Jump to content

Depth cue

From VR & AR Wiki
See also: Terms and Technical Terms

Depth cue is any of a variety of perceptual signals that allow the human visual system to infer the distance or depth of objects in a scene, enabling the brain to transform two-dimensional retinal images into a perception of three-dimensional space. [1] These cues are crucial for navigating the three-dimensional world and are fundamental to creating convincing, immersive, and comfortable experiences in Virtual Reality (VR) and Augmented Reality (AR), where reproducing accurate depth perception presents significant technical challenges. [2] The brain automatically fuses multiple available depth cues to build a robust model of the spatial layout of the environment. [3]

Classification of Depth Cues

Depth cues are typically classified based on whether they require input from one or both eyes:

  • Binocular Cues: These cues rely on the slightly different perspectives provided by the two eyes, or the state of the eyes themselves.
  • Monocular Cues: These cues can be perceived with only one eye and include:
    • Physiological Cues: Related to the physical state or action of the eye(s).
    • Pictorial Cues: Static cues that can be perceived in a single 2D image, like a photograph or painting.
    • Dynamic Cues: Cues that arise from motion, either of the observer or of objects in the scene.

Binocular Cues

These cues are fundamental to stereoscopic vision and heavily utilized in most VR systems.

Binocular Disparity (Stereopsis)

Because the two eyes are horizontally separated (by the interpupillary distance, or IPD, typically around 6-7 cm), they receive slightly different images of the world. This difference in the image location of an object seen by the left and right eyes is called binocular disparity. The brain's visual cortex processes this disparity to generate the perception of depth, a phenomenon known as stereopsis. [4] [5] VR headsets exploit this by presenting a separate image with the correct perspective offset to each eye, simulating the natural disparity an observer would experience. It is an especially powerful depth cue for near to mid-range distances. [3]

Convergence (Vergence)

This refers to the simultaneous movement of both eyes in opposite directions to maintain single binocular vision. The eyes rotate inward (convergence) to focus on a nearby object, or rotate outward (divergence) for a distant object. The extraocular muscles that control eye movement provide feedback to the brain about the degree of convergence, which acts as a cue to the object's distance. [1] [6] In VR/AR, the required convergence angle changes naturally as a user looks at virtual objects simulated at different distances. Convergence is most effective as a cue at close ranges (within a few meters) and diminishes significantly for distant objects (beyond ~10 meters, the lines of sight are nearly parallel). [3] Eye tracking technology can measure the vergence angle directly.

Monocular Cues

These cues provide depth information even when viewing a scene with one eye closed. They are essential for depth perception in everyday life and are heavily relied upon in traditional 2D media as well as being simulated in VR/AR rendering.

Physiological Monocular Cues

Accommodation

This refers to the automatic adjustment of the eye's lens focus to maintain a clear image (retinal focus) of an object as its distance changes. The ciliary muscle controls the lens shape; the muscular tension or effort involved provides the brain with a cue to the object's distance. [7] [8] This cue is primarily effective for objects within approximately 2 meters and is relatively weak compared to other cues, often working in conjunction with them. [9] [3]

Pictorial (Static) Monocular Cues

These cues are often called "pictorial" because artists use them to create the illusion of depth on a flat canvas. They can be perceived in a static image.

Occlusion (Interposition)

When one object partially blocks the view of another object, the occluding (blocking) object is perceived as being closer. The brain uses the continuity of an object’s outline; an object that uninterruptedly covers another is assumed to be in front. [3] This is a very powerful and unambiguous depth cue. [10]

Relative Size

If two objects are known or assumed to be of similar physical size, the one that casts a smaller retinal image (appears smaller) is perceived as being farther away. [7] [3]

Familiar Size

Prior knowledge of an object's typical physical size can influence perceived distance. For example, if we see an image of a car that appears very small, we perceive it as being far away because we know the standard size range of a car. [10]

Relative Height (Elevation in the Visual Field)

For objects resting on the same ground plane, those that are higher in the visual field (closer to the horizon line) are typically perceived as being farther away. For objects above the horizon line (for example clouds), those lower in the visual field are perceived as farther. [7] [11]

