Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 114 references

Positioning Monocular Optical See Through Head Worn Displays in Glasses for Everyday Wear

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper consolidates human-factors studies to conclude that a monocular see-through display worn as everyday glasses should place its virtual image vertically centered and offset from +8.7° to +23.7° toward the ear, with a 15°…

desk verdict A genuinely useful synthesis that gives HWD makers a concrete design target, but the left edge of the recommended window rests on a display-off combiner study that hasn't been tested for active imagery. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.09047 v1 pith:PAQJZ5GN submitted 2025-05-14 cs.HC

Parth Arora , Ethan Kimmel , Katherine Huang , Tyler Kwok , Yukun Song , Sofia Vempala , Georgianna Lin , Ozan Cakmakci
show 1 more author
Thad Starner
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords head-worndisplaysopticalsee-throughmonoculardisplaypositioningfieldofviewsmartglassesaugmentedrealitycognitivecapture
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper consolidates experimental results on monocular optical see-through head-worn displays to answer where in the wearer's visual field the virtual image should sit in glasses worn all day. It argues that centering the display at the principal point of gaze is fastest but interruptive and socially awkward, and that an offset toward the ear balances interruption, comfort, performance, and social perception. For text-based tasks, it recommends a 15° horizontal field of view, vertically centered, placed from +8.7° to +23.7° toward the ear, with glanceable content extended up to +30°. If these numbers are right, they give waveguide-optics designers concrete angular targets for everyday smart glasses.

What carries the argument

The reasoning rests on a set of angular thresholds from different studies: an 8° radius around gaze where centered imagery causes cognitive capture; the roughly 25° limit of eye-only gaze shifts; the -20.2° to +8.7° window where visible combiner edges annoy wearers even when the display is off; and the -24.6° to +19.6° comfort range for sustained reading. The recommendation interval is the intersection of these constraints: to the ear side of the visible-edge boundary, inside the sustained-reading comfort bound, and within eye-only reach.

What would settle it

Empirical test: have participants wear a right-eye waveguide display with a lit 15° virtual image whose inner edge sits at +6°, +8.7°, and +11° while doing a text-reading task, and record annoyance and performance; if the +6° condition is not rated more annoying or more visibly edged than the +8.7° condition, the recommended left boundary is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that for a right-eye monocular display worn like ordinary glasses, the virtual image should be vertically centered but horizontally offset so that it occupies +8.7° to +23.7° toward the ear, giving a 15° horizontal field of view for text. Glanceable content may extend to +30° for short interactions, while sustained reading sessions of thirty minutes or more should stay inside +19.6°. The paper also concludes that when the display is off, optical combiner edges should lie outside the -20.2° to +8.7° window around straight-ahead gaze. These bounds come from combining constraints on cognitive capture, eye-movement comfort, combiner-edge visibility, and social perception. The paper recommends the narrower +8.7° to +19.6° window for sessions of half an hour or more.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the +8.7° inner-edge boundary, measured for the appearance of an unlit optical combiner in emulated glasses, applies unchanged to the inner edge of a lit virtual image on a real waveguide display.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Waveguide optics for everyday glasses can be designed to center a 15° horizontal field of view at about +16° azimuth on the right lens.
  • Real-time captioning for deaf and hard-of-hearing users is best served by a 15° field of view at roughly 9° offset toward the ear, with larger fields causing eye and head strain and smaller fields providing too little context.
  • Content should be kept inside +30° toward the ear even for short glances, and inside +19.6° for reading sessions of 30 minutes or more.
  • A right-eyed display can still overlay graphics on the world ahead because the wearer can simply turn the head approximately 15° to bring the earward image into alignment.
  • Displays placed below eye level can feel socially awkward in face-to-face conversation, so the recommended earward, vertically centered position avoids that risk.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper's results are for right-eye wearers; by symmetry a left-eye display would mirror the window, but the social-perception and combiner studies do not test the mirrored case, so a left-eye recommendation remains an extrapolation.
  • The +8.7° inner edge comes from an inactive-combiner study; until a lit active image edge is tested at several offsets, the exact left boundary of the recommendation is provisional.
  • The 30° glanceable cap assumes eye-only shifts; if users are willing to move their heads, the practical positional envelope is larger, which could matter for glanceable notifications.
  • Future gaze-contingent designs could place optics more centrally and shift content only during use, but the paper's recommendation is for fixed, static positioning in the frame.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper consolidates recent and prior research on monocular optical see-through head-worn display (OST-HWD) placement, with the aim of deriving a concrete design guideline for everyday eyeglasses. After reviewing interruption, comfort, performance, and social perception studies, the authors recommend a 15° horizontal field of view for the virtual image in the right lens, vertically centered and offset horizontally from +8.7° to +23.7° toward the ear relative to the principal position of gaze (PPOG), with glanceable content allowed up to +30° for short interactions. The paper also includes sections on field-of-view trade-offs, inactive optical combiner comfort, social perception of lens tint, overlay capabilities, and optical architecture considerations (freespace and flat lightguide).

