Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 72 references

Collaboration in Virtual Reality: Survey and Perspectives

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A survey of collaborative virtual reality sorts the field into three challenge areas—spatial design, collaboration and interactivity, and audio-visual fidelity—and turns them into a research agenda.

desk verdict A useful organizational survey of collaborative VR, but no systematic method and some shaky appendix entries mean it is a starting point, not yet a reliable reference. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16124 v1 pith:7ZZ2OOH4 submitted 2024-11-25 cs.HC cs.ET

Ourania Koutzampasopoulou Xanthidou , Nadine Aburumman , Hanêne Ben-Abdallah This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HCcs.ET
keywords virtualrealitycollaborativeenvironmentsspatialdesignteleportationgesturalinteractionsymmetricandasymmetriccollaborationco-presencevisualaudiofidelity
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 is a state-of-the-art survey of collaborative virtual reality (VR) experiments published between 2011 and 2023. It argues that the field can be organized around three challenge areas: spatial design, collaboration and interactivity, and visual and audio fidelity, each with named components such as mutual embodiment, teleportation, gestural interaction, symmetric versus asymmetric collaboration, physical co-location, inventory, and synchronization. The survey's value, if it is right, is that it turns a scattered set of experiments into a shared vocabulary and a list of concrete future research questions for designers and researchers. A sympathetic reader would take away that collaborative VR works best when these three areas are addressed together rather than treated as isolated technical details.

What carries the argument

The carrying device is a three-part taxonomy of collaborative virtual reality: spatial design, collaboration and interactivity, and visual and audio fidelity. Each category is decomposed into named components (mutual embodiment, teleportation, gestural interaction, co-location, inventory, synchronization, and others), and each component is anchored to specific experimental studies listed in an appendix table. The taxonomy works as the paper's central object: it organizes the literature, explains what counts as a challenge, and generates the paper's future-work list.

What would settle it

A reader could test the survey by running a comprehensive, criteria-based search of collaborative-VR studies from 2011 to 2023 and checking whether every recurring feature or challenge maps onto one of the paper's three categories; the discovery of a recurring category that fits none of them (for example, accessibility, privacy, or cross-platform interoperability) would show the taxonomy is incomplete, as would any documented misreading of an appendix experiment against its original paper.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that collaborative virtual reality can be productively understood as a set of interlocking challenges rather than as a single immersive technology. It identifies spatial design (mutual embodiment and shared perspective, teleportation), collaboration and interactivity (gestural interaction, symmetric versus asymmetric collaboration, physical co-location, take-over control), and visual and audio fidelity (inventory, time and spatial synchronization, software, hardware, and connectivity) as the three main problem areas. Each area, the paper argues, has components that must be fine-tuned for the total experience, and the survey synthesizes the reviewed experiments from 2011 to 2023 to illustrate how each component has been handled and where open questions remain.

Load-bearing premise

The survey's conclusions stand or fall on the assumption that the experiments listed in the appendix are a representative and accurately summarized sample of the collaborative-VR literature, since the paper provides no systematic search strategy or inclusion criteria and does not compare against the studies it omits.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Designers should not treat collaboration as an add-on to an immersive scene: the survey ties successful collaboration to spatial design choices and to audio-visual fidelity, so these must be designed together.
  • Mutual embodiment and shared perspectives are treated as load-bearing for communication reliability; implementations must resolve positional and orientation inconsistencies between users and invest in avatar and hand detail.
  • Teleportation has four technical requirements—time efficiency, traceability, intuitiveness, and recognizability—and four visual styles (hover, jump, fade, portal); no single option dominates, so designers should match the method to the task and consider group teleportation.
  • Symmetric (egocentric) collaboration gives stronger co-presence and learning benefits but introduces occlusion and physical co-location safety issues, while asymmetric (exocentric) collaboration avoids those at the cost of different role experiences, making the choice task-dependent.
  • Audio-visual fidelity is governed by inventory design, time and spatial synchronization (a 0.1-second audio-video lag is already harmful), avatar fidelity, and low-latency connectivity below 15 milliseconds, so quality of experience depends on infrastructure as much as content.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Extension: The three categories are not independent axes; the survey's own examples—teleportation affecting traceability and group navigation, avatar fidelity affecting spatial design and communication—suggest a design space where every choice has consequences in all three categories.
  • Extension: Most summarized studies use small convenience samples and short task-based measures; if the field adopts standardized outcome metrics, the relative severity of the challenges may be re-ranked in ways the survey does not anticipate.
  • Extension: The future-work list can be read as a factorial experiment plan: because the paper notes that combining more than two or three constructs is impractical, a natural next step is a program of studies that vary one construct per category while holding the others fixed.
  • Extension: The authors' planned work on haptic feedback and symmetric versus asymmetric collaboration in higher education will directly test whether the taxonomy's categories interact, since haptics sit at the boundary between collaboration and fidelity.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper surveys the literature on collaborative virtual reality environments (VREs), organizing the reviewed material around three broad themes: spatial design (mutual embodiment, teleportation), collaboration and interactivity (gestural interaction, symmetric/asymmetric collaboration, physical co-location), and visual/audio fidelity (inventory, synchronization, hardware and connectivity). It summarizes a set of experiments from 2011-2023 in an appendix table and concludes with a list of future research directions, several of which are motivated by the reviewed studies. The central claim is that the paper provides a structured overview of the features and challenges of collaborative VREs and identifies promising avenues for future work.