Linear Perspective

Parallel lines, such as railway tracks or the edges of a straight road, appear to converge towards a single vanishing point as they recede into the distance. The degree of convergence provides a strong cue to distance and spatial layout. [10] [12]

Texture Gradient

The texture of surfaces appears coarser (elements are larger and more spaced out) when close and finer (elements are smaller and denser) when farther away. [13] This gradual change provides depth information. In VR/AR, techniques like texture mapping and Level of Detail (LOD) management simulate this cue. [3]

Atmospheric Perspective (Aerial Perspective)

Objects at great distances appear less saturated, lower in contrast, hazier, and often shifted towards a bluish hue. This is due to light scattering by particles (dust, water vapor) in the atmosphere. The farther the object, the more pronounced the effect. [10] [14] [3]

Shading and Lighting

The way light falls on objects creates patterns of light and shadow (shading) that provide crucial cues about their three-dimensional shape, surface curvature, and relative position to light sources and other objects. [10] [15] Assumptions, such as light typically coming from above, help interpret these cues. Shadows cast by one object onto another also indicate relative position. [3]

Relative Clarity

Objects that appear clearer, sharper, and more detailed are often perceived as being closer than objects that appear hazier or less distinct (related to atmospheric perspective but can also apply at shorter distances due to factors like fog or focus). [16]

Dynamic Monocular Cues

These cues rely on motion.

Motion Parallax

As an observer moves their head or body, objects at different distances move at different apparent speeds across the visual field. Closer objects appear to move faster and in the opposite direction relative to the observer's movement compared to more distant objects, which appear to move slower and potentially in the same direction. [13] [17] For example, when looking out the side window of a moving car, nearby posts zip by while distant trees move slowly. This is a powerful depth cue, effectively utilized in VR/AR systems through head tracking. [3] [18]

Kinetic Depth Effect

When a rigid, unfamiliar object rotates, the resulting changes in its two-dimensional projection onto the retina provide information about its three-dimensional structure. [19]

Ocular Parallax

A subtle cue resulting from the slight shift in perspective that occurs when the eye rotates around its center within the eye socket (distinct from head movement). Objects at different depths shift relative to the retina in slightly different ways during eye rotation, providing potential depth information. [20]

Depth Cues in VR and AR

Modern VR and AR headsets aim to simulate these depth cues to create immersive, believable, and comfortable virtual and augmented worlds. The successful implementation and integration of depth cues are crucial for the effectiveness and usability of these technologies.

Current Simulation Approaches and Limitations

Most consumer VR and AR headsets effectively simulate several key depth cues:

  • Binocular Disparity: Achieved by rendering separate images for each eye from slightly different viewpoints calculated based on the user's IPD and the virtual scene geometry.
  • Convergence: Users' eyes naturally converge/diverge to fuse the stereoscopic images of virtual objects simulated at different distances.
  • Motion Parallax: Enabled by head tracking (and sometimes body tracking), which updates the rendered viewpoint based on the user's movements in real-time.
  • Pictorial Cues: Occlusion, linear perspective, relative size, texture gradients, shading, and lighting are routinely implemented through standard Computer Graphics rendering techniques. Atmospheric perspective can be simulated with effects like fog.

However, significant technical challenges remain, particularly in reproducing physiological cues naturally:

The Vergence-Accommodation Conflict (VAC)

A major limitation in most current VR/AR displays is the mismatch between vergence and accommodation cues. Most headsets use fixed-focus displays, meaning the optics present the virtual image at a fixed focal distance (often 1.5-2 meters or optical infinity), regardless of the simulated distance of the virtual object. [21] [22] [23] While the user's eyes converge appropriately for the virtual object's simulated distance (for example 0.5 meters), their eyes must maintain focus (accommodate) at the fixed optical distance of the display itself to keep the image sharp. This mismatch between the distance signaled by vergence and the distance signaled by accommodation is known as the vergence-accommodation conflict (VAC). [24] [25] [26]

The VAC forces the brain to deal with conflicting depth information, potentially leading to several issues:

  • Visual fatigue, discomfort, and eye strain [24] [21]
  • Headaches or simulator sickness symptoms (nausea, disorientation) [21] [27]
  • Difficulty fusing stereoscopic images
  • Inaccurate depth and size perception, particularly for near-field objects (within arm's reach) [28]
  • Reduced realism and immersion