Significance. If the recommended interval (+8.7° to +23.7°) is accepted, this paper would provide one of the few concrete, quantitative targets for positioning monocular OST-HWDs in everyday glasses, which is genuinely useful for hardware designers. The paper performs a valuable service by synthesizing aviation HUD, automotive HUD, and wearable HWD studies into a single framework, and it explicitly raises less commonly considered constraints such as the appearance of an inactive optical combiner and social perception of downward gaze. The recommendation is falsifiable and clearly stated, and the paper honestly distinguishes published from ongoing/unpublished work. However, the central numeric boundaries are less strongly supported than the prose implies, because the inner-edge boundary (+8.7°) comes from an unlit-combiner study, the 15° FOV relies in part on an unpublished captioning study, and the paper's own active-display comfort data indicate a more conservative outer bound (+19.6°) for extended reading.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 6, with Section 5.2.2] The inner edge of the recommended active-image interval is set at +8.7°, but the source study (Song and Arora et al. [71,96]) measured comfort of unlit optical-combiner edges in emulated glasses, not of a lit virtual image with text. The paper presents no direct evidence that the comfort boundary for an inactive combiner edge transfers unchanged to the inner edge of an active display. Because the entire left boundary of the final recommendation rests on this transfer, this is a load-bearing gap; the authors should either mark +8.7° as a provisional boundary or report an active-display test of inner-edge placement near 8°–12°.
  2. [Section 4 and Section 6] The 15° FOV recommendation is supported primarily by an ongoing, unpublished captioning study (Kwok et al.) whose 9° offset was itself chosen from Arora et al.'s +8.7° combiner-edge boundary; the paper later treats +8.7° as an independent constraint, making the argument partly circular. Moreover, Section 6 attributes a 15° FOV suggestion to "Martin et al. and Britain et al.," but the cited reference [109] is the same paper as [70] (Britain et al.), which actually reports a preferred 20°–30° FOV for captioning. The cited published work therefore does not support the 15° value. The authors should correct this attribution and state explicitly which parts of the 15° recommendation depend on unpublished results.
  3. [Section 5.2.2 and Section 6] Section 5.2.2 concludes that optical combiner edges should be placed "outside the range of -20.2° and +8.7°" from PPOG, meaning an edge at +8.7° is on the boundary of the forbidden zone rather than outside it. The final recommendation places the inner edge of the virtual image at exactly +8.7°. The paper should clarify whether +8.7° is an acceptable location for an active-image edge (e.g., because the 8.7° value includes a safety margin beyond Dowell's 8° cognitive-capture radius) or whether the recommended interval should begin strictly beyond +8.7° (e.g., at +9° or +10°).
  4. [Section 5.2.1 and Section 6] The paper's own active-display comfort data (Haynes, Song, and Arora) identify +19.6° as the comfortable outer bound for extended reading and +30° for shorter interactions, yet the final recommendation allows a 15° FOV extending to +23.7° for text-based tasks. Since text-based tasks are typically prolonged (reading, captioning), the 15° recommendation exceeds the stated extended-use bound without additional justification. The authors should either reconcile the +23.7° outer edge with the +19.6° extended-use threshold or restrict the 15° FOV to shorter interaction contexts.
minor comments (4)
  1. [References [70] and [109]] References [70] and [109] appear to be the same paper (Britain et al., "Preferences for captioning on emulated head worn displays while in group conversation"); duplicate references and the unexplained "Martin et al." attribution in Section 6 should be corrected.
  2. [Section 9.2 and 9.3] Sections 9.2 and 9.3 refer to "Figure 1 (left)" and "Figure 1 (right)" as examples of freespace and flat lightguide architectures, but Figure 1 shows photographs of Google Glass and the Vuzix Z100; the intended figures appear to be Figure 14 and Figure 15. The cross-references should be fixed.
  3. [Section 4] The word "contraints" in Section 4 (paragraph on high FOV and all-day wear) is a typo for "constraints."
  4. [Throughout] The paper inconsistently uses "principal point of gaze" in the abstract and "Principal Position Of Gaze (PPOG)" in Section 3.3; the terminology should be unified.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The exact 15° interval recycles the +8.7° boundary used to choose the offset of the very study cited as evidence, and the 15° width rests on an unpublished self-cited study.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4 ('Choosing a field of view for everyday use') and Section 6 ('Resulting Position of the Display')]
    "However, an ongoing study building on Britain’s work by Kwok et al. suggests that a 15° FOV image may be ideal for captioning at a 9° offset towards the ear. This 9° offset towards the ear was chosen based on the findings of Arora [71] which found that a monocular display on the right eye between -20.2° and +8.7° can be annoying due to the edges and distortions caused by optical combiners. ... Thus, we suggest offsetting a right-eyed HWD’s virtual image such that it extends between +8.7° and +23.7° to the right of principal position of gaze (PPOG) and up to +30° for shorter interactions."

    The paper selects the 9° offset of its validating captioning study from Arora's +8.7° combiner-edge boundary, then recommends exactly that +8.7° as the inner edge of the 15° image. The Kwok study was constructed so that its near edge complied with the very boundary the paper later presents as its independent inner-edge constraint. A positive result in that study cannot validate the +8.7° boundary because the boundary was an input to the study design, not a conclusion drawn from it. The recommendation's inner edge is therefore an input recycled as an output.

  2. self citation load bearing [Section 4 ('Choosing a field of view for everyday use')]
    "However, an ongoing study building on Britain’s work by Kwok et al. suggests that a 15° FOV image may be ideal for captioning at a 9° offset towards the ear."

    The central quantitative width, 15°, is justified by an 'ongoing' study by co-authors, with no protocol, data, or statistics reported in this paper. Section 6 also attributes the 15° value to 'Martin et al. and Britain et al. [109]', although reference [109] is the same Britain et al. paper that Section 4 describes as reporting a 20–30° preference for centered displays. The key FOV value thus rests on an unpublished, self-referential source with inconsistent provenance, making the recommended interval [+8.7°, +23.7°] depend on a non-independent and uncheckable citation chain.

full rationale

The exact recommendation [+8.7°, +23.7°] is assembled from two inputs that are not independent of each other. Section 4 says Kwok et al.'s captioning study used a 9° offset 'chosen based on the findings of Arora [71]', whose +8.7° boundary is then re-used in Section 6 as the inner edge of the recommended 15° FOV; the study cited as validating the placement was constructed around the very boundary it is used to justify. Section 6's 15° FOV width is also supported by an 'ongoing' co-authored study with no reported data, and its citation to 'Martin et al. and Britain et al. [109]' conflicts with Section 4's account of Britain et al. as a 20–30° centered-display preference. These are load-bearing self-references, so the exact interval is partially circular. However, the broader conclusion—offset a monocular display to the right, outside roughly 8° from PPOG and within roughly ±25°—is independently supported by external aviation HUD work (Dowell, Foyle), automotive HUD studies (Yoo, Watanabe, Tsimhoni), Chua et al., and Sidenmark et al. Those independent threads prevent the central claim from being wholly defined by the self-citation chain, so 4/10 is appropriate rather than 6+ or higher. The transfer of the inactive-combiner edge result to an active virtual image is an extrapolation, but the paper states its own 'implies' reasoning, so I treat that as a correctness risk rather than an additional circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The recommendation interval is assembled from prior empirical boundaries rather than derived from a model. The load-bearing inputs are empirical constants from the authors' own studies, augmented by transfers from aviation HUD, automotive HUD, and gaze-range research.

