | <ref name="Welch2006">Welch, G., & Bishop, G. (2006). "An Introduction to the Kalman Filter." University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Department of Computer Science, Technical Report 95-041.</ref> | ||
<ref name=" | <ref name="Isard1998">Isard, M., & Blake, A. (1998). "CONDENSATION—Conditional Density Propagation for Visual Tracking." International Journal of Computer Vision, 29(1), pp. 5-28.</ref> | ||
<ref name="LaViola2003">LaViola, J. J. (2003). "Double Exponential Smoothing: An Alternative to Kalman Filter-Based Predictive Tracking." Proceedings of the Workshop on Virtual Environments, pp. 199-206.</ref> | <ref name="LaViola2003">LaViola, J. J. (2003). "Double Exponential Smoothing: An Alternative to Kalman Filter-Based Predictive Tracking." Proceedings of the Workshop on Virtual Environments, pp. 199-206.</ref> | ||
<ref name=" | <ref name="Orozco2019">Orozco Gómez, D., & Malkani, A. (2019). "Deep Learning for Movement Prediction in Mixed Reality." Microsoft Research Technical Report.</ref> | ||
<ref name="Greer2020">Greer, J., & Johnson, K. (2020). "Multi-modal Prediction for XR Tracking." IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR), pp. 161-170.</ref> | <ref name="Greer2020">Greer, J., & Johnson, K. (2020). "Multi-modal Prediction for XR Tracking." IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR), pp. 161-170.</ref> | ||
<ref name="Olsson2011">Olsson, T., & Salo, M. (2011). "Narratives of Satisfying and Unsatisfying Experiences of Current Mobile Augmented Reality Applications." Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 2779-2788.</ref> | <ref name="Olsson2011">Olsson, T., & Salo, M. (2011). "Narratives of Satisfying and Unsatisfying Experiences of Current Mobile Augmented Reality Applications." Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 2779-2788.</ref> | ||
<ref name="Koulieris2017">Koulieris, G. A., Bui, B., Banks, M. S., & Drettakis, G. (2017). "Accommodation and Comfort in Head-Mounted Displays." ACM Transactions on Graphics, 36(4), Article 87.</ref> | <ref name="Koulieris2017">Koulieris, G. A., Bui, B., Banks, M. S., & Drettakis, G. (2017). "Accommodation and Comfort in Head-Mounted Displays." ACM Transactions on Graphics, 36(4), Article 87.</ref> | ||
| Line 293: | Line 191: | ||
<ref name="Stanney1997">Stanney, K. M., Kennedy, R. S., & Drexler, J. M. (1997). "Cybersickness is Not Simulator Sickness." Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 41(2), pp. 1138-1142.</ref> | <ref name="Stanney1997">Stanney, K. M., Kennedy, R. S., & Drexler, J. M. (1997). "Cybersickness is Not Simulator Sickness." Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 41(2), pp. 1138-1142.</ref> | ||
<ref name="Google2019">Google (2019). "Designing for Google Cardboard." Google Developers Documentation.</ref> | <ref name="Google2019">Google (2019). "Designing for Google Cardboard." Google Developers Documentation.</ref> | ||
<ref name="Seymour2002">Seymour, N. E., Gallagher, A. G., Roman, S. A., O'Brien, M. K., Bansal, V. K., Andersen, D. K., & Satava, R. M. (2002). "Virtual Reality Training Improves Operating Room Performance: Results of a Randomized, Double-Blinded Study." Annals of Surgery, 236(4), pp. 458-464.</ref> | <ref name="Seymour2002">Seymour, N. E., Gallagher, A. G., Roman, S. A., O'Brien, M. K., Bansal, V. K., Andersen, D. K., & Satava, R. M. (2002). "Virtual Reality Training Improves Operating Room Performance: Results of a Randomized, Double-Blinded Study." Annals of Surgery, 236(4), pp. 458-464.</ref> | ||
<ref name="Bae2013">Bae, H., Golparvar-Fard, M., & White, J. (2013). "High-Precision Vision-Based Mobile Augmented Reality System for Context-Aware Architectural, Engineering, Construction and Facility Management (AEC/FM) Applications." Visualization in Engineering, 1(1), pp. 1-13.</ref> | <ref name="Bae2013">Bae, H., Golparvar-Fard, M., & White, J. (2013). "High-Precision Vision-Based Mobile Augmented Reality System for Context-Aware Architectural, Engineering, Construction and Facility Management (AEC/FM) Applications." Visualization in Engineering, 1(1), pp. 1-13.</ref> | ||
| Line 312: | Line 209: | ||
<ref name="Campbell2018">Campbell, J., McSorley, K., & Bergstrom, I. (2018). "Specialized Processing Units for Real-Time VR Tracking." GPU Technology Conference.</ref> | <ref name="Campbell2018">Campbell, J., McSorley, K., & Bergstrom, I. (2018). "Specialized Processing Units for Real-Time VR Tracking." GPU Technology Conference.</ref> | ||
<ref name="Khronos2017">Khronos Group (2017). "OpenXR Specification." Khronos Group Technical Documentation.</ref> | <ref name="Khronos2017">Khronos Group (2017). "OpenXR Specification." Khronos Group Technical Documentation.</ref> | ||
<ref name="Beeler2016">Beeler, D., Hutchins, E., & Pedriana, P. (2016). "Asynchronous Spacewarp." Oculus Connect 3 Technical Presentation.</ref> | <ref name="Beeler2016">Beeler, D., Hutchins, E., & Pedriana, P. (2016). "Asynchronous Spacewarp." Oculus Connect 3 Technical Presentation.</ref> | ||
<ref name="Patney2016">Patney, A., Salvi, M., Kim, J., Kaplanyan, A., Wyman, C., Benty, N., ... & Lefohn, A. (2016). "Towards Foveated Rendering for Gaze-Tracked Virtual Reality." ACM Transactions on Graphics, 35(6), Article 179.</ref> | <ref name="Patney2016">Patney, A., Salvi, M., Kim, J., Kaplanyan, A., Wyman, C., Benty, N., ... & Lefohn, A. (2016). "Towards Foveated Rendering for Gaze-Tracked Virtual Reality." ACM Transactions on Graphics, 35(6), Article 179.</ref> | ||
| Line 321: | Line 217: | ||
</references> | </references> | ||
[[Category:Terms]] | [[Category:Terms]] [[Category:Technical Terms]] | ||
[[Category:Technical Terms | |||