The VAC is particularly problematic for interactions requiring sustained focus or high visual fidelity at close distances (for example virtual surgery simulation, detailed object inspection, reading text on near virtual objects). [1]

Other Limitations

  • Limited or Incorrect Focus Cues: Beyond the fixed focus of VAC, conventional displays lack natural Depth of Field (blur) cues associated with accommodation. Objects at different virtual depths often appear equally sharp unless blur is artificially simulated.
  • Limited Ocular Parallax: Few systems accurately reproduce the subtle shifts related to eye rotation, though this is becoming more feasible with advanced eye tracking.
  • Imperfect Atmospheric Effects: Simulating realistic atmospheric scattering and haze dynamically remains challenging.

Advanced Display Technologies Addressing Depth Cue Limitations

To mitigate or eliminate the VAC and provide more accurate depth cues, researchers and companies are actively developing advanced display technologies:

  • Varifocal Displays: These displays dynamically adjust the focal distance of the display optics (for example using physically moving lenses/screens, liquid lens technology, or deformable mirror devices) to match the simulated distance of the object the user is currently looking at. [29] [30] This typically requires fast and accurate eye tracking to determine the user's point of gaze and intended focus depth. Varifocal systems often simulate Depth of Field effects computationally, blurring parts of the scene not at the current focal distance. [21] Prototypes like Meta Reality Labs' "Half Dome" series have demonstrated this approach. [21]
  • Multifocal Displays (Multi-Plane Displays): Instead of a single, continuously adjusting focus, these displays present content on multiple discrete focal planes simultaneously or in rapid succession. [31] The visual system can then accommodate to the plane closest to the target object's depth. Examples include stacked display panels or systems using switchable lenses. Magic Leap 1 used a two-plane system. [21] While reducing VAC, they can still exhibit quantization effects if an object lies between planes, and complexity increases with the number of planes.
  • Light Field Displays: These displays aim to reconstruct the light field of a scene, the distribution of light rays in space, more completely. By emitting rays with the correct origin and direction, they allow the viewer's eye to naturally focus at different depths within the virtual scene, as if viewing a real 3D environment. [32] [33] This can potentially solve the VAC without requiring eye tracking. However, generating the necessary dense light fields poses significant computational and hardware challenges, often involving trade-offs between resolution, field of view, and form factor. [21] Companies like CREAL are developing light field modules for AR/VR. [22]
  • Holographic Displays: True holographic displays aim to reconstruct the wavefront of light from the virtual scene using diffraction, which would inherently provide all depth cues, including accommodation, correctly and continuously. [34] This is often considered an ultimate goal for visual displays. However, current implementations suitable for near-eye displays face major challenges in computational load, achievable field of view, image quality (for example speckle noise), and component size. [34] [21]
  • Retinal Projection (Retinal Scan Displays): These systems bypass intermediate screens and project images directly onto the viewer's retina, often using low-power lasers or micro-LED arrays. [21] Because the image is formed on the retina, it can appear in focus regardless of the eye's accommodation state, potentially eliminating VAC. This approach could enable very compact form factors. Challenges include achieving a sufficiently large eye-box (the area where the eye can see the image), potential sensitivity to eye floaters or optical path debris, and safety considerations. [21] Examples include the discontinued North Focals smart glasses.

Specific Considerations for Augmented Reality

In AR, correctly rendering depth cues is arguably even more critical and complex than in VR because virtual objects must appear convincingly integrated with the real-world environment, which already provides a rich and consistent set of depth cues. Key challenges include:

  • Occlusion: Virtual objects must realistically occlude real objects behind them, and be occluded by real objects in front of them. This requires accurate real-time 3D reconstruction of the surrounding environment, often using depth sensors and Simultaneous Localization and Mapping (SLAM) techniques. Without correct occlusion, virtual objects may appear as semi-transparent "ghosts" overlaid on reality. [35] [36]
  • Lighting and Shadows: Virtual objects should be lit consistently with real-world lighting conditions and cast plausible shadows onto real surfaces (and receive shadows from real objects) to appear grounded in the environment. [35]
  • Perspective and Scale: Virtual objects must be rendered with perspective and size that are consistent with their intended location within the real scene. [35]
  • Focus: In optical see-through AR, the fixed focus of virtual objects often conflicts with the user's ability to focus naturally on real objects at different distances, leading to focal rivalry in addition to VAC. [21]

