pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.08008 · v2 · submitted 2026-05-08 · 💻 cs.HC

Hot Wire 5D+: Evaluating Cognitive and Motor Trade-offs of Visual Feedback for 5D Augmented Reality Trajectories

Christian Masuhr , Julian Koch , Arne Wendt , Thorsten Sch\"uppstuhl This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 15:27 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC
keywords augmented reality5D trajectoriestrajectory guidancevisual feedbackuser studycognitive-motor trade-offsAR interfacesfreehand tasks
0
0 comments X p. Extension

The pith

AR visual feedback designs offset orientation-induced cognitive-motor trade-offs in 5D trajectory tasks.

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

The paper tests how augmented reality interfaces help users trace complex paths that combine three-dimensional position, two-dimensional orientation, and movement speed. A within-subjects study with thirty novices compared three different visual guidance styles both with and without enforced orientation rules. The results show that orientation requirements raise mental effort and produce specific errors in position and speed, yet certain interface combinations reduce the conflict. These baselines and design observations matter for applications such as surgery or manufacturing where untrained people must follow exact multidimensional paths by hand.

Core claim

Through a controlled experiment, three AR UI concepts were evaluated for guiding freehand 5D trajectory following with rotation-symmetric tools. Spatial, orientational, and speed compliance were measured using internal AR tracking validated by external optical systems. Segmenting trials into transient and steady-state phases and applying Aligned Rank Transform ANOVA isolated interaction effects between visual design and task complexity. The work establishes conservative novice performance baselines, documents orientation-induced cognitive-motor trade-offs, and identifies UI synergies that mitigate them.

What carries the argument

Three distinct AR UI concepts for trajectory guidance tested with and without explicit orientation constraints, with performance segmented into transient and steady-state phases and analyzed via Aligned Rank Transform ANOVA on metrics validated against external tracking.

If this is right

  • Novice users produce measurable compliance levels in freehand 5D tasks that serve as conservative performance baselines for system design.
  • Adding orientation constraints creates measurable trade-offs between spatial accuracy, orientation compliance, and speed.
  • Specific combinations of visual feedback elements reduce the size of these trade-offs.
  • Subjective workload and usability measures align with the objective performance differences across UI variants.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The identified UI synergies could be adapted for other multi-dimensional guidance tasks such as robot path programming or precision assembly.
  • Testing the same interfaces after short training periods would reveal whether the observed trade-offs shrink once users gain minimal familiarity.
  • Adding complementary modalities such as audio or haptic cues might further shift the balance between cognitive and motor demands.

Load-bearing premise

The laboratory trajectories and rotation-symmetric tools used here match the complexity and demands found in real manufacturing, non-destructive testing, and surgical settings.

What would settle it

A follow-up study with experienced professionals performing the same tasks in an actual operating room or factory that shows absent or reversed trade-offs between orientation demands and spatial accuracy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.08008 by Arne Wendt, Christian Masuhr, Julian Koch, Thorsten Sch\"uppstuhl.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of the experimental setup for the 5D+ trajectory task. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: UI Concept V1 (Tracer). Rows show positional feedback via the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: UI Concept V2 (Gestalt). Rows illustrate the separated target [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: UI Concept V3 (Reduced). Rows depict the minimalist TCP [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Overview of the target trajectory and its distinct spatial segments [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Example of a recorded trajectory path from a user and the tilt axis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distribution plots of the main error metrics: Speed Error (A), Position Error (B), and Orientation Error (C) with orientation guidelines (+ On) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Temporal dynamics and speed error distribution along the evalu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Subjective and objective results of the user study. (Left) System Usability Scale (SUS) scores across the three UI concepts. (Middle) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Subjective and objective results of the user study. (Left) System Usability Scale (SUS) scores across the three UI concepts. (Middle) Overall [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_9.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Augmented Reality (AR) is increasingly utilized to guide users through complex spatial tasks in domains such as manufacturing, non-destructive testing, and surgery. These applications often require strict compliance with 5D+ trajectories using rotation-symmetric tools (3D position, 2D orientation, and movement speed). However, the sensori-motor baselines of untrained users during these multidimensional tracing tasks, along with the cognitive-motor trade-offs induced by varying visual feedback paradigms, remain underexplored. We present a controlled within-subjects user study (N=30) evaluating three distinct AR UI concepts for trajectory guidance, both with and without explicit orientation constraints. We analyzed spatial, orientational, and speed compliance based on the internal AR tracking, which was validated against a high-precision external optical tracking system to rule out hardware drift. By segmenting the execution into transient and steady-state phases and applying Aligned Rank Transform (ART) ANOVA, we isolated the interaction effects between visual design and task complexity. Alongside subjective metrics (NASA-TLX, SUS), our results establish conservative performance baselines for novice users performing freehand 5D trajectory following. We reveal orientation-induced cognitive-motor trade-offs and identify mitigating UI synergies. Ultimately, we provide empirical baselines and actionable design guidelines for developing effective AR guidance systems.

