Metaverse: A dilemma between comfort, immersion, and value (part 4)

Parameter evaluation

In Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3 of this article series, we introduced the mechanics behind the metaverse. We also discussed the framework for how and when a given display format can replace an existing medium. Now we’ll put that framework into action. We will compare different display solutions–headsets, cell phones, and flat displays–side by side along their comfort (GVCS), immersion (VIMS), and accessibility dimensions and estimate a score for each dimension. Finally, we’ll add potential headset-free solutions, such as Brelyon’s display, to the mix. The score for each dimension is a weighted average of the different parameters explained previously (Part 3). More precisely, the comfort dimension comprises accommodation comfort, retinal comfort, vergence comfort, fidelity comfort, perceptual comfort, posture ergonomics, and intrusiveness factor. The immersion dimension comprises field-of-view span, intensity span, color depth, frame rate, spatial resolution, and interactivity. Finally, the access dimension comprises population reach, portability, price sensitivity, and content friction. The score for each parameter is estimated from academic research. Figure 6 shows the result of such evaluation in one cohesive graph. There is a lot to unpack here so let’s dive in.

Figure 6. Scoring graph for comfort, immersion, and access dimensions for Brelyon’s UR displays, headsets, cell phones, and flat displays.

The results are quite revealing: cell phones and headsets have lopsided scores. As expected, the more immersive headsets fall drastically short on the access and comfort axes. In contrast, today’s cell phones provide an unparalleled access score. This isn’t only because of a cell phone’s portability, but also because of its wide population reach, low price, and lack of friction in content. Headsets fundamentally can’t have such strong breadth or reach, so only their high immersion score would justify them as a viable format to at least coexist with cell phones. Unfortunately, however, head-mounted wearables also suffer from an extremely low comfort score. This is due to many factors [39, 52–54], ranging from posture ergonomics [55] and eye comfort [52,53] to perceptual comfort [54,56]. Surprisingly, cell phones exhibit a similarly low comfort score, but they are just so accessible: all you need to do to access a cell phone is look at it, and carrying it is as simple as having a wallet in your pocket. You don’t need to wear it, and you don’t need to touch things in midair or rotate your neck.

Flat displays, on the other hand, score very well in comfort and access, and the only thing they lack is a tad of immersion. Improvement in this category requires less work compared to headsets, and this is where new technologies, like Brelyon’s Ultra Reality or new immersive technologies for flat displays, could really nudge the landscape and become a new viable format. Which display format is best? Today, headsets may provide the most immersive experience, but the numbers show that the most successful formats of human-computer experience are not the most immersive ones but, rather, the ones that prioritize access and comfort. Additionally, new headset-free technologies are emerging to close the immersion gap for existing display formats. So, the answer to the question, “Will headsets become the next dominant format of the human-computer experience?” is most likely: no. Phones will rule the world for decades to come. This doesn’t mean that headsets will cease to exist or that they will have no place in the market, but it does mean that they will become an accessory category, like smartwatches or hands-free headphones. Another interesting insight from this analysis is that the monitors and cell phones of the future might be just so much more like today’s headsets in terms of immersion, without suffering from comfort and content issues. The next generation of displays must consider all this information to be successful.

We appreciate you reading this far. We’d love to hear from you: what you think about this analysis, and how do you see display technology unfolding in the world? Leave a comment below! For previous parts please see: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3.

And to engage with us go to:

