pith. sign in

arxiv: 2603.06253 · v1 · submitted 2026-03-06 · 💻 cs.HC

Skill-Adaptive Ghost Instructors: Enhancing Retention and Reducing Over-Reliance in VR Piano Learning

Tzu-Hsin Hsieh , Cassandra Michelle Stefanie Visser , Elmar Eisemann , Ricardo Marroquim This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 15:28 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC
keywords VR piano learningghost instructoradaptive transparencyskill retentionmotor skill learningover-reliancefingering accuracyXR training
0
0 comments X

The pith

Adaptive ghost hands in VR piano training raise accuracy and limit error growth after delays

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

This paper introduces a ghost hand in VR piano training whose transparency increases in real time when the learner performs well. The aim is to reduce over-reliance on persistent visual cues that can weaken memorization and skill transfer. In a within-subjects study with 30 participants, the performance-adaptive dynamic mode produced higher pitch and fingering accuracy than fixed-transparency static mode, both immediately and after a 10-minute break, while errors increased less and timing stayed comparable. These results indicate that fading cues based on performance helps users internalize fingerings more effectively in immersive environments.

Core claim

The central claim is that a skill-adaptive ghost instructor whose opacity adjusts dynamically to the user's real-time performance improves short-term retention in VR piano learning relative to static fixed-transparency cues. The within-subjects study showed the dynamic mode delivered higher pitch and fingering accuracy, restricted error increases after a 10-minute retention interval, and produced comparable timing. The authors interpret this as evidence that adaptive transparency reduces dependency on external guidance and supports better internalization of motor skills.

What carries the argument

The skill-adaptive ghost instructor that adjusts its transparency in real time according to learner performance

If this is right

  • Higher pitch and fingering accuracy than fixed-transparency cues
  • Slower growth in errors over a short retention interval
  • Comparable timing performance to static guidance
  • Better internalization of fingerings within immersive learning settings

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The adaptive-fading approach could be tested on longer retention intervals to check persistence of the effect
  • Similar performance-based transparency might apply to other motor-skill XR tasks such as instrument or sports training
  • Designers could combine transparency adaptation with additional metrics like movement smoothness to refine cue fading

Load-bearing premise

The accuracy gains and slower error growth result specifically from reduced cue dependency rather than order effects or other factors in the within-subjects design.

What would settle it

A replication with fully counterbalanced condition order that finds no difference in error growth between dynamic and static modes after the retention interval would falsify the claim that adaptive transparency drives the retention benefit.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.06253 by Cassandra Michelle Stefanie Visser, Elmar Eisemann, Ricardo Marroquim, Tzu-Hsin Hsieh.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Skill-Adaptive Ghost Instructors: ghost-hand guidance with two modes: Static (fixed opacity) and Dynamic (opacity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: System interface and dynamic-transparency feedback. The blue hand denotes the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Participant distribution across Latin-square con [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Performance comparison between Static and Dynamic ghost hand conditions across pitch accuracy, finger accuracy, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Retention scores (Retention – Immediate) for pitch, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Interaction plots showing performance across [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Group learning curves for Full Melody: Pitch, Finger, Time, and Error. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Summarizes the block switch from the first to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The NASA–TLX results for the Static and Dynamic conditions (lower indicates lower workload). 6.2.1 NASA-TLX. We compared perceived workload between Static and Dynamic conditions with the NASA Task Load Index (NASA– TLX), which comprises six dimensions: Mental demand, Physical demand, Temporal demand, Performance, Effort, and Frustration (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Motor-skill learning systems in XR rely on persistent cues. However, constant cueing can induce overreliance and erode memorization and skill transfer. We introduce a skill-adaptive, dynamically transparent ghost instructor whose opacity adapts in real time to learner performance. In a first-person perspective, users observe a ghost hand executing piano fingering with either a static or a performance-adaptive transparency in a VR piano training application. We conducted a within-subjects study (N=30), where learners practiced with traditional Static (fixed-transparency) and our proposed Dynamic (performance-adaptive) modes and were tested without guidance immediately and after a 10-minute retention interval. Relative to Static, the Dynamic mode yielded higher pitch and fingering accuracy and limited error increases, with comparable timing. These findings suggest that adaptive transparency helps learners internalize fingerings more effectively, reducing dependency on external cues and improving short-term skill retention within immersive learning environments. We discuss design implications for motor-skill learning and outline directions for extending this approach to longer-term retention and more complex tasks.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a skill-adaptive ghost instructor in VR piano training whose opacity dynamically adjusts based on real-time learner performance to reduce over-reliance on cues. In a within-subjects study (N=30), participants practiced piano fingering under Static (fixed-transparency) and Dynamic (performance-adaptive) conditions and were tested for retention without guidance immediately and after a 10-minute interval. The central claim is that the Dynamic mode produced higher pitch and fingering accuracy, limited error growth over the retention interval, and comparable timing relative to Static, indicating improved skill internalization.