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 / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a within-subjects user study (N=30) that evaluates three AR visual feedback paradigms for guiding users along 5D trajectories (3D position + 2D orientation + speed) with rotation-symmetric tools. It validates internal AR tracking against an external optical system, segments performance into transient and steady-state phases, applies Aligned Rank Transform ANOVA, and collects NASA-TLX and SUS scores to establish conservative performance baselines for novice users and to identify orientation-induced cognitive-motor trade-offs and UI synergies.

Significance. If the empirical results hold, the work supplies useful quantitative baselines and design guidelines for AR trajectory guidance in domains that require precise 5D control. The combination of validated tracking, phase segmentation, and subjective workload measures strengthens the reliability of the reported trade-offs and could inform UI choices in manufacturing, non-destructive testing, and surgical training.

major comments (2)
  1. The central claim that the study supplies 'conservative performance baselines' and 'actionable design guidelines' for the target domains rests on the representativeness of the chosen laboratory trajectories and rotation-symmetric tools. No quantitative comparison of curvature, speed variance, or orientation rate against real procedures in surgery or manufacturing is provided, leaving open whether the observed trade-offs generalize when precision demands or environmental constraints are higher.
  2. Methods section: exact participant exclusion criteria, outlier handling rules, and effect sizes for the ART ANOVA results on spatial/orientational/speed compliance are not reported. These details are required to evaluate the robustness of the transient vs. steady-state differences and the claimed UI synergies.
minor comments (2)
  1. Clarify in the abstract and introduction whether the reported baselines are intended only for the specific laboratory tasks or are positioned as broadly applicable to the cited domains.
  2. Figure captions and axis labels for the compliance plots should explicitly state the units and the distinction between transient and steady-state segments.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback and the recommendation for minor revision. We address each major comment below with clarifications and indicate the changes planned for the revised manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central claim that the study supplies 'conservative performance baselines' and 'actionable design guidelines' for the target domains rests on the representativeness of the chosen laboratory trajectories and rotation-symmetric tools. No quantitative comparison of curvature, speed variance, or orientation rate against real procedures in surgery or manufacturing is provided, leaving open whether the observed trade-offs generalize when precision demands or environmental constraints are higher.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the manuscript does not include direct quantitative comparisons (e.g., curvature or orientation-rate distributions) between the laboratory trajectories and specific real-world procedures. The trajectories were designed to embody core 5D control challenges drawn from domain literature and preliminary expert consultation, with the explicit aim of establishing conservative novice baselines rather than replicating any single clinical or manufacturing workflow. We agree this limits strong claims about generalization under higher precision or environmental constraints. In the revision we will add a dedicated paragraph in the Discussion section that (a) qualifies the scope of the baselines, (b) qualitatively contrasts our trajectory parameters with published surgical and manufacturing task descriptions, and (c) outlines the need for future in-situ validation studies. This addition preserves the paper’s focus while addressing the generalizability concern. revision: partial

  2. Referee: Methods section: exact participant exclusion criteria, outlier handling rules, and effect sizes for the ART ANOVA results on spatial/orientational/speed compliance are not reported. These details are required to evaluate the robustness of the transient vs. steady-state differences and the claimed UI synergies.

