Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Kohei Oshima

dblp:160/6722 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2016
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 2 · 1 first-authorHuman-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 1 · 1 first-author

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Computer graphics and multimedia
2 papers
Virtual and augmented reality · 91% Image and video processing · 9%
Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper
Usability and user experience research · 100%

Topics — the 5 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Virtual and augmented reality › augmented reality
optical see-through head-mounted display
0.212016
SharpView: Improved clarity of defocussed content on optical see-through head-mounted displays · VR 2016
Virtual and augmented reality
augmented reality
0.212015
Subjective Evaluation of a Semi-Automatic Optical See-Through Head-Mounted Display Calibration Technique · IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 2015
Virtual and augmented reality › display
head-mounted display calibration
0.212015
Subjective Evaluation of a Semi-Automatic Optical See-Through Head-Mounted Display Calibration Technique · IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 2015
Image and video processing › image enhancement
image sharpening
0.112016
SharpView: Improved clarity of defocussed content on optical see-through head-mounted displays · VR 2016
Virtual and augmented reality › augmented reality display
optical see-through display
0.112015
Subjective Evaluation of a Semi-Automatic Optical See-Through Head-Mounted Display Calibration Technique · IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 2015

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

user study · 0.4subjective evaluation · 0.4dynamic sharpening filter · 0.2adjustment experiment · 0.2
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2016 SharpView: Improved clarity of defocussed content on optical see-through head-mounted displays
abstract
A common factor among current generation optical see-through augmented reality systems is fixed focal distance to virtual content. In this work, we investigate the issue of focus blur, in particular, the blurring caused by simultaneously viewing virtual content and physical objects in the environment at differing focal distances. We examine the application of dynamic sharpening filters as a straight forward, system independent, means for mitigating this effect improving the clarity of defocused AR content. We assess the utility of this method, termed SharpView, by employing an adjustment experiment in which users actively apply varying amounts of sharpening to reduce the perception of blur in AR content. Our experimental results validate the ability of our SharpView model to improve the visual clarity of focus blurred content, with optimal performance at focal differences well suited for near field AR applications.
Kohei Oshima, Kenneth R. Moser, Damien Constantine Rompapas, J. Edward Swan II, Sei Ikeda, Goshiro Yamamoto, Takafumi Taketomi, Christian Sandor, Hirokazu Kato 0001
VR1
2015 Subjective Evaluation of a Semi-Automatic Optical See-Through Head-Mounted Display Calibration Technique
abstract
With the growing availability of optical see-through (OST) head-mounted displays (HMDs) there is a present need for robust, uncomplicated, and automatic calibration methods suited for non-expert users. This work presents the results of a user study which both objectively and subjectively examines registration accuracy produced by three OST HMD calibration methods: (1) SPAAM, (2) Degraded SPAAM, and (3) Recycled INDICA, a recently developed semi-automatic calibration method. Accuracy metrics used for evaluation include subject provided quality values and error between perceived and absolute registration coordinates. Our results show all three calibration methods produce very accurate registration in the horizontal direction but caused subjects to perceive the distance of virtual objects to be closer than intended. Surprisingly, the semi-automatic calibration method produced more accurate registration vertically and in perceived object distance overall. User assessed quality values were also the highest for Recycled INDICA, particularly when objects were shown at distance. The results of this study confirm that Recycled INDICA is capable of producing equal or superior on-screen registration compared to common OST HMD calibration methods. We also identify a potential hazard in using reprojection error as a quantitative analysis technique to predict registration accuracy. We conclude with discussing the further need for examining INDICA calibration in binocular HMD systems, and the present possibility for creation of a closed-loop continuous calibration method for OST Augmented Reality.
Kenneth R. Moser, Yuta Itoh 0001, Kohei Oshima, J. Edward Swan II, Gudrun Klinker, Christian Sandor
IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph.3