Creating Personalized Digital Human Models of Perception for Visual Analytics

  • Mike Bennett
  • Aaron Quigley
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6787)


Our bodies shape our experience of the world, and our bodies influence what we design. How important are the physical differences between people? Can we model the physiological differences and use the models to adapt and personalize designs, user interfaces and artifacts? Within many disciplines Digital Human Models and Standard Observer Models are widely used and have proven to be very useful for modeling users and simulating humans. In this paper, we create personalized digital human models of perception (Individual Observer Models), particularly focused on how humans see. Individual Observer Models capture how our bodies shape our perceptions. Individual Observer Models are useful for adapting and personalizing user interfaces and artifacts to suit individual users’ bodies and perceptions. We introduce and demonstrate an Individual Observer Model of human eyesight, which we use to simulate 3600 biologically valid human eyes. An evaluation of the simulated eyes finds that they see eye charts the same as humans. Also demonstrated is the Individual Observer Model successfully making predictions about how easy or hard it is to see visual information and visual designs. The ability to predict and adapt visual information to maximize how effective it is is an important problem in visual design and analytics.


virtual humans physiology modeling computational user model individual differences human vision digital human model 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bennett, M.: Designing For An Individual’s Eyes: Human-Computer Interaction, Vision And Individual Differences. PhD thesis, College of Engineering, Mathematical And Physical Sciences, University College Dublin, Ireland (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Campbell, F.W., Robson, J.G.: Application of fourier analysis to the visibility of gratings. Journal of Physiology 197, 551–566 (1968)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chaffin, D.B.: Digtal human models for workspace design. Reviews of Human Factors and Ergonomics 4, 44–74 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dong, L.M., Hawkins, B.S., Marsh, M.J.: Consistency between visual acuity scores obtained at different distances. Archives of Ophthalmology 120, 1523–1533 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ferris, F., Kassoff, A., Bresnick, G., Bailey, I.: New visual acuity charts for clinical research. American Journal of Ophthalmology 94, 91–96 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Freyne, J., Berkovsky, S.: Recommending food: Reasoning on recipes and ingredients. In: De Bra, P., Kobsa, A., Chin, D. (eds.) UMAP 2010. LNCS, vol. 6075, pp. 381–386. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fuller, H., Reed, M., Liu, Y.: Integrating physical and cognitive human models to represent driving behavior. In: Proceedings of Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 54th Annual Meeting, pp. 1042–1046 (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ginsburg, A., Evans, D., Sekuler, R., Harp, S.: Contrast sensitivity predicts pilots’ performance in aircraft simulators. American Journal of Optometry and Physiological Optics 59, 105–108 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Krueger, R.R., Applegate, R.A., MacRae, S.M.: Wavefront Customized Visual Correction: The Quest for Super Vision II (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Liu, Y., Feyen, R., Tsimhoni, O.: Queueing network-model human processor (qn-mhp): A computational architecture for multitask performance in human-machine systems. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 13(1), 37–70 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mansfield, J., Legge, G., Bane, M.: Psychophysics of reading: Xv. font effects in normal and low vision. Journal of Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 37(8), 1492–1501 (1996)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Marsella, S.: Modeling emotion and its expression in virtual humans. In: De Bra, P., Kobsa, A., Chin, D. (eds.) UMAP 2010. LNCS, vol. 6075, pp. 1–2. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Norton, T.T., Corliss, D.A., Bailey, J.E.: The Psychophysical Measurement of Visual Function (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Palmer, S.E.: Vision Science: Photons to Phenomenlogy (1999)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pelli, D.G., Robson, J.G., Wilkins, A.J.: The design of a new letter chart for measuring contrast sensitivity. Clinical Vision Sciences 2(3), 187–199 (1988)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Reed, M., Faraway, J., Chaffin, D.B., Martin, B.J.: The humosim ergonomics framework: A new approach to digital human simulation for ergonomic analysis. In: Digital Human Modeling for Design and Engineering Conference, SAE Technical Papers Series (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rosenholtz, R., Li, Y., Mansfield, J., Jin, Z.: Feature congestion: A measure of display clutter. In: Proceedings of SIGCHI, pp. 761–770 (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Salmon, T.O., van de Pol, C.: Normal-eye zernike coefficients and root-mean-square wavefront errors. Journal of Cataract Refractive Surgery 32, 2064–2074 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Thibos, L.N., Applegate, R.A., Schwiegerling, J.T., Webb, R., Members, V.S.T.: Standards for reporting the optical aberrations of eyes. Vision Science and its Applications, 232–244 (February 2000)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Thibos, L.N., Bradley, A., Hong, X.: A statistical model of the aberration structure of normal, well-corrected eyes. Journal of Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics 22, 427–433 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    West, S.K., Muñoz, B., Rubin, G.S., Schein, O.D., Bandeen-Roche, K., Zeger, S., German, P.S., Fried, L.P.: Function and visual impairment in a population based study of older adults. Journal of Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 38(1), 72–82 (1997)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mike Bennett
    • 1
  • Aaron Quigley
    • 2
  1. 1.SCIEN, Department of PsychologyStanford UniversityUnited States
  2. 2.SACHI, School of Computer ScienceUniversity of St AndrewsNorth HaughUK

Personalised recommendations