free parameters (4)
  • Recommended horizontal FOV = 15°
    A design compromise between smartphone-class FOVs (9° to 14°), PPOG-centered captioning preferences (20° to 30°), and the authors' ongoing Kwok study; not derived from a formal optimization.
  • Inner-edge offset from PPOG = +8.7° toward the ear
    Empirical boundary from the authors' earlier optical-combiner edge study; reused in this paper as the active image's near edge.
  • Extended-use outer limit = +19.6° toward the ear
    Adopted from Song and Arora's reading study as a conservative boundary for tasks lasting 30 minutes or more.
  • Short-interaction outer limit = up to +30° toward the ear
    Adopted from Haynes et al.'s finding that 30° is barely acceptable and from Sidenmark's ±25° guidance; a chosen cap for brief use.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Text-based task performance is a valid proxy for most monocular OST-HWD tasks.
    Section 2 argues that reading is the most demanding benchmark and that other tasks inherit its viability; this is an assumption, not a demonstrated equivalence.
  • domain assumption Dowell's 8° cognitive-capture radius for aviation HUD symbology transfers to monocular OST-HWDs in everyday use.
    Used in Sections 5.1 and 6 as the justification for keeping all pixels more than 8° from PPOG; aviation HUDs differ in content, task, and environment.
  • domain assumption Sidenmark's ±25° eyes-only gaze shift limit applies to reading a 15° FOV HWD.
    Sidenmark's work concerns coordinated eye and head movements in 3D gaze interaction; the paper applies it directly to text reading on head-stabilized displays (Section 4.1).
  • domain assumption Emulated displays (opaque monoculars, video pass-through VR, semi-transparent films) preserve the ergonomically relevant properties of real optical see-through waveguides.
    Key boundary studies by Haynes, Lin, Song, Arora, Kwok, and Mosur used emulations or simulations rather than production OST-HWDs (Sections 5.2, 5.2.2, Figure 6).
  • ad hoc to paper The comfortable position of the inactive optical combiner's edges sets the acceptable inner edge of the active virtual image.
    Section 5.2.2 measures edges in the display-off state, and Section 6 reuses the +8.7° value as the active image's near boundary; the paper never tests this mapping directly.
  • domain assumption Right-eye measurements provide a general recommendation for right-lens placement without adjustment for ocular dominance or left-eye users.
    All quantitative boundaries come from the right eye; the paper does not report dominance effects or mirror-symmetry data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Positioning Monocular Optical See Through Head Worn Displays in Glasses for Everyday Wear." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PAQJZ5GN

@misc{pith2026250509047,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Positioning Monocular Optical See Through Head Worn Displays in Glasses for Everyday Wear},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PAQJZ5GN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.09047}
}
read the original abstract

Head-worn displays for everyday wear in the form of regular eyeglasses are technically feasible with recent advances in waveguide technology. One major design decision is determining where in the user's visual field to position the display. Centering the display in the principal point of gaze (PPOG) allows the user to switch attentional focus between the virtual and real images quickly, and best performance often occurs when the display is centered in PPOG or is centered vertically below PPOG. However, these positions are often undesirable in that they are considered interruptive or are associated with negative social perceptions by users. Offsetting the virtual image may be preferred when tasks involve driving, walking, or social interaction. This paper consolidates findings from recent studies on monocular optical see-through HWDs (OST-HWDs), focusing on potential for interruption, comfort, performance, and social perception. For text-based tasks, which serve as a proxy for many monocular OST-HWD tasks, we recommend a 15{\deg} horizontal field of view (FOV) with the virtual image in the right lens vertically centered but offset to +8.7{\deg} to +23.7{\deg} toward the ear. Glanceable content can be offset up to +30{\deg} for short interactions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.09047 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Google Glass in 2014 and Vuzix Z100 in 2024. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Field of view versus field of regard. 3.3 Visual Angles Typically, for defining the positioning of a display for head-stabilized [48] HWDs, the positions are defined in angles relative to the head. We will use this terminology throughout the paper. There are two primary angles: azimuth (horizontal) and elevation (vertical) ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of three elevation and azimuth angles relative to the right eye (by Chua et al. with permission) [49]. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Nine display positions on a monocular OST-HMD studied by Chua et al. (reproduced with permission) [49]. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Illustration of eye ranges defined by Sidenmark et al. [63]. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Simulated text message in HWD offset from PPOG while user walks on pre-defined path. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Simulated examples of participant’s view in Lin et al.’s task (with permission) [50]. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Left: Nine HWD positions tested by Chua et al. [49]. Right: Display positions tested by Lin et al. [50]. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Outer bounds to display pixels. combiner had almost the same transparency as the glasses. The first study suggested that the nearest optical boundary to the PPOG should be offset by more than -15° (towards the nose) from the PPOG. The second study indicated that the ed…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Emulated optical combiner. Left: The emulated combiner is placed in front of the participant’s right eye. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Configurations of optical combiners considered. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Avoid placing optical combiner edges within -20.2° to +8.7° [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Eye wrap (left) and pantoscopic tilt (right). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Example freespace architecture showing lightsource, optics, combiner, and user’s pupil [113]. Although the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Example classical lightguide architecture raytrace with an incoupler, expander, and an outcoupler. In this [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

114 extracted references · 80 canonical work pages

  1. [109]

    Preferences for captioning on emulated head worn displays while in group conversation

    Gabriel Wade Britain, David Martin, Tyler Kwok, Adam Sumilong, and Thad Starner. Preferences for captioning on emulated head worn displays while in group conversation. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM International Symposium on Wearable Computers, pages 17–22, 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [70]

