Design issues in teleoperator vision systemsRoss L. Pepper and Edward H. SpainNaval Ocean Systems Center, Hawaii Laboratory, P.O. Box 997, Kailua, Hawaii 96734andRobert E. ColeUniversity of Hawaii, Department of Psychology, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822AbstractThis paper describes NOSC -Hawaii's program of perceptual sciences research, supportingthe development of advanced military and civilian teleoperator systems. The general objec-tive of NOSC's Advanced Teleoperator Program is to provide the technology base required toproduce teleoperator systems which will be capable of performing man -like tasks in areastoo hazardous or too costly for human habitation.For several years, we have been engaged in a program of research aimed at developing asystematic understanding of the dynamic interactions which occur between the human operatorand the sensors, controls and displays that constitute the interface between man andmachine.Our current work is directed toward assessing the impact of several geometric parametersof stereoscopic viewing systems (camera separation, convergence and magnification), on bothtarget detection performance and measures of operator acceptance of these display features.The results of several psychophysical studies will be presented and related to displaysystem design issues.IntroductionThe Naval Ocean Systems Center (NOSC) has been engaged in a program of research anddevelopment in manned and remotely manned work systems since it's formation in 1967.The Hawaii laboratory developed an early interest in research on a wide variety ofremotely- manned work systems and undersea vehicles. Of special interest is a type ofremotely- manned system called teleoperators, machines designed to transmit man's perceptual,problem -solving, and manipulative skills into inhospitable and remote environments,especially those encountered in the deep ocean. Precursors of our modern -day teleoperatorsystems are best represented by the Cable Undersea Remote Vehicle (CURV) line of vehicles,and especially the Remote Unmanned Work System (RUWS).The RUWS vehicle was innovative in many respects. Of particular note was the viewingand display system. Two high resolution cameras were mounted side by side on a pan andtilt mechanism which was in turn mounted on a transverse rail which permitted full horizon-tal travel across the front of the vehicle and behind and above the primary manipulator.In the control van, a head -mounted display presented the video imagery to the operator.The mechanical attachment at the top of the display was a pantograph, which was electric-ally coupled to the camera pan and tilt mechanism. This coupling established and main -tained a limited spatial correspondence between the orientation of the operator's head andthe orientation of the cameras. While there were no objective tests which proved that thisarrangement would facilitate performance, the implicit assumption was that it would improvethe operator's feeling of being in the scene, and this "feeling of presence" would enhanceperformance. The potential to exploit head -motion parallax by controlling the lateralexcursions of the cameras with lateral displacement of the operator's head cer-tainly existed in the RUWS system, but its importance as a perceptual cue was not recog-nized at the time, and thus it was not implemented, nor has it been employed systemati-cally in any vehicles built to date.A combination of many factors contributed to the lack of acceptance of the head -mounteddisplay system on RUWS. First, there was no provision for accommodative adjustment at thedisplay. Since most of the operators were senior engineers who required near -fieldcorrection, they were more inclined to use the larger desk -mounted console display and thealternate joystick controls for camera positioning. Also, most operators reported thatthe head -mounted system restricted their freedom of movement, was slow to respond, and