Significance. If the empirical results hold after addressing design and reporting gaps, the work would offer a concrete mechanism for mitigating cue dependency in XR motor-skill systems, with direct implications for adaptive guidance in immersive training environments and potential extensions to longer-term retention and complex tasks.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and implied Methods section: the within-subjects design with N=30 does not report whether condition order was counterbalanced or whether sequence effects were statistically modeled; without this, the reported accuracy and retention advantages for Dynamic mode cannot be unambiguously attributed to the adaptive transparency mechanism rather than task familiarization or differential fatigue.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: the positive results for pitch/fingering accuracy and limited error increase are stated without any statistical tests, p-values, effect sizes, confidence intervals, or error bars, so the strength of evidence for the central claim cannot be evaluated from the provided information.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: clarify the exact performance metrics (e.g., error rate thresholds) used to modulate ghost opacity in real time so readers can assess reproducibility of the adaptation rule.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major point below and have revised the manuscript to improve reporting clarity and completeness.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and implied Methods section: the within-subjects design with N=30 does not report whether condition order was counterbalanced or whether sequence effects were statistically modeled; without this, the reported accuracy and retention advantages for Dynamic mode cannot be unambiguously attributed to the adaptive transparency mechanism rather than task familiarization or differential fatigue.

    Authors: We agree that explicit reporting of counterbalancing and sequence-effect modeling is necessary to support causal attribution in within-subjects designs. In the study, condition order was counterbalanced across participants using a balanced Latin-square design, and order was included as a fixed factor in the mixed-effects models. These procedural details were omitted from the abstract and the condensed methods description. We have expanded the Methods section to describe the counterbalancing procedure and the statistical modeling of sequence effects in full, thereby strengthening the link between the observed advantages and the adaptive transparency mechanism. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the positive results for pitch/fingering accuracy and limited error increase are stated without any statistical tests, p-values, effect sizes, confidence intervals, or error bars, so the strength of evidence for the central claim cannot be evaluated from the provided information.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the abstract, constrained by length, did not include the quantitative statistical results. The full Results section reports the relevant tests (mixed ANOVA and post-hoc comparisons), exact p-values, effect sizes, and confidence intervals for pitch accuracy, fingering accuracy, and retention-interval error growth. To allow readers to evaluate evidence strength directly from the abstract, we have revised it to incorporate the key statistical outcomes (e.g., significant condition-by-interval interactions with p-values and effect sizes) while preserving brevity. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Empirical user study with no mathematical derivations, fitted parameters, or self-referential predictions

full rationale

The paper reports results from a within-subjects user study (N=30) comparing Static and Dynamic ghost-instructor modes in VR piano training. Claims rest on measured pitch/fingering accuracy, timing, and error growth after immediate and 10-minute retention tests. No equations, parameter fitting, uniqueness theorems, or derivation chains appear in the manuscript. The central finding (Dynamic mode yields higher accuracy with limited error increase) is an empirical observation, not a quantity derived from or fitted to itself. Self-citations, if present, are not load-bearing for any mathematical result. This matches the default expectation of no circularity for purely empirical work.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Empirical HCI study; the central claim rests on user-study outcomes rather than axioms or derivations. No free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are described in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5498 in / 1009 out tokens · 43186 ms · 2026-05-15T15:28:38.244973+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

109 extracted references · 109 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Emma Allingham, Renee Timmers, and George Waddell. 2022. Slow practice and tempo-management strategies in instrumental learning.Psychology of Music50, 7 (2022), 2694–2712. doi:10.1177/03057356211073481

    work page doi:10.1177/03057356211073481 2022

  2. [2]