    Preferences for captioning on emulated head worn displays while in group conversation

    Gabriel Wade Britain, David Martin, Tyler Kwok, Adam Sumilong, and Thad Starner. Preferences for captioning on emulated head worn displays while in group conversation. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM International Symposium on Wearable Computers , ISWC ’22, page 17–22, New York, NY , USA, 2022. Association for Computing Machinery

    work page 2022

  3. [1]

    Towards accessible conversations in a mobile context for people who are deaf and hard of hearing

    Dhruv Jain, Rachel Franz, Leah Findlater, Jackson Cannon, Raja Kushalnagar, and Jon Froehlich. Towards accessible conversations in a mobile context for people who are deaf and hard of hearing. In Proceedings of the 20th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility , pages 81–92, 2018

    2018

  4. [2]

    The use of smart glasses for lecture comprehension by deaf and hard of hearing students

    Ashley Miller, Joan Malasig, Brenda Castro, Vicki L Hanson, Hugo Nicolau, and Alessandra Brandão. The use of smart glasses for lecture comprehension by deaf and hard of hearing students. In Proceedings of the 2017 chi conference extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems , pages 1909–1915, 2017

    2017

  5. [3]

    Caption placement on an augmented reality head worn device

    Chris Schipper and Bo Brinkman. Caption placement on an augmented reality head worn device. In Proceedings of the 19th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility , pages 365–366, 2017. 18 Positioning Monocular OST-HWD in Glasses for Everyday Wear

    2017

  6. [4]

    Helmet-mounted displays and sights

    Mordekhai Velger. Helmet-mounted displays and sights. 1998

    1998

  7. [5]

    smart glasses

    Sunwook Kim, Maury A Nussbaum, and Joseph L Gabbard. Augmented reality “smart glasses” in the workplace: industry perspectives and challenges for worker safety and health. IIE transactions on occupational ergonomics and human factors, 4(4):253–258, 2016

    2016

  8. [6]

    Magic Leap

    Inc. Magic Leap. Magic leap, 2025. Accessed: 2025-01-01

    2025

Show all 114 references
  1. [7]

    Hololens, 2025

    Microsoft Corporation. Hololens, 2025. Accessed: 2025-01-01

    2025

  2. [8]

    Apple vision pro, 2025

    Apple Inc. Apple vision pro, 2025. Accessed: 2025-01-01

    2025

  3. [9]

    Meta Platforms

    Inc. Meta Platforms. Meta orion, 2025. Accessed: 2025-01-01

    2025

  4. [10]

    Snap spectacles, 2025

    Snap Inc. Snap spectacles, 2025. Accessed: 2025-01-01

    2025

  5. [11]

    Properties of a peripheral head-mounted display (phmd)

    Denys JC Matthies, Marian Haescher, Rebekka Alm, and Bodo Urban. Properties of a peripheral head-mounted display (phmd). In HCI International 2015-Posters’ Extended Abstracts: International Conference, HCI International 2015, Los Angeles, CA, USA, August 2–7, 2015. Proceedings...

    2015

  6. [12]

    Impacts of using a head-worn display on gait performance during level walking and obstacle crossing

    Sunwook Kim, Maury A Nussbaum, and Sophia Ulman. Impacts of using a head-worn display on gait performance during level walking and obstacle crossing. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology, 39:142– 148, 2018

    2018

  7. [13]

    Enabling mobile microinteractions

    Daniel L Ashbrook. Enabling mobile microinteractions. Georgia Institute of Technology, 2010

    2010

  8. [14]

    The enigmatic display

    Thad E Starner. The enigmatic display. IEEE pervasive computing, 2(1):15–18, 2003

    2003

  9. [15]

    Google glass lead: How wearing tech on our bodies actually helps it get out of our way

    Thad Starner. Google glass lead: How wearing tech on our bodies actually helps it get out of our way. Wired Magazine. December, 17, 2013

    2013

  10. [16]

    Learning visual models of social engagement

    Bradley A Singletary and Thad E Starner. Learning visual models of social engagement. In Proceedings IEEE ICCV Workshop on Recognition, Analysis, and Tracking of Faces and Gestures in Real-Time Systems , pages 141–148. IEEE, 2001

    2001

  11. [17]

    Wearable agents

    Thad E Starner. Wearable agents. IEEE pervasive computing, 1(2):90–92, 2002

    2002

  12. [18]

    Aware- ness of the real-world environment when using augmented reality head-mounted display

    Susanna Aromaa, Antti Väätänen, Iina Aaltonen, Vladimir Goriachev, Kaj Helin, and Jaakko Karjalainen. Aware- ness of the real-world environment when using augmented reality head-mounted display. Applied ergonomics, 88:103145, 2020

    2020

  13. [19]

    Vuzix ultralite, 2024

    Vuzix Corporation. Vuzix ultralite, 2024. Accessed: 2025-01-01

    2024

  14. [20]

    Even realities g1, 2024

    Even Realities. Even realities g1, 2024. Accessed: 2025-01-01

    2024

  15. [21]

    Optometric and perceptual issues with head-mounted displays , page 205–276

    Eli Peli. Optometric and perceptual issues with head-mounted displays , page 205–276. 1999

    1999

  16. [22]

    Cognitive considerations for helmet-mounted display design

    Gregory Francis and Clarence E Rash. Cognitive considerations for helmet-mounted display design. InHead-and Helmet-Mounted Displays XV: Design and Applications , volume 7688, pages 88–98. SPIE, 2010

    2010

  17. [23]

    Velocity characteristics of normal human saccades

    D Boghen, BT Troost, RB Daroff, LF Dell’Osso, and JE Birkett. Velocity characteristics of normal human saccades. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, 13(8):619–623, 1974

    1974

  18. [24]

    Coordination of the eyes and head during visual orienting

    Edward G Freedman. Coordination of the eyes and head during visual orienting. Experimental brain research, 190:369–387, 2008

    2008

  19. [25]

    Human eye-head coordination in two dimensions under different sensorimotor conditions