https://twitter.com/BrelyonHQ

facebook.com/brelyonHQ

https://www.instagram.com/brelyoncommunity/

https://www.linkedin.com/company/brelyon/

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9wRknKRClTLuYaEk-LeMmg

http://medium.com/@brelyon

1. Moody, R. Screen Time Statistics: Average Screen Time in U.S. vs. the rest of the world. comparitech (2021).
2. Olsen, D. R. et al. Comparing usage of a large high-resolution display to single or dual desktop displays for daily work. Proc Sigchi Conf Hum Factors Comput Syst 1005–1014 (2009). doi:10.1145/1518701.1518855
3. Stegman, A., Ling, C. & Shehab, R. Human Interface and the Management of Information. Interacting with Information. in HCI International, Symposium on Human Interface 84–93 (2011). doi:10.1007/978–3–642–21669–5_11
4. Kang, Y. & Stasko, J. Lightweight Task/Application Performance using Single versus Multiple Monitors: A Comparative Study. in Graphics Interface (2008). doi:10.1145/1375714.1375718
5. Conlon, C. Do Larger Monitors Equal Greater Productivity? (2011).
6. Anderson, J. A., Hill, J., Parkin, P. & Garrison, A. Productivity, Screens, and Aspects Ratios (2007).
7. Almagro, M. Key Trends in Immersive Display Technologies and Experiences. Sound & Communications (2020).
8. Foster, A. IBC2019 Technical Papers: Immersive. Trends (2019).
9. Zalani, R. Screen Time Statistics 2021: Your Smartphone is Hurting You. Elite Content Marketer (2021).
10. Morrison, G. 8K TV explained, and why you definitely don’t need to buy one. cnet (2021).
11. Won, L. S. Samsung to shift some smartphone production at Vietnam to India. TheElect (2022).
12. Park, S.-Y. LG Display OLED TV panel sales top 20 mn units on strong demand. The Korea Economic Daily (2021).
13. Heshmat, B. Is Augmented reality doomed? A look into the future of AR. (2019).
14. Vailshery, L. S. Average session time of virtual reality (VR) users in the United Stated between the 2nd and 3rd quarter of 2019, by user type. Statista (2021).
15. Heshmat, B. The first no-headset virtual monitor. (2020).
16. Aghasi, A., Heshmat, B., Wei, L., Tian, M. & Cholewiak, S. A. Optimal allocation of quantized human eye depth perception for multi-focal 3D display design. Opt Express 29, 9878 (2021).
17. Zhang, C., Perkis, A. & Arndt, S. Spatial immersion versus emotional immersion, which is more immersive? 2017 Ninth Int Conf Qual Multimedia Exp Qomex 1–6 (2017) doi:10.1109/qomex.2017.7965655.
18. Newman, A. P. Human-computer perception. (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2020).
19. Hofmann, L. & Palczewski, K. Advances in understanding the molecular basis of the first steps in color vision. Prog Retin Eye Res 49, 46–66 (2015).
20. Wong, S. H. & Plant, G. T. How to interpret visual fields. Pract Neurology 15, 374 (2015).
21. Bülthoff, I., Bülthoff, H. & Sinha, P. Top-down influences on stereoscopic depth-perception. Nat Neurosci 1, 254–257 (1998).
22. Laird, J. E., Lebiere, C. & Rosenbloom, P. S. A Standard Model of the Mind: Toward a Common Computational Framework across Artificial Intelligence, Cognitive Science, Neuroscience, and Robotics. Ai Mag 38, 13–26 (2017).
23. Amit, K. Artificial Intelligence and Soft Computing. (Taylor & Francis, 2000). doi:10.1201/9781315219738
24. Lu, Y. Artificial intelligence: a survey on evolution, models, applications and future trends. J Management Anal 6, 1–29 (2019).
25. Markowsky, G. Information Theory: Physiology. Britannica
26. Gibaldi, A., Canessa, A. & Sabatini, S. P. The Active Side of Stereopsis: Fixation Strategy and Adaptation to Natural Environments. Sci Rep-uk 7, 44800 (2017).
27. Gibaldi, A. & Banks, M. S. Binocular Eye Movements Are Adapted to the Natural Environment. J Neurosci 39, 2877–2888 (2019).
28. Lit, A. Depth-Discrimination Thresholds as a Function of Binocular Differences of Retinal Illuminance at Scotopic and Photopic Levels. J Opt Soc Am 49, 746 (1959).
29. Wang, J.-M., Liu, C.-L., Luo, Y.-N., Liu, Y.-G. & Hu, B.-J. Statistical virtual eye model based on wavefront aberration. Int J Ophthalmol-chi 5, 620–624 (2012).