    Amm et al

    V. Amm et al. 2024. Mixed reality strategies for piano education.Frontiers in Virtual Reality(2024). https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frvir.2024. 1397154/full

    work page doi:10.3389/frvir.2024 2024

  3. [3]

    Judith Amores, Xavier Benavides, and Pattie Maes. 2015. Showme: A remote collaboration system that supports immersive gestural communication. Inpro- ceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems. 1343–1348

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    David I Anderson, Richard A Magill, Hiroshi Sekiya, and Greg Ryan. 2005. Support for an explanation of the guidance effect in motor skill learning.Journal of motor behavior37, 3 (2005), 231–238

    work page 2005

  5. [5]

    Mathieu Andrieux and Luc Proteau. 2016. Observational Learning: Tell Begin- ners What They Are about to Watch and They Will Learn Better.Frontiers in Psychology7, 51 (Jan 2016). doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00051

    work page doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00051 2016

  6. [6]

    Yoichiro Aoyagi, Eri Ohnishi, Yoshinori Yamamoto, Naoki Kado, Toshiaki Suzuki, Hitoshi Ohnishi, Nozomi Hokimoto, and Naomi Fukaya. 2019. Feedback protocol of ‘fading knowledge of results’ is effective for prolonging motor learning retention.Journal of Physical Therapy Science31, 8 (2019), 687–691

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Mariano Banquiero, Gracia Valdeolivas, David Ramón, and M-Carmen Juan

    work page

  8. [8]

    A color Passthrough mixed reality application for learning piano.Virtual Reality28, 2 (2024), 67

    work page 2024

  9. [9]

    Mariano Banquiero, Gracia Valdeolivas, Sergio Trincado, Natasha García, and M-Carmen Juan. 2023. Passthrough mixed reality with oculus quest 2: A case study on learning piano.IEEE MultiMedia30, 2 (2023), 60–69

    work page 2023

  10. [10]

    Simone Dalla Bella and Caroline Palmer. 2011. Rate Effects on Timing, Key Velocity, and Finger Kinematics in Piano Performance.PLoS ONE6, 6 (2011), e20518. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0020518

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0020518 2011

  11. [11]

    Amare Birhanu and Stefan Rank. 2017. KeynVision: exploring piano pedagogy in mixed reality. InExtended abstracts publication of the annual symposium on computer-human interaction in play. 299–304

    work page 2017

  12. [12]

    Yannick Blandin, Léna Lhuisset, and Luc Proteau. 1999. Cognitive Processes Underlying Observational Learning of Motor Skills.The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A52, 4 (Nov 1999), 957–979. doi:10.1080/ 713755856

    work page 1999

  13. [13]

    Malte Borgwardt, Jonas Boueke, María Fernanda Sanabria, Michael Bonfert, and Robert Porzel. 2023. Vrisbee: How hand visibility impacts throwing accuracy and experience in virtual reality. InExtended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–7. 1https://e-diplomaproject.eu/

    work page 2023

  14. [14]

    Arnaud Boutin and Yannick Blandin. 2010. Cognitive underpinnings of con- textual interference during motor learning.Acta psychologica135, 2 (2010), 233–239

    work page 2010

  15. [15]

    John J Buchanan and Chaoyi Wang. 2012. Overcoming the guidance effect in motor skill learning: feedback all the time can be beneficial.Experimental Brain Research219, 2 (2012), 305–320

    work page 2012

  16. [16]

    Minya Cai, Muhammad Alfian Amrizal, Toru Abe, and Takuo Suganuma. 2019. Design and implementation of ar-supported system for piano learning. In2019 IEEE 8th Global Conference on Consumer Electronics (GCCE). IEEE, 49–50

    work page 2019

  17. [17]

    Matteo Candidi, Lucia Maria Sacheli, Ilaria Mega, and Salvatore Maria Aglioti

    work page

  18. [18]

    Somatotopic mapping of piano fingering errors in sensorimotor experts: TMS studies in pianists and visually trained musically naives.Cerebral cortex 24, 2 (2014), 435–443

    work page 2014

  19. [19]

    Winyu Chinthammit, Troy Merritt, Scott Pedersen, Andrew Williams, Denis Visentin, Robert Rowe, and Thomas Furness. 2014. Ghostman: augmented reality application for telerehabilitation and remote instruction of a novel motor skill.BioMed research international2014, 1 (2014), 646347

    work page 2014

  20. [20]

