4 ms·

Eventually we'll just jack our devices directly into our visual cortex instead of bothering with all the issues screens+optics brings. Then it won't matter that

by ehsanu1 13y ago

Eventually we'll just jack our devices directly into our visual cortex instead of bothering with all the issues screens+optics brings. Then it won't matter that it's VR, given high-fidelity, accurate input. Current VR systems like the Oculus are "just" a stepping stone to something much greater. That said, could you be more specific about the problems caused with our current VR technology, and the reason they happen?

msutherl 13y ago
> Eventually we'll just jack our devices directly into our visual cortex instead of bothering with all the issues screens+optics brings. This will not work. The visual system is not an "information processing" system like a computer. In order to wire an "accurate input" into your brain, you would need to duplicate all of the nonlinear optical, electrical, and chemical transformations performed by the eye, in which case you might as well just use your eye. In other words, we don't just see what comes out of the screen, so wiring that data into your brain will be gibberish at worst and a somewhat compromised new sense organ at best.
- comex 13y ago
  Yes, but once you solve those issues, you don't need a super high resolution, light field based (or otherwise adjustable focus) display that's very small and has very high battery life, to achieve the same portability. Your face doesn't need to have a weird-looking and -feeling object on it, and if you can hook into the original eye signal, you get a free dual camera for AR. Oh, and on a less geeky note, it gives sight to the blind. The resolution and the focus will certainly be solved long before an implant could give remotely similar performance, but an implant would sure be neat for the other reasons.
fidotron 13y ago
I don't have access to the academic papers, but a Google of things like VR and human factors will get you to a whole subfield of research.
- ehsanu1 13y ago
  I realize I can do some digging. I was just hoping for pointers to make that process easier and more fruitful - otherwise I will probably not bother myself to be honest. I imagined you would have something more relevant to share about this topic, compared to a search, since you say it bothers you that there is no discussion about this. I'm inviting you to start some discussion.
- rschmitty 13y ago
  You should at least be able to find the Abstracts. You are worried about supposed problems that came from 10+ year old tech. I think if you wanted to show concern you could point people towards real problems when you make claims like that.
glimcat 13y ago
> Eventually we'll just jack our devices directly into our visual cortex This comes somewhere on the tech tree after "practical flying cars" and "solving world hunger." But eventually, sure, why not. > That said, could you be more specific about the problems caused with our current VR technology, and the reason they happen? The most common and superficial health issue with VR (and AR) would be simulator sickness. The visual cues don't match what the brain expects via other sense data, so you get sick. It happens to some people much more easily than others. More direct hazards: Safety issues, e.g. tripping on stuff you can't see while operating a VR headset, or being distracted due to virtual stimuli. Vision impairment, primarily in children younger than 6-10 years, but potentially also in older users with compromised vision systems. Temporary visual impairment, typically after sessions longer than 20 minutes. Pronounced eyestrain due to unnatural focal behavior, object tracking, display quality, and optical alignment. Nice papers to read: Costello, "Health and Safety Issues associated with Virtual Reality - A Review of Current Literature" http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.6.3025&rep=rep1&type=pdf http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.6.3... Viire, "Health and safety issues for VR". It gets cited around lots even though it's over 10 years old now, but I couldn't find a free copy. Look it up on ACM if you have access. You can preview the first page at the following URL. http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/association-for-computing-machinery/health-and-safety-issues-for-vr-wOI06QQ7aE http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/association-for-computing-machine... Stanney, "Realizing the full potential of virtual reality: human factors issues that could stand in the way." Starts on page 39 of the following PDF. http://www.researchgate.net/publication/232654060_Pen-based_force_display_for_precision_manipulation_in_virtual_environments/file/72e7e51f1b1991a916.pdf#page=39 http://www.researchgate.net/publication/232654060_Pen-based_... You'll note that these are all late 90s. VR research was much better funded then. You can find more recent stuff though, at least with appropriate database access. More work did get done, but shoehorned under different keywords since "virtual reality" stopped being trendy. > You are worried about supposed problems that came from 10+ year old tech. (from sibling's child) Nope. The main difference between 10 year old VR headsets and the ones you can buy today is that the use of bulky CRT eyepieces vs. LED-based eyepieces. The middle ground being LEDs with gradually improving dot pitch. The human issues remain more or less the same, seeing as nobody has re-engineered the human body in the last 10 years. My grad advisor had been involved in VR & AR research going back - I forget, 20 or 30 years. So I did a fair amount of reading on the topic. You can make slightly better headsets today, particularly if money is no object - but the core limitations are really the human factors, and the timing constraints necessary to accommodate human senses and rate of motion.