    Hieronymus HLM Goossens and AJ Van Opstal. Human eye-head coordination in two dimensions under different sensorimotor conditions. Experimental Brain Research, 114:542–560, 1997

    1997

  20. [26]

    Looking and acting: vision and eye movements in natural behaviour

    Michael Land and Benjamin Tatler. Looking and acting: vision and eye movements in natural behaviour . Oxford University Press, USA, 2009

    2009

  21. [27]

    Dowell, David C

    Susan R. Dowell, David C. Foyle, Becky L. Hooey, and Jennifer L. Williams. The effect of visual location on cognitive tunneling with superimposed hud symbology. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 46(1):121–125, 2002

    2002

  22. [28]

    Foyle, Robert S

    David C. Foyle, Robert S. McCann, Beverly D. Sanford, and Martin F.J. Schwirzke. Attentional effects with superimposed symbology: Implications for head-up displays (hud). Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 37(19):1340–1344, 1993

    1993

  23. [29]

    Display of hud warnings to drivers: Determining an optimal location

    Herbert Yoo. Display of hud warnings to drivers: Determining an optimal location. Technical report, 1999

    1999

  24. [30]

    The effect of hud warning location on driver responses

    Hiroshi Watanabe, Herbert Yoo, Omer Tsimhoni, and Paul Green. The effect of hud warning location on driver responses. In Sixth World congress on Intelligent Transport Systems, Toronto, Canada. Citeseer, 1999. 19 Arora et al

    1999

  25. [31]

    Display of short text messages on automotive huds: Effects of driving workload and message location

    Omer Tsimhoni. Display of short text messages on automotive huds: Effects of driving workload and message location. Technical report, 2000

    2000

  26. [32]

    Detecting and reading text on huds: effects of driving workload and message location

    Omer Tsimhoni, Paul Green, Hiroshi Watanabe, et al. Detecting and reading text on huds: effects of driving workload and message location. In 11th Annual ITS America Meeting, Miami, FL, CD-ROM , 2001

    2001

  27. [33]

    Stepping into ar: Exploring optimal positioning for monocular head-worn displays for reading on the go

    Priyanka Mosur, Ethan Kimmel, Parth Arora, Rajandeep Singh, Atharva Rajesh Madiwale, Jenna Kang, and Thad Starner. Stepping into ar: Exploring optimal positioning for monocular head-worn displays for reading on the go. In Companion of the 2024 on ACM International Joint Confer...

    2024

  28. [34]

    Binocular rivalry in monocular augmented reality devices: a review

    Elodie Bayle, Esetelle Guilbaud, Sylvain Hourlier, Sylvie Lelandais, Laure Leroy, Justin Plantier, and Pascaline Neveu. Binocular rivalry in monocular augmented reality devices: a review. Situation Awareness in Degraded Environments 2019, 11019:136–149, 2019

    2019

  29. [35]

    perceived

    Randolph Blake. What can be “perceived” in the absence of visual awareness? Current Directions in Psycholog- ical Science, 6(6):157–162, 1997

    1997

  30. [36]

    Binocular rivalry and head-worn displays

    Robert Patterson, Marc Winterbottom, Byron Pierce, and Robert Fox. Binocular rivalry and head-worn displays. Human factors, 49(6):1083–1096, 2007

    2007

  31. [37]

    Rivalry and interference with a head-mounted display

    Robert Laramee and Colin Ware. Rivalry and interference with a head-mounted display. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 9(3):238–251, 2002

    2002

  32. [38]

    Order picking with head-up displays

    Anhong Guo, Xiaolong Wu, Zhengyang Shen, Thad Starner, Hannes Baumann, and Scott Gilliland. Order picking with head-up displays. Computer, 48(6):16–24, 2015

    2015

  33. [39]

    Binocular rivalry in helmet-mounted display applications.AD-AO13, 838:1–146, 1975

    ML Hershberger and DF Guerin. Binocular rivalry in helmet-mounted display applications.AD-AO13, 838:1–146, 1975

    1975

  34. [40]

    Visual issues in the use of a head-mounted monocular display

    Eli Peli. Visual issues in the use of a head-mounted monocular display. Optical Engineering, 29(8):883–892, 1990

    1990

  35. [41]

    61.3: Invited paper: A virtual display for mobile use

    Jukka Häkkinen. 61.3: Invited paper: A virtual display for mobile use. In SID Symposium Digest of Technical Papers, volume 35, pages 1586–1589. Wiley Online Library, 2004

    2004

  36. [42]

    Managing mobile text in head mounted displays: studies on visual preference and text placement

    Jason Orlosky, Kiyoshi Kiyokawa, and Haruo Takemura. Managing mobile text in head mounted displays: studies on visual preference and text placement. ACM SIGMOBILE Mobile Computing and Communications Review, 18(2):20–31, 2014

    2014

  37. [43]

    Effects of position and alignment of notifications on ar glasses during social interaction

    Rufat Rzayev, Susanne Korbely, Milena Maul, Alina Schark, Valentin Schwind, and Niels Henze. Effects of position and alignment of notifications on ar glasses during social interaction. In Proceedings of the 11th Nordic conference on human-computer interaction: shaping experien...

    2020

  38. [44]

    Peripheral vision annotation: noninterference information presentation method for mobile augmented reality

    Yoshio Ishiguro and Jun Rekimoto. Peripheral vision annotation: noninterference information presentation method for mobile augmented reality. In Proceedings of the 2nd Augmented Human International Conference , AH ’11, New York, NY , USA, 2011. Association for Computing Machinery

    2011

  39. [45]

    Wearable subtitles: Augmenting spoken communication with lightweight eyewear for all-day captioning

    Alex Olwal, Kevin Balke, Dmitrii V otintcev, Thad Starner, Paula Conn, Bonnie Chinh, and Benoit Corda. Wearable subtitles: Augmenting spoken communication with lightweight eyewear for all-day captioning. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Softwar...