    Jonathan Chow, Haoyang Feng, Robert Amor, and Burkhard C Wünsche. 2013. Music education using augmented reality with a head mounted display. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Australasian User Interface Conference-Volume 139. 73–79

    work page 2013

  21. [21]

    Matthew E Clark, Kayla McEwan, and Candice J Christie. 2019. The effective- ness of constraints-led training on skill development in interceptive sports: A systematic review.International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching14, 2 (2019), 229–240

    work page 2019

  22. [22]

    Palle Dahlstedt. 2015. Mapping strategies and sound engine design for an augmented hybrid piano. InProceedings of the International Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression. 271–276

    work page 2015

  23. [23]

    Jordan Aiko Deja, Sven Mayer, Klen Čopič Pucihar, and Matjaž Kljun. 2022. A survey of augmented piano prototypes: Has augmentation improved learning experiences?Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction6, ISS (2022), 226–253

    work page 2022

  24. [24]

    Peter Düking, Hans-Christer Holmberg, and Billy Sperlich. 2018. The Potential Usefulness of Virtual Reality Systems for Athletes: A Short SWOT Analysis. Frontiers in Physiology9 (2018), 128. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10. 3389/fphys.2018.00128/full

    work page arXiv 2018

  25. [25]

    Annerose Engel, Marc Bangert, David Horbank, Brenda S Hijmans, Katharina Wilkens, Peter E Keller, and Christian Keysers. 2012. Learning piano melodies in visuo-motor or audio-motor training conditions and the neural correlates of their cross-modal transfer.NeuroImage63, 2 (2012), 966–978

    work page 2012

  26. [26]

    Rebecca Fribourg, Nami Ogawa, Ludovic Hoyet, Ferran Argelaguet, Takuji Narumi, Michitaka Hirose, and Anatole Lécuyer. 2020. Virtual co-embodiment: evaluation of the sense of agency while sharing the control of a virtual body among two individuals.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer graph- ics27, 10 (2020), 4023–4038

    work page 2020

  27. [27]

    Kodai Fuchino, Mohammed Al-Sada, and Tatsuo Nakajima. 2023. T2Remoter: A remote table tennis coaching system combining VR and robotics. In2023 IEEE 29th International Conference on Embedded and Real-Time Computing Systems and Applications (RTCSA). IEEE, 275–276

    work page 2023

  28. [28]

    Shinichi Furuya, Ayumi Nakamura, and Noriko Nagata. 2013. Transfer of piano practice in fast performance of skilled finger movements.BMC neuroscience14, 1 (2013), 133

    work page 2013

  29. [29]

    Danilo Gasques, Janet G Johnson, Tommy Sharkey, Yuanyuan Feng, Ru Wang, Zhuoqun Robin Xu, Enrique Zavala, Yifei Zhang, Wanze Xie, Xinming Zhang, et al. 2021. Artemis: A collaborative mixed-reality system for immersive surgical telementoring. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–14

    work page 2021

  30. [30]

    Lynda Gerry, Sofia Dahl, and Stefania Serafin. 2019. ADEPT: exploring the design, pedagogy, and analysis of a mixed reality application for piano training. In16th sound and music computing conference. Sound and Music Computing Network, 241–249

    work page 2019

  31. [31]

    Seth Glickman, Byunghwan Lee, Fu Yen Hsiao, and Shantanu Das. 2017. Music Everywhere—Augmented Reality Piano Improvisation Learning System. InPro- ceedings of the International Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression. 511–512

    work page 2017

  32. [32]

    Naska Goagoses, Heike Winschiers-Theophilus, Selma Auala, Nicolas Pope, Erkki Rötkönen, Helvi Itenge, Calkin Suero Montero, Tomi Suovuo, and Erkki Sutinen. 2024. Teachers and students envisioning mixed reality remote learn- ing: A qualitative exploration on fostering academic engagement.Technology, Knowledge and Learning(2024), 1–25

    work page 2024

  33. [33]

    Werner Goebl and Caroline Palmer. 2013. Temporal Control and Hand Move- ment Efficiency in Skilled Music Performance.Journal of Experimental Psychol- ogy: Human Perception and Performance(2013)

    work page 2013

  34. [34]