Ocular Parallax, Eye-Tracking and Eye-Box Considerations

In the context of VR/AR optics, the term 'ocular parallax' is sometimes used differently from the monocular depth cue described earlier. It can refer to the apparent shift in the virtual image relative to the user's eye pupil as the eye moves within the viewing zone (the 'eye-box') of the headset's optics. If not well-managed, this can cause the virtual world to appear unstable or "swim," impacting depth perception and comfort, especially in AR where alignment with the real world is critical. Accurate eye tracking can help systems compensate for these effects by adjusting the rendering based on precise eye position ("gaze-contingent rendering"). [37]

Health and Comfort Implications

The incomplete or inconsistent reproduction of depth cues in current VR and AR systems can lead to various negative effects for users:

  • Visual Fatigue and Discomfort: The vergence-accommodation conflict is a primary contributor to eye strain, headaches, blurred vision, and general visual discomfort, especially during prolonged use. [24] [21]
  • Spatial Perception Errors: Inaccurate or conflicting depth cues can lead to misjudgments of distance, size, and the spatial relationships between objects, potentially affecting user performance in tasks requiring precise spatial awareness or interaction. [28] [38]
  • Simulator Sickness: Inconsistencies between visual depth cues and other sensory information (for example vestibular signals from the inner ear) can contribute to symptoms like nausea, disorientation, and dizziness. [27] [39]

Design Considerations for VR/AR Developers

When designing content and experiences for current VR and AR systems, developers should be mindful of depth cue limitations and best practices:

  • Leverage Multiple Cues:** Rely on a combination of available cues (stereo, motion parallax, strong pictorial cues) to create a robust sense of depth. Enhance monocular cues like shadows, perspective, and texture gradients to compensate for limitations in physiological cues. [7]
  • Manage VAC Impact:
    • Comfort Zones: Place critical interactive content primarily within the zone of comfortable viewing (often suggested as roughly 0.75-3.5 meters in VR) where VAC effects may be less severe for many users. [40] Avoid sustained focus on very near objects (< 0.5m).
    • Depth Budget: Limit the overall range of depths presented simultaneously or avoid rapid, large shifts in depth between near and far objects that force quick vergence changes against a fixed accommodation state.
  • Guide Attention: Use composition, lighting, and visual design to guide the user's focal attention appropriately within the scene.
  • Simulated Depth of Field: Strategically apply computationally rendered blur (simulated Depth of Field) based on estimated user focus or salient objects to help guide accommodation, mask focus limitations, or enhance realism. [41]
  • Consider Interaction Distance: Be aware that applications requiring precise manipulation or inspection of virtual objects at close range are most susceptible to VAC issues and benefit most from advanced display technologies that address it.

Future Directions

The field of depth perception in VR and AR continues to evolve rapidly. Emerging areas of research and development include:

  • Perceptual Adaptation: Studying how users adapt to inconsistent or unnatural depth cues over time, potentially leading to training paradigms or design strategies that improve comfort on current hardware. [39]
  • Personalized Depth Rendering: Calibrating depth cue presentation based on individual user characteristics (for example IPD, visual acuity, refractive error, sensitivity to VAC) for optimized comfort and performance. [38]
  • Cross-Modal Integration:** Investigating how integrating depth information from other senses (for example spatial audio, haptic feedback) can enhance or reinforce visual depth perception. [42]
  • Neural Rendering and AI: Utilizing machine learning techniques (for example Neural Radiance Fields (NeRF)) to potentially render complex scenes with perceptually accurate depth cues more efficiently by learning implicit scene representations. [43]