    2020

  40. [46]

    Head mounted displays and deaf children: Facilitating sign language in challenging learning environments

    Michael Jones, M Jeannette Lawler, Eric Hintz, Nathan Bench, Fred Mangrubang, and Mallory Trullender. Head mounted displays and deaf children: Facilitating sign language in challenging learning environments. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Interaction design and child...

    2014

  41. [47]

    A model for notification systems evaluation—assessing user goals for multitasking activity

    D Scott McCrickard, Christa M Chewar, Jacob P Somervell, and Ali Ndiwalana. A model for notification systems evaluation—assessing user goals for multitasking activity. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 10(4):312–338, 2003

    2003

  42. [48]

    Spatial information displays on a wearable computer

    Mark Billinghurst, Jerry Bowskill, Nick Dyer, and Jason Morphett. Spatial information displays on a wearable computer. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications , 18(6):24–31, 1998

    1998

  43. [49]

    Perrault, Denys J

    Soon Hau Chua, Simon T. Perrault, Denys J. C. Matthies, and Shengdong Zhao. Positioning glass: Investigating display positions of monocular optical see-through head-mounted display. ChineseCHI2016, New York, NY , USA, 2016. Association for Computing Machinery

    2016

  44. [50]

    Towards Finding the Optimum Position in the Visual Field for a Head Worn Display Used for Task Guidance with Non-registered Graphics

    Georgianna Lin, Malcolm Haynes, Sarthak Srinivas, Pramod Kotipalli, and Thad Starner. Towards Finding the Optimum Position in the Visual Field for a Head Worn Display Used for Task Guidance with Non-registered Graphics. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable a...

    2021

  45. [51]

    The joy of visual perception: A web book

    Peter K Kaiser. The joy of visual perception: A web book . York University, 2004

    2004

  46. [52]

    Font size and viewing distance of handheld smart phones

    Yuliya Bababekova, Mark Rosenfield, Jennifer E Hue, and Rae R Huang. Font size and viewing distance of handheld smart phones. Optometry and Vision Science, 88(7):795–797, 2011

    2011

  47. [53]

    Column inch, 2025

    Wikipedia contributors. Column inch, 2025. Accessed: 2025-01-21

    2025

  48. [54]

    iphone 6 - technical specifications, 2014

    Apple Inc. iphone 6 - technical specifications, 2014. Accessed: 2025-01-01

    2014

  49. [55]

    iphone 16 pro max - tech specs, 2024

    Apple Inc. iphone 16 pro max - tech specs, 2024. Accessed: 2025-01-01

    2024

  50. [56]

    ipod nano (4th generation) - technical specifications, 2006

    Apple Inc. ipod nano (4th generation) - technical specifications, 2006. Accessed: 2025-01-01

    2006

  51. [57]

    ipad mini 2 with retina display - technical specifications, 2017

    Apple Inc. ipad mini 2 with retina display - technical specifications, 2017. Accessed: 2025-01-01

    2017

  52. [58]

    ipad air 2 - technical specification, 2017

    Apple Inc. ipad air 2 - technical specification, 2017. Accessed: 2025-01-01

    2017

  53. [59]

    ipad pro 13-inch (m4) - tech specs, 2024

    Apple Inc. ipad pro 13-inch (m4) - tech specs, 2024. Accessed: 2025-01-01

    2024

  54. [60]

    Smpte standards and practices

    Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers. Smpte standards and practices. Available at: urlhttps://www.smpte.org, 2025. Accessed: 2025-01-14

    2025

  55. [61]

    Thx certification program

    THX Ltd. Thx certification program. Available at: urlhttps://www.thx.com, 2025. Accessed: 2025-01-14

    2025

  56. [62]

    Visual requirements in hmds: What can we see and what do we need to see

    Elizabeth Thorpe Davis. Visual requirements in hmds: What can we see and what do we need to see. Head mounted displays: Designing for the user , pages 207–252, 1997

    1997

  57. [63]

    Coordinated eye and head movements for gaze interaction in 3D environments

    Ludwig Sidenmark. Coordinated eye and head movements for gaze interaction in 3D environments . Lancaster University (United Kingdom), 2023

    2023

  58. [64]

    Vuzix VX Ultralite Video, July 2023

    Vuzix Corporation. Vuzix VX Ultralite Video, July 2023

    2023

  59. [65]

    Waveguide technology for ar glasses

    Dispelix. Waveguide technology for ar glasses. https://www.dispelix.com/, 2025. Accessed: 2025-01-22

    2025

  60. [66]

    Next-generation ar optics

    Digilens. Next-generation ar optics. https://www.bigilens.com/, 2025. Accessed: 2025-01-22

    2025

  61. [67]

    Optical solutions for augmented reality

    Lumus. Optical solutions for augmented reality. https://www.lumus-optical.com/, 2025. Accessed: 2025-01-22

    2025

  62. [68]

    The visual effects of head-mounted display (HMD) are not distinguishable from those of desk-top computer display

    Eli Peli. The visual effects of head-mounted display (HMD) are not distinguishable from those of desk-top computer display. Vision Research, 38(13):2053–2066, June 1998

    1998

  63. [69]

    Eye gaze tracking techniques for interactive applications.Computer vision and image understanding, 98(1):4–24, 2005

    Carlos H Morimoto and Marcio RM Mimica. Eye gaze tracking techniques for interactive applications.Computer vision and image understanding, 98(1):4–24, 2005

    2005

  64. [71]

    Comfortably going blank: Optimizing the position of optical combiners for monocular head-worn displays during inactivity

    Parth Arora, Yukun Song, Rajandeep Singh, Srikanth T Varadharajan, Ethan I Kimmel, Katherine Huang, Malcolm Haynes, and Thad Starner. Comfortably going blank: Optimizing the position of optical combiners for monocular head-worn displays during inactivity. In Proceedings of the...

    2024

  65. [72]

    Cognitive issues in head-up displays

    Edith Fischer and Richard F Haines. Cognitive issues in head-up displays. Technical report, 1980

    1980

  66. [73]

    Head-up display (hud) utility, ii: Runway to hud transitions monitoring eye focus and decision times

    Daniel J Weintraub, Richard F Haines, and Robert J Randle. Head-up display (hud) utility, ii: Runway to hud transitions monitoring eye focus and decision times. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society Annual Meeting, volume 29, pages 615–619. SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los...