    Geoffrey Gorisse, Olivier Christmann, Etienne Armand Amato, and Simon Richir

    work page

  35. [35]

    CHI ’26, April 13–17, 2026, Barcelona, Spain Hsieh et al

    First-and third-person perspectives in immersive virtual environments: presence and performance analysis of embodied users.Frontiers in Robotics and AI4 (2017), 33. CHI ’26, April 13–17, 2026, Barcelona, Spain Hsieh et al

    work page 2017

  36. [36]

    Rob Gray. 2017. Transfer of training from virtual to real baseball batting.Frontiers in psychology8 (2017), 317328

    work page 2017

  37. [37]

    Mark A Guadagnoli and Timothy D Lee. 2004. Challenge point: a framework for conceptualizing the effects of various practice conditions in motor learning. Journal of motor behavior36, 2 (2004), 212–224

    work page 2004

  38. [38]

    Ruoxi Guo, Jiahao Cui, Wanru Zhao, Shuai Li, and Aimin Hao. 2021. Hand- by-hand mentor: An AR based training system for piano performance. In2021 IEEE conference on virtual reality and 3D user interfaces abstracts and workshops (VRW). IEEE, 436–437

    work page 2021

  39. [39]

    Shlomi Haar, Guhan Sundar, and A Aldo Faisal. 2021. Embodied virtual reality for the study of real-world motor learning.Plos one16, 1 (2021), e0245717

    work page 2021

  40. [40]

    Dominik Hackl and Christoph Anthes. 2017. HoloKeys-an augmented reality application for learning the piano.. InForum media technology. 140–144

    work page 2017

  41. [41]

    Lamtharn Hantrakul and Konrad Kaczmarek. 2014. Implementations of the Leap Motion in sound synthesis, effects modulation and assistive performance tools.. InICMC

    work page 2014

  42. [42]

    Amal Hatira, Zeynep Ecem Gelmez, Anil Ufuk Batmaz, and Mine Sarac. 2024. Effect of Hand and Object Visibility in Navigational Tasks Based on Rotational and Translational Movements in Virtual Reality. In2024 IEEE Conference Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR). IEEE, 115–125

    work page 2024

  43. [43]

    Steven Henderson and Steven Feiner. 2011. Exploring the Benefits of Augmented Reality Documentation for Maintenance and Repair.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics17, 10 (2011), 1355–1368. doi:10.1109/ TVCG.2010.245

    work page 2011

  44. [44]

    Melynda Hoover and Eliot Winer. 2021. Designing adaptive extended reality training systems based on expert instructor behaviors.IEEE Access9 (2021), 138160–138173

    work page 2021

  45. [45]

    Lei Hou, Xiangyu Wang, and Martijn Truijens. 2015. Using Augmented Reality to Facilitate Piping Assembly: An Experiment-Based Evaluation.Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering29, 1 (2015), 04014007. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CP. 1943-5487.0000344

    work page doi:10.1061/(asce)cp 2015

  46. [46]

    Felix Hülsmann, Cornelia Frank, Irene Senna, Marc O Ernst, Thomas Schack, and Mario Botsch. 2019. Superimposed skilled performance in a virtual mirror improves motor performance and cognitive representation of a full body motor action.Frontiers in Robotics and AI6 (2019), 43

    work page 2019

  47. [47]

    David Johnson, Daniela Damian, and George Tzanetakis. 2020. Evaluating the effectiveness of mixed reality music instrument learning with the theremin. Virtual Reality24, 2 (2020), 303–317

    work page 2020

  48. [48]

    Hiroki Kawasaki, Hiroyuki Iizuka, Shin Okamoto, Hideyuki Ando, and Taro Maeda. 2010. Collaboration and skill transmission by first-person perspec- tive view sharing system. In19th international symposium in robot and human interactive communication. IEEE, 125–131

    work page 2010

  49. [49]

    Charles R Kelley. 1969. What is adaptive training?Human Factors11, 6 (1969), 547–556

    work page 1969

  50. [50]

    Daiki Kodama, Takato Mizuho, Yuji Hatada, Takuji Narumi, and Michitaka Hirose. 2023. Effects of collaborative training using virtual co-embodiment on motor skill learning.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 29, 5 (2023), 2304–2314

    work page 2023

  51. [51]