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Howard, I. P., & Rogers, B. J. (2012). *Perceiving in Depth, Volume 1: Basic Mechanisms*. Oxford University Press.
  2. ↑ Howard, Ian P., and Brian J. Rogers. (1995). *Binocular vision and stereopsis*. Oxford University Press.
  3. ↑ 3.00 3.01 3.02 3.03 3.04 3.05 3.06 3.07 3.08 3.09 (2014-06-20) Visual Depth Cues - Human Interface Technology Laboratory. Retrieved April 25, 2025, from https://www.hitl.washington.edu/projects/knowledge_base/virtual-worlds/EVE/III.A.1.c.DepthCues.html Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "HITLCues1" defined multiple times with different content
  4. ↑ Blake, R., & Wilson, H. R. (2011). Binocular vision. *Vision Research, 51*(7), 754-770. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2010.10.009
  5. ↑ Parker, Andrew J. (2007). Binocular depth perception and the cerebral cortex. *Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 8*(5), 379-391.
  6. ↑ Watt, Simon J., Auld, W. S., & Binnie, R. G. (2005). Focus cues affect perceived depth. *Journal of vision, 5*(10), 834-862.
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 Cutting, J. E., & Vishton, P. M. (1995). Perceiving layout and knowing distances: The integration, relative potency, and contextual use of different information about depth. In W. Epstein & S. Rogers (Eds.), *Handbook of perception and cognition: Vol. 5. Perception of space and motion* (pp. 69-117). Academic Press.
  8. ↑ Fisher, Scott K., and Kenneth J. Ciuffreda. (1988). Accommodation and apparent distance. *Perception, 17*(5), 609-621.
  9. ↑ (2014-06-20) Accommodation and Convergence - Human Interface Technology Laboratory. Retrieved April 25, 2025, from https://www.hitl.washington.edu/projects/knowledge-base/virtual-worlds/EVE/III.A.1.a.AccommodationConvergence.html
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 Palmer, S. E. (1999). *Vision Science: Photons to Phenomenology*. MIT Press.
  11. ↑ Ooi, Teng Leng, Bing Wu, and Zijiang J. He. (2001). Distance determined by the angular declination below the horizon. *Nature, 414*(6860), 197-200.
  12. ↑ Schwartz, Steven H. (2009). *Visual perception: A clinical orientation*. McGraw Hill Professional.
  13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 Gibson, J. J. (1950). *The Perception of the Visual World*. Houghton Mifflin.
  14. ↑ O'Shea, Robert P., Simon J. Blackburn, and Hiroshi Ono. (1994). Contrast as a depth cue. *Vision research, 34*(12), 1595-1604.
  15. ↑ Ramachandran, Vilayanur S. (1988). Perception of shape from shading. *Nature, 331*(6152), 163-166.
  16. ↑ Fry, Glenn A., Kerr, K. E., Trezona, P. W., & Westerberg, C. F. (1976). The effect of fog on the perception of distance. *Human Factors, 18*(4), 342-346.
  17. ↑ Rogers, Brian, and Maureen Graham. (1979). Motion parallax as an independent cue for depth perception. *Perception, 8*(2), 125-134.
  18. ↑ Depth perception. Science Learning Hub - Pokapū Akoranga Pūtaiao. Retrieved April 25, 2025, from https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/107-depth-perception
  19. ↑ Wallach, H., & O'Connell, D. N. (1953). The kinetic depth effect. *Journal of Experimental Psychology, 45*(4), 205-217. doi:10.1037/h0058000
  20. ↑ Kudo, Hiromi, and Hirohiko Ono. (1988). Depth perception, ocular parallax, and stereopsis. *Perception, 17*(4), 473-480.
  21. ↑ 21.00 21.01 21.02 21.03 21.04 21.05 21.06 21.07 21.08 21.09 21.10 21.11 (2024-01-29) Understanding Vergence-Accommodation Conflict in AR/VR Headsets - AR Insider. Retrieved April 25, 2025, from https://arinsider.co/2022/06/22/5-ways-to-address-ars-vergence-accommodation-conflict/ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "ARInsiderVAC" defined multiple times with different content
  22. ↑ 22.0 22.1 Vergence-accommodation conflict - Wikipedia. Retrieved April 25, 2025, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vergence-accommodation_conflict
  23. ↑ (2024-07-18) Exploring the Focal Distance in VR Headsets - Deliver Contacts. Retrieved April 25, 2025, from https://delivercontacts.com/research/virtual-reality-the-vergence-accommodation-conflict/ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "DeliverContactsFocus" defined multiple times with different content