    1985

  67. [74]

    Human factors aspects of using head up displays in automobiles: A review of the literature

    Kenneth W Gish and Loren Staplin. Human factors aspects of using head up displays in automobiles: A review of the literature. 1995

    1995

  68. [75]

    See-through head-up display of in-vehicle in- formation systems for vision enhancement

    Chun-Wen Chao, Cheng Hung Huang, and Ji-Liang Doong. See-through head-up display of in-vehicle in- formation systems for vision enhancement. In The International Association of Societies of Design Research Conference, 2009

    2009

  69. [76]

    Fukano, S

    J. Fukano, S. Okabayashi, M. Sakata, and T. Hatada. Automotive head-up displays for navigation use.Proceedings of International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of V ehicles, 1995:306–314, 1995

    1995

  70. [77]

    Visibility of head up display (hud) for automobiles

    Yasuhiro Inuzuka, Yoshimasa Osumi, and Hiroaki Shinkai. Visibility of head up display (hud) for automobiles. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society Annual Meeting , 35(20):1574–1578, 1991

    1991

  71. [78]

    Development of heads-up display for a motor vehicle

    Tadashi Lino, Tatsumi Otsuka, and Yoshiyuki Suzuki. Development of heads-up display for a motor vehicle. In SAE International Congress and Exposition . SAE International, feb 1988. 21 Arora et al

    1988

  72. [79]

    Ergonomic guidelines of head-up display user interface during semi-automated driving

    Kibum Park and Youngjae Im. Ergonomic guidelines of head-up display user interface during semi-automated driving. Electronics, 9(4), 2020

    2020

  73. [80]

    Human factors in forward collision warning systems: Operating characteristics and user interface requirements (no

    DV McGehee, DJ LeBlanc, RJ Kiefer, and J Salinger. Human factors in forward collision warning systems: Operating characteristics and user interface requirements (no. j2400). Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers, 2002

    2002

  74. [81]

    Jama guideline for in-vehicle display systems

    Yukinobu Nakamura. Jama guideline for in-vehicle display systems. Technical report, SAE Technical Paper, 2008

    2008

  75. [82]

    Evaluating head-up displays across windshield locations

    Bethan Hannah Topliss, Sanna M Pampel, Gary Burnett, and Joseph L Gabbard. Evaluating head-up displays across windshield locations. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive V ehicular Applications, pages 244–253, 2019

    2019

  76. [83]

    Does workload modulate the effects of in-vehicle display location on concurrent driving and side task performance

    William J Horrey, Amy L Alexander, and Christopher D Wickens. Does workload modulate the effects of in-vehicle display location on concurrent driving and side task performance. In Driving Simulation Conference North America, Dearborn, Michigan , pages 1–20, 2003

    2003

  77. [84]

    A comparative study of simulated augmented reality displays for vehicle navigation

    Richie Jose, Gun A Lee, and Mark Billinghurst. A comparative study of simulated augmented reality displays for vehicle navigation. In Proceedings of the 28th Australian conference on computer-human interaction , pages 40–48, 2016

    2016

  78. [85]

    Assessing distraction potential of augmented reality head-up displays for vehicle drivers

    Hyungil Kim and Joseph L Gabbard. Assessing distraction potential of augmented reality head-up displays for vehicle drivers. Human factors, 64(5):852–865, 2022

    2022

  79. [86]

    Quantifying distraction potential of augmented reality head-up displays for vehicle drivers

    Hyungil Kim and Joseph L Gabbard. Quantifying distraction potential of augmented reality head-up displays for vehicle drivers. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting , volume 62, pages 1923–1923. SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, 2018

    1923

  80. [87]

    Interaction in 4-second bursts: the fragmented nature of attentional resources in mobile hci

    Antti Oulasvirta, Sakari Tamminen, Virpi Roto, and Jaana Kuorelahti. Interaction in 4-second bursts: the fragmented nature of attentional resources in mobile hci. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems , pages 919–928, 2005

    2005

  81. [88]

    Investigating selection and reading performance on a mobile phone while walking

    Bastian Schildbach and Enrico Rukzio. Investigating selection and reading performance on a mobile phone while walking. In Proceedings of the 12th international conference on Human computer interaction with mobile devices and services, pages 93–102, 2010

    2010

  82. [89]

    Reading on-the-go: a comparison of audio and hand-held displays

    Kristin Vadas, Nirmal Patel, Kent Lyons, Thad Starner, and Julie Jacko. Reading on-the-go: a comparison of audio and hand-held displays. In Proceedings of the 8th conference on Human-computer interaction with mobile devices and services, pages 219–226, 2006

    2006

  83. [90]

    Notifeye: using interactive glasses to deal with notifications while walking in public

    Andrés Lucero and Akos Vetek. Notifeye: using interactive glasses to deal with notifications while walking in public. In Proceedings of the 11th conference on advances in computer entertainment technology , pages 1–10, 2014

    2014

  84. [91]

    Meta Quest 3: Mixed Reality Headset

    Meta Platforms, Inc. Meta Quest 3: Mixed Reality Headset. Available at: urlhttps://www.meta.com/quest/quest-3/, 2025. Accessed: 2025-01-14

    2025

  85. [92]

    Eye-wearable technology for machine maintenance: Effects of display position and hands-free operation

    Xianjun Sam Zheng, Cedric Foucault, Patrik Matos da Silva, Siddharth Dasari, Tao Yang, and Stuart Goose. Eye-wearable technology for machine maintenance: Effects of display position and hands-free operation. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in ...