    Katerina Labrou, Cagri Hakan Zaman, Arda Turkyasar, and Randall Davis. 2023. Following the master’s hands: Capturing piano performances for mixed reality piano learning applications. InExtended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–8

    work page 2023

  52. [52]

    Kate E Laver, Stacey George, Susie Thomas, Judith E Deutsch, and Maria Crotty

    work page

  53. [53]

    Virtual reality for stroke rehabilitation.Cochrane database of systematic reviews9 (2011)

    work page 2011

  54. [54]

    Morgan Le Chénéchal, Thierry Duval, Valérie Gouranton, Jérôme Royan, and Bruno Arnaldi. 2016. Vishnu: virtual immersive support for helping users an interaction paradigm for collaborative remote guiding in mixed reality. In 2016 IEEE third VR international workshop on collaborative virtual environments (3DCVE). IEEE, 9–12

    work page 2016

  55. [55]

    Kyungyeon Lee, Daniel S Yang, Kriti Singh, and Jun Nishida. 2025. Hapticus: Exploring the Effects of Haptic Feedback and its Customization on Motor Skill Learning: Tactile, Haptic, and Somatosensory Approaches. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–20

    work page 2025

  56. [56]

    Hui Liang, Jin Wang, Qian Sun, Yong-Jin Liu, Junsong Yuan, Jun Luo, and Ying He. 2016. Barehanded music: real-time hand interaction for virtual piano. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium on Interactive 3D Graphics and Games. 87–94

    work page 2016

  57. [57]

    Lasse F Lui, Unnikrishnan Radhakrishnan, Francesco Chinello, and Konstantinos Koumaditis. 2025. The efficacy of adaptive training in immersive virtual reality for a fine motor skill task.Virtual Reality29, 1 (2025), 20

    work page 2025

  58. [58]

    Isabelle Mackrous and Luc Proteau. 2007. Specificity of practice results from differences in movement planning strategies.Experimental brain research183, 2 (2007), 181–193

    work page 2007

  59. [59]

    Laura Marchal-Crespo, Mark van Raai, Georg Rauter, Peter Wolf, and Robert Riener. 2013. The effect of haptic guidance and visual feedback on learning a complex tennis task.Experimental brain research231, 3 (2013), 277–291

    work page 2013

  60. [60]

    Anat Mirelman, Lynn Rochester, Inbal Maidan, Silvia Del Din, Lisa Alcock, Freek Nieuwhof, Marcel Olde Rikkert, Bastiaan R Bloem, Elisa Pelosin, Laura Avanzino, et al. 2016. Addition of a non-immersive virtual reality component to treadmill training to reduce fall risk in older adults (V-TIME): a randomised controlled trial.The Lancet388, 10050 (2016), 1170–1182

    work page 2016

  61. [61]

    Will Molloy, Edward Huang, and Burkhard C Wünsche. 2019. Mixed real- ity piano tutor: A gamified piano practice environment. In2019 International conference on electronics, information, and communication (ICEIC). IEEE, 1–7

    work page 2019

  62. [62]

    Neumann, Robyn L

    David L. Neumann, Robyn L. Moffitt, Patrick R. Thomas, Katrina Loveday, et al. 2018. A Systematic Review of the Application of Interactive Virtual Reality to Sport.Frontiers in Psychology9 (2018), 2159. https://research- repository.griffith.edu.au/items/25a2bc11-d7a6-590f-bab3-ab8622679ec8

    work page 2018

  63. [63]

    David L Neumann, Robyn L Moffitt, Patrick R Thomas, Kylie Loveday, David P Watling, Chantal L Lombard, Simona Antonova, and Michael A Tremeer. 2018. A systematic review of the application of interactive virtual reality to sport. Virtual Reality22, 3 (2018), 183–198

    work page 2018

  64. [64]

    Jun Nishida, Yudai Tanaka, Romain Nith, and Pedro Lopes. 2022. DigituSync: A dual-user passive exoskeleton glove that adaptively shares hand gestures. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. 1–12

    work page 2022

  65. [65]

