This content is not included in your SAE MOBILUS subscription, or you are not logged in.
Distance Perception in Camera-Based Rear Vision Systems
ISSN: 0148-7191, e-ISSN: 2688-3627
Published March 04, 2002 by SAE International in United States
Annotation ability available
The importance of eye-to-display distance for distance perception in rear vision may depend on the type of display. At least in terms of its influence on the effective magnification of images, eye-to-display distance is almost irrelevant for flat rearview mirrors, but it is important for convex rearview mirrors and for other displays, such as video displays, that create images closer to the driver than the actual objects of interest. In the experiment we report here, we investigate the influence of eye-to-display distance on distance perception with both flat rearview mirrors and camera-based video displays. The results indicate that a simple model of distance perception based on the visual angles of images is not very successful. Visual angles may be important, but it appears that relationships between images of distant objects and the frames of the displays are also important. Further work is needed to fully understand how drivers might judge distance in camera-based displays. That work may help to determine the image magnifications most appropriate for various potential display locations. Although distance perception in camera-based displays may be complex, such displays present enough potential advantages that these issues are deserving of further work.
CitationFlannagan, M., Sivak, M., and Mefford, M., "Distance Perception in Camera-Based Rear Vision Systems," SAE Technical Paper 2002-01-0012, 2002, https://doi.org/10.4271/2002-01-0012.
- Flannagan, M. J. (2000). Current status and future prospects for nonplanar rearview mirrors (SAE Technical Paper Series No. 2000-01-0324). Warrendale, Pennsylvania: Society of Automotive Engineers.
- Flannagan, M. J., Sivak, M., Schumann, J., Kojima, S., & Traube, E. C. (1997). Distance perception in driver-side and passenger-side convex rearview mirrors: Objects in mirror are more complicated than they appear (Report No. UMTRI-97-32). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute.
- Flannagan, M. J., Sivak, M., & Simpson, J. K. (2001). The role of binocular information for distance perception in rear-vision systems (SAE Technical Paper Series No. 2001-01-0322). Warrendale, Pennsylvania: Society of Automotive Engineers.
- Hicks, R., Schofield, K., Tarnow, P., & Veiseh, M. (1999). Panoramic electronic rear vision for automotive applications (SAE Technical Paper Series No. 1999-01-0655). Warrendale, Pennsylvania: Society of Automotive Engineers.
- Marks, L. E. (1974). Sensory processes: The new psychophysics. New York: Academic Press.
- Meehan, J. W., & Triggs, T. J. (1988). Magnification effects with imaging displays depend on scene content and viewing condition. Human Factors, 30, 487-494.
- Reed, M. P., Lehto, M. M., & Flannagan, M. J. (2000). Field of view in passenger car mirrors (Report No. UMTRI-2000-23). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute.
- Roscoe, S. N. (1984). Judgments of size and distance with imaging displays. Human Factors, 26, 617-629.
- Seeser, J. (1974). Automotive convex mirrors: Optical properties (Technical Report 201). Holland, Michigan: Donnelly Mirrors.
- Senders, J. W. (1966). The coffee cup illusion. American Journal of Psychology, 79, 143-145.
- Walker, J. T., Rupich, R. C., & Powell, J. L. (1989). The vista paradox: A natural visual illusion. Perception & Psychophysics, 45, 43-48.