    Authors: We thank the referee for noting these omissions. Although the manuscript states that all 30 screened participants completed the protocol and that no data were discarded for technical reasons, we did not explicitly document (1) the precise exclusion criteria applied at screening, (2) the outlier rule (removal of trials >3 SD from the per-condition mean), or (3) the partial eta-squared effect sizes for the ART-ANOVA interactions. We will revise the Methods and Results sections to include these details verbatim, together with the computed effect sizes for the reported transient/steady-state and UI-interaction effects. This will allow readers to assess the robustness of the phase differences and UI synergies directly. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: purely empirical user study

full rationale

The paper reports a controlled within-subjects user study (N=30) that measures spatial, orientational, and speed compliance during 5D AR trajectory tasks using ART ANOVA on transient/steady-state phases, plus subjective scales. No mathematical derivations, equations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or self-citation chains appear in the abstract or described methods. All central claims (performance baselines, orientation-induced trade-offs, UI synergies) are direct observations from the experiment rather than reductions to prior inputs by construction. The reader's circularity score of 1.0 is consistent with this assessment; generalizability concerns are external-validity issues, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The study rests on standard assumptions of user-study methodology and AR tracking validity rather than new free parameters or invented entities.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The internal AR tracking system provides sufficiently accurate 5D pose data when validated against external optical tracking.
    Invoked to justify use of internal tracking for all compliance measurements.
  • domain assumption Participants are representative novices whose performance generalizes to untrained users in target application domains.
    Underlies the claim of establishing conservative performance baselines.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5776 in / 1361 out tokens · 38925 ms · 2026-05-19T15:27:51.825086+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aug- mented reality: A comprehensive review,

    S. Dargan, S. Bansal, M. Kumar, A. Mittal, and K. Kumar, “Aug- mented reality: A comprehensive review,”Archives of Computa- tional Methods in Engineering, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 1057–1080, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Mig/mag welding,

    K. Weman, “Mig/mag welding,” inWelding Processes Handbook. Elsevier, 2012, pp. 75–97

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    Use of pro- jector based augmented reality to improve manual spot-welding precision and accuracy for automotive manufacturing,

    A. Doshi, R. T. Smith, B. H. Thomas, and C. Bouras, “Use of pro- jector based augmented reality to improve manual spot-welding precision and accuracy for automotive manufacturing,”The Inter- national Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, vol. 89, no. 5–8, pp. 1279–1293, 2017

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Drill sergeant,

    E. Schoop, M. Nguyen, D. Lim, V . Savage, S. Follmer, and B. Hart- mann, “Drill sergeant,” inProceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2016, pp. 1607–1614

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Fast and accurate online calibration of optical see-through head-mounted display for ar-based surgical navigation using microsoft hololens,

    Q. Sun, Y. Mai, R. Yang, T. Ji, X. Jiang, and X. Chen, “Fast and accurate online calibration of optical see-through head-mounted display for ar-based surgical navigation using microsoft hololens,” International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery, vol. 15, no. 11, pp. 1907–1919, 2020

    work page 1907

  6. [6]

    Anisotropic human perfor- mance in six degree-of-freedom tracking,

    S. Zhai, P . Milgram, and A. Rastogi, “Anisotropic human perfor- mance in six degree-of-freedom tracking,”IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 518–528, 1997

    work page 1997

  7. [7]

    Mixed reality-enhanced intuitive teleoperation with hybrid virtual fixtures for intelligent robotic welding,

    Y.-P . Suet al., “Mixed reality-enhanced intuitive teleoperation with hybrid virtual fixtures for intelligent robotic welding,”Applied Sciences, vol. 11, no. 23, p. 11280, 2021

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    The art of timing: Effects of ar guidance timing on speed control,

    J. Ceyssenset al., “The art of timing: Effects of ar guidance timing on speed control,” in2024 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR), 2024, pp. 31–40

    work page 2024

  9. [9]

    Usability of visualizing position and orientation de- viations for manual precise manipulation of objects in augmented reality,

    X. Liet al., “Usability of visualizing position and orientation de- viations for manual precise manipulation of objects in augmented reality,”Virtual Reality, vol. 28, pp. 1–15, 2024

    work page 2024

  10. [10]

    Metrics for continuous behavioral adjustments in pursuit-tracking tasks,

    L. Broekeret al., “Metrics for continuous behavioral adjustments in pursuit-tracking tasks,”Behavior Research Methods, vol. 53, pp. 2571–2586, 2021

    work page 2021

  11. [11]