    Honghu Pan, Xingxi He, Hong Zeng, Jia Zhou, and Sai Tang. 2018. Pilot study of piano learning with AR smart glasses considering both single and paired play. InInternational Conference on Human Aspects of IT for the Aged Population. Springer, 561–570

    work page 2018

  66. [66]

    Sloboda, Eric F

    Richard Parncutt, John A. Sloboda, Eric F. Clarke, Mikko Raekallio, and Peter Desain. 1997. An Ergonomic Model of Keyboard Fingering for Melodic Frag- ments. InProceedings of the International Society for Music Information Retrieval (or related venue). Foundational model linking fingering to ergonomic efficiency

    work page 1997

  67. [67]

    Matevž Pesek, Nejc Hirci, Klara Žnideršič, and Matija Marolt. 2024. Enhancing music rhythmic perception and performance with a VR game.Virtual Reality 28, 2 (2024), 118

    work page 2024

  68. [68]

    Sathiya Kumar Renganayagalu, Steven C Mallam, and Salman Nazir. 2021. Ef- fectiveness of VR head mounted displays in professional training: A systematic review.Technology, Knowledge and Learning26, 4 (2021), 999–1041

    work page 2021

  69. [69]

    Liam Rigby, Burkhard C Wünsche, and Alex Shaw. 2020. piARno-an augmented reality piano tutor. InProceedings of the 32nd Australian conference on human- computer interaction. 481–491

    work page 2020

  70. [70]

    Luiz Rodrigues, Paula T Palomino, Armando M Toda, Ana CT Klock, Wilk Oliveira, Anderson P Avila-Santos, Isabela Gasparini, and Seiji Isotani. 2021. Personalization improves gamification: Evidence from a mixed-methods study. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction5, CHI PLAY (2021), 1–25

    work page 2021

  71. [71]

    Katja Rogers, Amrei Röhlig, Matthias Weing, Jan Gugenheimer, Bastian Könings, Melina Klepsch, Florian Schaub, Enrico Rukzio, Tina Seufert, and Michael Weber

    work page

  72. [72]

    InProceedings of the Ninth ACM International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces

    Piano: Faster piano learning with interactive projection. InProceedings of the Ninth ACM International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces. 149–158

    work page

  73. [73]

    Alan W Salmoni, Richard A Schmidt, and Charles B Walter. 1984. Knowledge of results and motor learning: a review and critical reappraisal.Psychological bulletin95, 3 (1984), 355

    work page 1984

  74. [74]

    Sean Sanford, Brian Collins, Mingxiao Liu, Sophie Dewil, and Raviraj Nataraj

    work page

  75. [75]

    Frontiers in virtual reality3 (2022), 943693

    Investigating features in augmented visual feedback for virtual reality rehabilitation of upper-extremity function through isometric muscle control. Frontiers in virtual reality3 (2022), 943693

    work page 2022

  76. [76]

    Marc Ericson C Santos, Angie Chen, Takafumi Taketomi, Goshiro Yamamoto, Jun Miyazaki, and Hirokazu Kato. 2013. Augmented reality learning experiences: Survey of prototype design and evaluation.IEEE Transactions on learning technologies7, 1 (2013), 38–56

    work page 2013

  77. [77]

    Ruben Schlagowski, Dariia Nazarenko, Yekta Can, Kunal Gupta, Silvan Mertes, Mark Billinghurst, and Elisabeth André. 2023. Wish you were here: Mental and physiological effects of remote music collaboration in mixed reality. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–16

    work page 2023

  78. [78]

    Richard A Schmidt and Gabriele Wulf. 1997. Continuous concurrent feedback degrades skill learning: Implications for training and simulation.Human factors 39, 4 (1997), 509–525

    work page 1997

  79. [79]

    Ben Sellers and G Waddell. 2024. Augmented reality and in-person piano tuition: project report. (2024)

    work page 2024

  80. [80]

    Seymour, Anthony G

    Neal E. Seymour, Anthony G. Gallagher, Sanziana A. Roman, Michael K. O’Brien, Vipin K. Bansal, Dana K. Andersen, and Richard M. Satava. 2002. Virtual reality training improves operating room performance: results of a randomized, double- blinded study.Annals of Surgery236, 4 (2002), 458–463. doi:10.1097/00000658- 200210000-00008

    work page doi:10.1097/00000658- 2002

Showing first 80 references.