Hi Casey,

Thanks for the question and the interest. Really appreciated.

We did have lined up a series of psychophysical experiments that would have acted as 'evaluation' data following more extensive tech development. No one is going to fund the development work however!

We developed a post production tool that could take in a regular photo and depth map and then use the data to make 1st generation Vision-Space stills that could then be strapped together for moving image data. The idea was then to 'push' the illustrative architecture to real-time speeds and get an eye-tracker involved so that in-time fixation data could be fed into the image making process. Then we could use depth-map info to feed in the position of the individual relative to the display screen. The Vision-Space system could then be fully (well you now what I mean!) immersive. There would be no binocular fusion involved.

Possible Tests: 

Subjects could be exposed to sill picture space renditions and then Vision-Space renditions of the same thing. Questions relating to a subjects awareness to the proximity of depicted objects could be formed. We did just manage to start to explore this. Some results in www.pacentre.org library section. Joe Baldwin conducted these but it was just for us to prepare really - the funding never came through however!

We know that an edgeless display screen significantly increases the immersive feel to Vision-Space media so we could test that. We produced a curved screen and it significantly enhanced the spatial effect. There are no frames in vision! They are a picture space device - hole in the wall and world beyond idea.

A Vision-Space simulation (real-time capability) should enable better spatial awareness and orientation in comparison to to a picture driven system.

Gaming environments should be significantly enhanced as with flight and driving simulators etc. In theory a Vision-Space gaming environment should encourage 'contextual awareness'. Engagement with the 'where' neural pathway (Dorsal?)

Then there are the significant therapy applications. Vision-Space environments are likely to be of benefit to ASD, Stroke and Alzheimers patients. 

Then there are theoretical experiments to with retinal function. It should be possible generate stimuli that provoke Muller cells to signal using irons and stimuli that don't etc. This would be exceptionally difficult to set up.

If we (as biological systems) are generating the basis of the field structure for the spatial data segmented by the sense ecologies to present we should be able to chase that down and understand how the glial and neuronal network support the activity. Audition must also be involved.

If we can understand some of the above we can start to speculate about what it is that our current instrumentation is not interfacing with. Then apply that to our current data collection devices and the records they have been generating.

In theory, this would inform physical theory?! For example I think this draws a line under relativity? It changes our relationship to light - well, it changes our conceptual understanding as to our relationship to light!

There are so many potential avenues but none can really progress until someone stumps up some cash to deliver the technology agenda to support it.

I attach the TRIZ patent analysis as the map of applications gives some idea of the scope for evaluation.

"When viewing equivalent scenes in monocular vs stereo, there are measurable differences in brain activation.  So when viewing equivalent scenes naturally vs with the best current rendering can currently offer (foveated, wfov, high rest), you would predict that differences would show at least what?

Ideas for testing the proposition?"

There are two primary systems in play with perceptual structure when we view a real setting

1. The field structure - the basis is this can be accessed on a monocular basis but its quite difficult to 'attend' to on this basis. Not too sure why really but the spatial impression within contextual field is more evident with both eyes open. This data set spans right across phenomenal field.

2. Central vision - the monocular basis for this modulates with the data-set forming contextual field. So on a monocular basis we actually have available two impression within central vision.

- the binocular basis provision another two impressions of what presents in central vision making four in total. We modulate all four to 'contemplate form' but in a specific order within quadrants. The Vision-Space post production tool deals with this.

3. The stereo zone (outside central vision where information from both eyes is available) - there are crescent shaped alternation zones where data from either eye is able to presents sequentially. The Vision-Space post production tool deals with this as well.

Each one of these enhances to some degree the saliency of an image.

The degree to which brain activity would vary in response to data from a real setting and then an image is a moot question. I would suggest that in the case of exposure to an image we would expect the later stage brain areas to change when viewing picture and then Vision-Space media.

However I don't think we would expect to see brain function associated with the handling of implicit data (early stage) to be very active when viewing Vision-Space media (same would be true of picture media of course) unless the image being viewed did not fill visual field, i.e. we could see the space in which the 2D media was being presented (beyond the edges of the 2D sheet). 

The other thing to think about here is that in Vision-Space media we can fixate all over the 2D image. i.e. we can move our fixation into area representing contextual visual output. We can't perform this task as we look at a real setting of course! The point being that when we do this we are using central vision and its pathway to look at the system that presents as contextual (peripheral) vision. We are using the ventral system (explicit) to look at the product of dorsal stream activity (implicit)! Brain activity would in theory at least, show ventral stream activity and not dorsal?

Clear!!