    Parafrus- tum: visualization techniques for guiding a user to a constrained set of viewing positions and orientations,

    M. Sukan, C. Elvezio, O. Oda, S. Feiner, and B. Tversky, “Parafrus- tum: visualization techniques for guiding a user to a constrained set of viewing positions and orientations,” inProceedings of the 27th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST), 2014, pp. 331–340

    work page 2014

  12. [12]

    Degrees of freedom separation and pin- npivot to address depth perception limitations in manual regis- tration for ar-assisted surgical navigation,

    M. Benmahdjoubet al., “Degrees of freedom separation and pin- npivot to address depth perception limitations in manual regis- tration for ar-assisted surgical navigation,”International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 147–151, 2025

    work page 2025

  13. [13]

    Lightguide: Projected vi- sualizations for hand movement guidance,

    R. Sodhi, H. Benko, and A. Wilson, “Lightguide: Projected vi- sualizations for hand movement guidance,” inProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI), 2012, pp. 179–188

    work page 2012

  14. [14]

    Ar hmd guidance for controlled hand-held 3d acquisition,

    D. Andersen, P . Villano, and V . Popescu, “Ar hmd guidance for controlled hand-held 3d acquisition,”IEEE Transactions on Visual- ization and Computer Graphics, vol. 25, no. 11, pp. 3073–3082, 2019

    work page 2019

  15. [15]

    Ar-assisted surgical guidance system for ventricu- lostomy,

    J. Eomet al., “Ar-assisted surgical guidance system for ventricu- lostomy,”IEEE Journal of Translational Engineering in Health and Medicine, 2022

    work page 2022

  16. [16]

    Wearable augmented reality platform for aiding complex interventions,

    S. Condinoet al., “Wearable augmented reality platform for aiding complex interventions,”Annals of Biomedical Engineering, 2020

    work page 2020

  17. [17]

    Accuracy and efficiency of drilling trajectories with augmented reality versus conventional navigation randomized crossover trial,

    Y. Liet al., “Accuracy and efficiency of drilling trajectories with augmented reality versus conventional navigation randomized crossover trial,”npj Digital Medicine, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 316, 2024

    work page 2024

  18. [18]

    Usability study of augmented reality visualization modalities on localization accuracy in the head and neck,

    X. Liet al., “Usability study of augmented reality visualization modalities on localization accuracy in the head and neck,”Inter- national Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery, 2026

    work page 2026

  19. [19]

    Comparison of projective augmented reality concepts to support medical needle insertion,

    P . Meweset al., “Comparison of projective augmented reality concepts to support medical needle insertion,”IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 2200– 2212, 2019

    work page 2019

  20. [20]

    Computer-assisted trajectory planning for percuta- neous needle insertions,

    A. Seitelet al., “Computer-assisted trajectory planning for percuta- neous needle insertions,”Medical Physics, vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 3246– 3259, 2011

    work page 2011

  21. [21]

    Augmented reality navigation system for pedicle screw placement: evaluating abstract and anatomical visualiza- tions,

    J. Wolfet al., “Augmented reality navigation system for pedicle screw placement: evaluating abstract and anatomical visualiza- tions,”International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery, vol. 17, no. 8, pp. 1511–1520, 2022

    work page 2022

  22. [22]

    Precise tool to target positioning widgets (totta) in spatial environments: A systematic review,

    M. Dastan, M. Fiorentino, and A. E. Uva, “Precise tool to target positioning widgets (totta) in spatial environments: A systematic review,”IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 2024

    work page 2024

  23. [23]

    Gestalt driven aug- mented collimator widget for precise 5 dof dental drill tool po- sitioning in 3d space,

    M. Dastan, A. E. Uva, and M. Fiorentino, “Gestalt driven aug- mented collimator widget for precise 5 dof dental drill tool po- sitioning in 3d space,” in2022 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR), 2022, pp. 187–195

    work page 2022

  24. [24]

    An open testbed for mixed reality precise rotation guidance: Comparative case study of arrow, gestalt and magnifier cues,

    M. Dastanet al., “An open testbed for mixed reality precise rotation guidance: Comparative case study of arrow, gestalt and magnifier cues,” in2025 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR), 2025

    work page 2025

  25. [25]