    2015

  86. [93]

    Microoptical sv-6 pc viewer, 2025

    MicroOptical Corporation. Microoptical sv-6 pc viewer, 2025. Accessed: 2025-01-01

    2025

  87. [94]

    Effects of lateral eye displacement on comfort while reading from a video display terminal

    Malcolm Haynes and Thad Starner. Effects of lateral eye displacement on comfort while reading from a video display terminal. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies , 1(4):1–17, 2018

    2018

  88. [95]

    Looking from a different angle: Placing head-worn displays near the nose

    Yukun Song, Parth Arora, Srikanth T Varadharajan, Rajandeep Singh, Malcolm Haynes, and Thad Starner. Looking from a different angle: Placing head-worn displays near the nose. In Proceedings of the Augmented Humans International Conference 2024, pages 28–45, 2024

    2024

  89. [96]

    Going blank comfortably: Positioning monocular head-worn displays when they are inactive

    Yukun Song, Parth Arora, Rajandeep Singh, Srikanth T Varadharajan, Malcolm Haynes, and Thad Starner. Going blank comfortably: Positioning monocular head-worn displays when they are inactive. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM International Symposium on Wearable Computers , pages 1...

    2023

  90. [97]

    Effects of visual display separation upon primary and secondary task performances

    Ronald M Katsuyama, Donald L Monk, and Evan P Rolek. Effects of visual display separation upon primary and secondary task performances. In Proceedings of the IEEE National Aerospace and Electronics Conference , pages 758–764. IEEE, 1989. 22 Positioning Monocular OST-HWD in Gla...

    1989

  91. [98]

    Effects of display position on guided repair and maintenance assisted by head-mounted display (HMD).(2015)

    Tao Yang. Effects of display position on guided repair and maintenance assisted by head-mounted display (HMD).(2015). PhD thesis, Thesis (Georgia Institute of Technology), 2015

    2015

  92. [99]

    Study on the design characteristics of head mounted displays (hmd) for use in guided repair and maintenance

    Tao Yang and Young Mi Choi. Study on the design characteristics of head mounted displays (hmd) for use in guided repair and maintenance. In Virtual, Augmented and Mixed Reality: 7th International Conference, VAMR 2015, Held as Part of HCI International 2015, Los Angeles, CA, U...

    2015

  93. [100]

    Reading on smart glasses: The effect of text position, presentation type and walking

    Rufat Rzayev, Paweł W Wo´ zniak, Tilman Dingler, and Niels Henze. Reading on smart glasses: The effect of text position, presentation type and walking. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pages 1–9, 2018

    2018

  94. [101]

    Could google glass hurt your eyes? a harvard vision scientist and project glass advisor responds

    New Posts Popular. Could google glass hurt your eyes? a harvard vision scientist and project glass advisor responds

  95. [102]

    Black bike, white cane: nonstandard deviations of a special self

    Catherine Kudlick. Black bike, white cane: nonstandard deviations of a special self. Disability Studies Quarterly, 31(1), 2011

    2011

  96. [103]

    The at effect: how disability affects the perceived social acceptability of head-mounted display use

    Halley Profita, Reem Albaghli, Leah Findlater, Paul Jaeger, and Shaun K Kane. The at effect: how disability affects the perceived social acceptability of head-mounted display use. Inproceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems , pages 4884–4895, 2016

    2016

  97. [104]

    In the shadow of misperception: assistive technology use and social interactions

    Kristen Shinohara and Jacob O Wobbrock. In the shadow of misperception: assistive technology use and social interactions. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems , pages 705–714, 2011

    2011

  98. [105]

    Social acceptability in hci: A survey of methods, measures, and design strategies

    Marion Koelle, Swamy Ananthanarayan, and Susanne Boll. Social acceptability in hci: A survey of methods, measures, and design strategies. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 1–19, 2020

    2020

  99. [106]

    Social weight: designing to minimise the social consequences arising from technology use by the mobile professional

    Aaron Toney, Barrie Mulley, Bruce H Thomas, and Wayne Piekarski. Social weight: designing to minimise the social consequences arising from technology use by the mobile professional. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 7:309–320, 2003

    2003

  100. [107]

    Conversational partner’s perception of subtle display use for monitoring notifications

    Jacob Logas, Georgianna Lin, Kelsie Belan, Advait Gogate, and Thad Starner. Conversational partner’s perception of subtle display use for monitoring notifications. In Proceedings of the Augmented Humans International Conference 2021, pages 101–110, 2021

    2021

  101. [108]

    Varadharajan, Malcolm Haynes, and Thad Starner

    Yukun Song, Parth Arora, Rajandeep Singh, Srikanth T. Varadharajan, Malcolm Haynes, and Thad Starner. Going blank comfortably: Positioning monocular head-worn displays when they are inactive. New York, NY , USA, October 2023. Association for Computing Machinery

    2023

  102. [110]

    Future so bright, gotta wear shades: Lens tint may affect social perception of head-worn displays

    Sofia Vempala, Joseph Mushyakov, Srikanth Tindivanam Varadharajan, and Thad Starner. Future so bright, gotta wear shades: Lens tint may affect social perception of head-worn displays. In Proceedings of the Augmented Humans International Conference 2024, pages 46–51, 2024

    2024

  103. [111]

    Optical Design of Eyewear Displays

    Ozan Cakmakci. Optical Design of Eyewear Displays . SPIE Press, Bellingham, Washington, 2025. [In Press]

    2025

  104. [112]

    Clinical assessment of a customized free-form progressive add lens spectacle

    Susan C Han, Andrew D Graham, and Meng C Lin. Clinical assessment of a customized free-form progressive add lens spectacle. Optometry and Vision Science, 88(2):234–243, 2011

    2011

  105. [113]

    Head-worn displays: a review.Journal of display technology, 2(3):199–216, 2006

    Ozan Cakmakci and Jannick Rolland. Head-worn displays: a review.Journal of display technology, 2(3):199–216, 2006

    2006

  106. [114]

    31-4: Invited paper: 3D eyebox in augmented and virtual reality optics

    Ozan Cakmakci, David M Hoffman, and Nikhil Balram. 31-4: Invited paper: 3D eyebox in augmented and virtual reality optics. In SID Symposium Digest of Technical Papers, volume 50, pages 438–441. Wiley Online Library, 2019. 23

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.