  24. ↑ 24.0 24.1 24.2 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, 8*(3), 33. doi:10.1167/8.3.33
  25. ↑ Facebook Research. (2019, March 28). *Vergence-Accommodation Conflict: Facebook Research Explains Why Varifocal Matters For Future VR*. YouTube. [1]
  26. ↑ Kramida, Gregory. (2016). Resolving the vergence-accommodation conflict in head-mounted displays. *IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics, 22*(7), 1912-1931.
  27. ↑ 27.0 27.1 Vos, G. A., Barfield, W., & Yamamoto, T. (2005). The Virtual Vertical: Depth Perception and Discomfort in Stereoscopic Displays. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 14(6), 649-664.
  28. ↑ 28.0 28.1 Jones, J. A., Swan II, J. E., Singh, G., & Ellis, S. R. (2008). The effects of virtual reality, augmented reality, and motion parallax on egocentric depth perception. *Proceedings of the 5th symposium on Applied perception in graphics and visualization*, 9-16.
  29. ↑ Konrad, R., Cooper, E. A., & Banks, M. S. (2016). Towards the next generation of virtual and augmented reality displays. *Optics Express, 24*(15), 16800-16809. doi:10.1364/OE.24.016800 https://www.computationalimaging.org/publications/accommodation-invariant-near-eye-displays-siggraph-2017/ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "KonradVAC2016" defined multiple times with different content
  30. ↑ Dunn, David, et al. (2017). Wide field of view varifocal near-eye display using see-through deformable membrane mirrors. *IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics, 23*(4), 1322-1331.
  31. ↑ Akeley, Kurt, Watt, S. J., Girshick, A. R., & Banks, M. S. (2004). A stereo display prototype with multiple focal distances. *ACM transactions on graphics (TOG), 23*(3), 804-813.
  32. ↑ Wetzstein, Gordon, et al. (2011). Computational plenoptic imaging. *Computer Graphics Forum, 30*(8), 2397-2426.
  33. ↑ Lanman, D., & Luebke, D. (2013). Near-eye light field displays. *ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 32*(6), 1-10. doi:10.1145/2508363.2508366
  34. ↑ 34.0 34.1 Maimone, A., Georgiou, A., & Kollin, J. S. (2017). Holographic near-eye displays for virtual and augmented reality. *ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 36*(4), 1-16. doi:10.1145/3072959.3073610
  35. ↑ 35.0 35.1 35.2 Howard, I. P., & Rogers, B. J. (2012). Perceiving in Depth, Volume 3: Other Mechanisms of Depth Perception. Oxford University Press.
  36. ↑ Kiyokawa, K., Billinghurst, M., Hayes, S. E., & Gupta, A. (2003). An occlusion-capable optical see-through head mount display for supporting co-located collaboration. 'Proceedings. ISMAR 2003. Second IEEE and ACM International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality, 133-141. doi:10.1109/ISMAR.2003.1240688
  37. ↑ Chang, Jen-Hao Rick, et al. (2020). Toward a unified framework for hand-eye coordination in virtual reality. 2020 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR). IEEE.
  38. ↑ 38.0 38.1 Willemsen, Peter, Colton, M. B., Creem-Regehr, S. H., & Thompson, W. B. (2009). The effects of head-mounted display mechanical properties and field of view on distance judgments in virtual environments. ACM Transactions on Applied Perception (TAP), 6(2), 1-14.
  39. ↑ 39.0 39.1 Wann, John P., Simon Rushton, and Mark Mon-Williams. (1995). Natural problems for stereoscopic depth perception in virtual environments. *Vision research, 35*(19), 2731-2736.
  40. ↑ Shibata, Takashi, Kim, J., Hoffman, D. M., & Banks, M. S. (2011). The zone of comfort: Predicting visual discomfort with stereo displays. *Journal of vision, 11*(8), 11-11.
  41. ↑ Duchowski, Andrew T., et al. (2014). Reducing visual discomfort with HMDs using dynamic depth of field. *IEEE computer graphics and applications, 34*(5), 34-41.
  42. ↑ Ernst, Marc O., and Martin S. Banks. (2002). Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion. Nature, 415(6870), 429-433.
  43. ↑ Mildenhall, Ben, et al. (2020). Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis. *European conference on computer vision*. Springer, Cham.
Retrieved from "https://vrarwiki.com/index.php?title=Depth_cue&oldid=34814"