by ehsanu1 13y ago

msutherl 13y ago

> Eventually we'll just jack our devices directly into our visual cortex instead of bothering with all the issues screens+optics brings. This will not work. The visual system is not an "information processing" system like a computer. In order to wire an "accurate input" into your brain, you would need to duplicate all of the nonlinear optical, electrical, and chemical transformations performed by the eye, in which case you might as well just use your eye. In other words, we don't just see what comes out of the screen, so wiring that data into your brain will be gibberish at worst and a somewhat compromised new sense organ at best.

comex 13y ago
Yes, but once you solve those issues, you don't need a super high resolution, light field based (or otherwise adjustable focus) display that's very small and has very high battery life, to achieve the same portability. Your face doesn't need to have a weird-looking and -feeling object on it, and if you can hook into the original eye signal, you get a free dual camera for AR. Oh, and on a less geeky note, it gives sight to the blind. The resolution and the focus will certainly be solved long before an implant could give remotely similar performance, but an implant would sure be neat for the other reasons.

fidotron 13y ago

I don't have access to the academic papers, but a Google of things like VR and human factors will get you to a whole subfield of research.

ehsanu1 13y ago
I realize I can do some digging. I was just hoping for pointers to make that process easier and more fruitful - otherwise I will probably not bother myself to be honest. I imagined you would have something more relevant to share about this topic, compared to a search, since you say it bothers you that there is no discussion about this. I'm inviting you to start some discussion.
rschmitty 13y ago
You should at least be able to find the Abstracts. You are worried about supposed problems that came from 10+ year old tech. I think if you wanted to show concern you could point people towards real problems when you make claims like that.

glimcat 13y ago

> Eventually we'll just jack our devices directly into our visual cortex This comes somewhere on the tech tree after "practical flying cars" and "solving world hunger." But eventually, sure, why not. > That said, could you be more specific about the problems caused with our current VR technology, and the reason they happen? The most common and superficial health issue with VR (and AR) would be simulator sickness. The visual cues don't match what the brain expects via other sense data, so you get sick. It happens to some people much more easily than others. More direct hazards: Safety issues, e.g. tripping on stuff you can't see while operating a VR headset, or being distracted due to virtual stimuli. Vision impairment, primarily in children younger than 6-10 years, but potentially also in older users with compromised vision systems. Temporary visual impairment, typically after sessions longer than 20 minutes. Pronounced eyestrain due to unnatural focal behavior, object tracking, display quality, and optical alignment. Nice papers to read: Costello, "Health and Safety Issues associated with Virtual Reality - A Review of Current Literature" http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.6.3025&rep=rep1&type=pdf http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.6.3... Viire, "Health and safety issues for VR". It gets cited around lots even though it's over 10 years old now, but I couldn't find a free copy. Look it up on ACM if you have access. You can preview the first page at the following URL. http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/association-for-computing-machinery/health-and-safety-issues-for-vr-wOI06QQ7aE http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/association-for-computing-machine... Stanney, "Realizing the full potential of virtual reality: human factors issues that could stand in the way." Starts on page 39 of the following PDF. http://www.researchgate.net/publication/232654060_Pen-based_force_display_for_precision_manipulation_in_virtual_environments/file/72e7e51f1b1991a916.pdf#page=39 http://www.researchgate.net/publication/232654060_Pen-based_... You'll note that these are all late 90s. VR research was much better funded then. You can find more recent stuff though, at least with appropriate database access. More work did get done, but shoehorned under different keywords since "virtual reality" stopped being trendy. > You are worried about supposed problems that came from 10+ year old tech. (from sibling's child) Nope. The main difference between 10 year old VR headsets and the ones you can buy today is that the use of bulky CRT eyepieces vs. LED-based eyepieces. The middle ground being LEDs with gradually improving dot pitch. The human issues remain more or less the same, seeing as nobody has re-engineered the human body in the last 10 years. My grad advisor had been involved in VR & AR research going back - I forget, 20 or 30 years. So I did a fair amount of reading on the topic. You can make slightly better headsets today, particularly if money is no object - but the core limitations are really the human factors, and the timing constraints necessary to accommodate human senses and rate of motion.