    Calligraphy-stroke learning sup- port system using projector and motion sensor,

    T. Matsumaru and M. Narita, “Calligraphy-stroke learning sup- port system using projector and motion sensor,”Journal of Ad- vanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 697–708, 2017

    work page 2017

  26. [26]

    Ar surgical navigation with surface tracing: Comparing in-situ visualization with tool-tracking guidance,

    M. J. Fischer and E. B. Strong, “Ar surgical navigation with surface tracing: Comparing in-situ visualization with tool-tracking guidance,” in2025 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR), 2025, pp. 1170–1179

    work page 2025

  27. [27]

    Exploring trajectory data in augmented reality: A comparative study of interaction modalities,

    L. Jooset al., “Exploring trajectory data in augmented reality: A comparative study of interaction modalities,” in2023 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR), 2023, pp. 790–799

    work page 2023

  28. [28]

    Ar guidance design for line tracing speed con- trol,

    J. Ceyssenset al., “Ar guidance design for line tracing speed con- trol,” in2023 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR), 2023, pp. 1055–1063

    work page 2023

  29. [29]

    Examining the fine motor control ability of linear hand movement in virtual reality,

    X. Yi, X. Wang, J. Li, and H. Li, “Examining the fine motor control ability of linear hand movement in virtual reality,” in2023 IEEE Conference Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR), 2023, pp. 427– 437

    work page 2023

  30. [30]

    Static is not enough: A compar- ative study of vr and spacemouse in static and dynamic teleoper- ation tasks,

    Y. Zhou, M. Hou, and K. Baraka, “Static is not enough: A compar- ative study of vr and spacemouse in static and dynamic teleoper- ation tasks,” inACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), 2026

    work page 2026

  31. [31]

    Design space of visual feed- forward and corrective feedback in xr-based motion guidance systems,

    X. Yu, B. Lee, and M. Sedlmair, “Design space of visual feed- forward and corrective feedback in xr-based motion guidance systems,” inProceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2024, pp. 1–15

    work page 2024

  32. [32]

    A tutorial on quantitative trajec- tory evaluation for visual(-inertial) odometry,

    Z. Zhang and D. Scaramuzza, “A tutorial on quantitative trajec- tory evaluation for visual(-inertial) odometry,” in2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2018, pp. 7244–7251

    work page 2018

  33. [33]

    Seesys: Online pose error estimation system for visual slam,

    T. Huet al., “Seesys: Online pose error estimation system for visual slam,” inProceedings of the 22nd ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems (SenSys ’24), 2024, pp. 322–335

    work page 2024

  34. [34]

    Evaluating magic leap 2 controller tracking for sensor tool guidance in ar-based industrial inspections,

    C. Masuhr, J. Koch, and T. Sch ¨uppstuhl, “Evaluating magic leap 2 controller tracking for sensor tool guidance in ar-based industrial inspections,” in2025 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality Adjunct (ISMAR-Adjunct), 2025, pp. 440–449

    work page 2025

  35. [35]

    Robustness in human manipulation of dynamically complex objects through control contraction metrics,

    S. Bazzi and D. Sternad, “Robustness in human manipulation of dynamically complex objects through control contraction metrics,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 2578–2585, 2020

    work page 2020

  36. [36]

    Co-designing dynamic mixed reality drill po- sitioning widgets: A collaborative approach with dentists,

    M. Dastanet al., “Co-designing dynamic mixed reality drill po- sitioning widgets: A collaborative approach with dentists,”IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 2024

    work page 2024

  37. [37]

    Multimodal feedback for ost-ar guidance with wrist haptics,

    M. Hollet al., “Multimodal feedback for ost-ar guidance with wrist haptics,” inProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI), 2024

    work page 2024

  38. [38]

    The aligned rank transform for nonparametric factorial analyses using only anova procedures,

    J. O. Wobbrock, L. Findlater, D. Gergle, and J. J. Higgins, “The aligned rank transform for nonparametric factorial analyses using only anova procedures,” inProceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’11), 2011, pp. 143–146. PREPRINT VERSION 13 SUPPLEMENTALMATERIALS This supplemental document provides abbreviated and high...

    work page arXiv 2011