30. Carvalho, L. A. Accuracy of Zernike polynomials in characterizing optical aberrations and the corneal surface of the eye. Invest Ophth Vis Sci 46, 1915–26 (2005).
31. Carvalho, L. A. V., Castro, J. C. & Carvalho, L. A. V. Measuring higher order optical aberrations of the human eye: techniques and applications. Braz J Med Biol Res 35, 1395–1406 (2002).
32. Navarro, R., Moreno, E. & Dorronsoro, C. Monochromatic aberrations and point-spread functions of the human eye across the visual field. J Opt Soc Am 15, 2522 (1998).
33. Heshmat, B., Wei, L. & Tian, M. Ultimate augmented reality displays with passive optics: fundamentals and limitations. in Optical Data Science II (ed. SPIE) vol. 10937 1093707 (SPIE, 2019).
34. Seltman, W. Eye Exercises. WebMD (2020).
35. Griff, A. M. Presbyopia. Healthline (2021).
36. Samsung. How a curved monitor brings ergonomic benefit and productivity. Insights (2021).
37. Samsung. Samsung Gaming Monitor Odyssey Neo G9 (2021).
38. Seiple, W., Szlyk, J. P., McMahon, T., Pulido, J. & Fishman, G. A. Eye-Movement Training for Reading in Patients with Age-Related Macular Degeneration. Investigative Ophthalmology Vis Sci 46, 2886 (2005).
39. Ramadan, M., Alhaag, M. & Abidi, M. Effects of Viewing Displays from Different Distances on Human Visual System. Appl Sci 7, 1153 (2017).
40. Vienne, C., Sorin, L., Blondé, L., Huynh-Thu, Q. & Mamassian, P. Effect of the accommodation-vergence conflict on vergence eye movements. Vision Res 100, 124–33 (2014).
41. Banks, M. S., Kim, J. & Shibata, T. Insight into vergence/accommodation mismatch. Proc Spie 8735, 873509–873509–12 (2013).
42. Hoffman, D. M., Girshick, A. R., Akeley, K. & Banks, M. S. Vergence-accommodation conflicts hinder visual performance and cause visual fatigue. J Vision 8, 33.1–30 (2008).
43. Hammoud, R. I. Passive Eye Monitoring. (Springer, 2008). doi:10.1007/978–3–540–75412–1.
44. Sullivan, G. J., Ohm, J.-R., Han, W.-J. & Wiegand, T. Overview of the High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) Standard. IEEE T Circ Syst Vid 22, 1649–1668 (2012).
45. Adobe. Color depth and high dynamic range color. Adobe (2021).
46. Rusen, C. A. What do the 720p, 1080p, 1440p, 2K, 4K resolutions mean? What are the aspect ratio and orientation? Digital Citizen (2019).
47. Son, J.-Y., Chernyshov, O., Lee, C.-H., Park, M.-C. & Yano, S. Depth resolution in three-dimensional images. J Opt Soc Am 30, 1030 (2013).
48. Petikam, L., Chalmers, A. & Rhee, T. Visual Perception of Real World Depth Map Resolution for Mixed Reality Rendering. 2018 Ieee Conf Virtual Real 3d User Interfaces Vr 00, 401–408 (2018).
49. Han, J. & Moraga, C. From Natural to Artificial Neural Computation, International Workshop on Artificial Neural Networks Malaga-Torremolinos, Spain, June 7–9, 1995 Proceedings.
50. Davis, J., Hsieh, Y.-H. & Lee, H.-C. Humans perceive flicker artifacts at 500 Hz. Sci Rep-uk 5, 7861 (2015).
51. Lee, S. W., Lee, S. Y. & Pahk, H. J. Precise Edge Detection Method Using Sigmoid Function in Blurry and Noisy Image for TFT-LCD 2D Critical Dimension Measurement. Current Optics and Photonics 2, 69–78 (2018).
52. Guo, J. et al. Subjective and objective evaluation of visual fatigue caused by continuous and discontinuous use of HMDs. J Soc Inf Display 27, 108–119 (2019).
53. Wang, Y. et al. Assessment of eye fatigue caused by head-mounted displays using eye-tracking. Biomed Eng Online 18, 111 (2019).
54. Han, J., Bae, S. H. & Suk, H.-J. Comparison of Visual Discomfort and Visual Fatigue between Head-Mounted Display and Smartphone. Electron Imaging 2017, 212–217 (2017).
55. Iskander, J., Hossny, M. & Nahavandi, S. A Review on Ocular Biomechanic Models for Assessing Visual Fatigue in Virtual Reality. IEEE Access 6, 19345–19361 (2018).
56. Shibata, T., Kim, J., Hoffman, D. M. & Banks, M. S. The zone of comfort: Predicting visual discomfort with stereo displays. J Vision 11, 11–11 (2011).