Significance. If the survey is reliable, it would serve as a useful entry point for researchers new to collaborative VR, because it groups a dispersed literature into three comprehensible problem areas and explicitly lists candidate research questions. The paper's strengths include its broad chronological coverage (2011-2023), its appendix table with sample sizes and statistical tests, and its explicit enumeration of future research directions. However, the survey's value depends on the accuracy and representativeness of the paper summaries, and those are exactly the aspects that need scrutiny. The paper contains no derivations or fitted models, so the usual circularity concerns do not apply; the load-bearing issue is whether the selection of papers is systematic and whether each cited study is described correctly.

major comments (4)
  1. [§1 and Appendix Table 1] The paper never states a search strategy, inclusion criteria, database list, or screening procedure for the reviewed experiments. The sentence in §1 describing the survey does not explain how the 2011-2023 experiments were found or why these particular papers were included. Without this information, a reader cannot judge whether the selection is representative of the collaborative VR literature, and the survey's central claim to provide a structured overview is not reproducible. I recommend adding a methods subsection that specifies the databases, search terms, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and a flow diagram or at least a clear rationale for the final set of papers.
  2. [Appendix Table 1, Wikstrom et al. (2022) row] The row for Wikstrom et al. (2022) describes the CoBlok puzzle, in which two users identify a 3D shape from 2D views with only verbal communication, but the Findings column states: 'Faster bandwidth and decreased latency, better cameras and microphones improve the collaborative VR experience.' That finding does not follow from the experiment as described in the same row or in §4.3, which discusses the CoBlok task but does not report any manipulation of bandwidth, latency, cameras, or microphones. This is a factual mismatch in the paper's central table and directly undermines the survey's reliability. The row must be corrected to report CoBlok's actual measured outcomes, or removed if the correct findings cannot be verified.
  3. [Appendix Table 1, Lacoche and Pallamin (2017) row and §4.3] The table lists as a finding 'Users prefer EG, GA, SNF than being constrained in an STS,' but §4.3 reports that the study 'did not prove that the safety of the participants is better with the STS' and 'it was not verified that the users felt more free in their physical movements under the EG, GA, and SNF conditions rather than under STS condition.' Preference, perceived safety, and perceived freedom are distinct constructs, and the table gives no indication of which measure produced the preference result. The table and the text are in tension; the authors should either report the actual preference finding with its measurement instrument or remove the unsupported row entry.
  4. [Appendix Table 1, Rios et al. (2018) row and §4.3] The table lists as a third finding: 'An indication of different intensity of caution in the VRE even with small anomalies in the synchronization of animation and sound.' This claim is not present in §4.3, which states only that synchronization did not affect performance and that participants were more cautious in VREs than in reality. If this is an actual finding from the study, the text should report it and give the supporting evidence; if it is not, the row should be corrected. As currently written, the appendix table contains claims that are absent from the body, which weakens the paper's reliability as a reference.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3.2] The sentence describing the 'fade' teleportation method cites '[41, 43]', but reference [41] is Schwind et al. on virtual hands and appears unrelated to teleportation visualization; the citation should be corrected to the relevant teleportation source.
  2. [§1 and throughout] The manuscript uses 'state-of-art' where 'state of the art' is the standard form; this appears in both the abstract and the introduction and should be corrected throughout.
  3. [Appendix Table 1] The table header 'Reference/Aim/ Objectives Experiment/Sample/ Methods Findings' is difficult to parse because the columns are not clearly separated; reformatting with distinct column headings would improve usability.
  4. [§1] The market statistics from Statista and Kolmar/Zippia are industry sources rather than peer-reviewed literature; they should be labeled as industry estimates, or replaced with academic sources, so that the motivation section does not rely on non-archival data.
  5. [Appendix Table 1] Several rows contain the typo 'ANOV A' instead of 'ANOVA' (for example, the Hoppe, deBack, Rios, and Lacoche rows); these should be corrected.
  6. [§1] The phrase 'are briefly outlined in the Appendix as a table ... (see 6)' should read '(see Appendix 6)' or '(see Table 1 in the Appendix)' to give the reader a clear pointer.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper is a literature survey whose claims are summaries of external experiments, with no fitted parameters, derivations, or load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The paper is a survey of collaborative virtual reality research. Its central claim, as stated in the abstract, is that it 'identifies and explains the features introduced and the challenges involved with the VREs, and furthermore provides various interesting future research directions.' There is no derivation chain, no mathematical model, no fitted parameter, and no predictive claim that could reduce to an input by construction. The authors do cite their own prior work nowhere in a load-bearing way; the reference list contains no self-citations by the three authors, and the arguments rest on external experiments such as Hoppe et al. (2021), Weissker et al. (2020), and Lacoche et al. (2017). The future research directions in Section 6 are explicitly presented as a 'non-exhaustive list' of open questions, not as conclusions derived from the survey's own framework. Concerns about the representativeness of the literature selection and the accuracy of individual appendix summaries, such as the Wikstrom et al. (2022) row, are quality-of-survey issues, not circularity issues: a misreported summary is not an input that has been renamed as an output. The paper is self-contained as a survey artifact, and no step in its organization of prior findings is equivalent to its own inputs by definition or by self-citation. Therefore the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no free parameters, no new theoretical axioms, and no invented entities. Its central claims rest on the accuracy and representativeness of the cited literature, which the paper does not independently verify.

assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption The cited experimental studies are valid and accurately summarized.
    The survey's value depends on faithful reporting of the cited experiments; no independent verification is provided in the paper.
  • ad hoc to paper The set of papers reviewed is representative of the collaborative VR literature.
    No systematic search strategy or inclusion criteria are described; the selection appears narrative and ad hoc.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Collaboration in Virtual Reality: Survey and Perspectives." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7ZZ2OOH4

@misc{pith2026241116124,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Collaboration in Virtual Reality: Survey and Perspectives},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7ZZ2OOH4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16124}
}
read the original abstract

The application of Virtual Reality Environments (VRE) has been gaining momentum as a relatively new tool to assist with mitigating various difficulties including abstractness of concepts, lack of user engagement, perception of disconnection from other users. A VRE may offer both synchronous and asynchronous experiences, in addition to an immersive environment which promotes users' engagement. Past research has shown that, in general, VRE do improve the experiences they try to enhance in many aspects of human activity. Terms like immersiveness and 3D representation of real life objects and environments are, as it appears, the two most obvious positive effects of Virtual Reality (VR) applications. However, despite these benefits it does not come without challenges. The main three concepts/challenges are the spatial design, the collaboration interaction between its members and the VRE, and the audio and video fidelity. Each of the three includes a number of other components that should be addressed for the total experience to be fine-tuned. These include mutual embodiment and shared perspectives, teleportation, gestural interaction, symmetric and asymmetric collaboration, physical and virtual co-location, inventory, and time and spatial synchronization. This paper comprises a survey of the literature, that identifies and explains the features introduced and the challenges involved with the VREs, and furthermore provides various interesting future research directions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16124 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. illustrates six different styles of virtual hands. In the top row, the styles are all non-human (abstract, cartoon and robot, from left to right respectively). In the bottom row, the styles are all human (male, female, and androgynous, from left to right respectively) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The Jumping technique for teleportation: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Interaction gestures for distant manipulations with one hand. [55] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Bimanual transformations [55]. An experiment by Zaman (2015) suggested that a lack of haptic feedback affects in a negative way the user from placing action on objects or making gestural interactions to other users. Actually, the study claims that there is an indicatio…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: "Manipulating Parallel Containers. a) Parallel Containers, b) Switching parallel version, c) Highlighting all [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left image: Symmetric VR where both users use VR headset. Right image: Symmetric AR where both users [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Asymmetric VR and AR where one user uses VR headset and the other uses tablet or mobile [55]. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (a) The "Extended Grid" (left), (b) The "Ghost Avatar" (middle), and (c) The "Safe Navigation Floor" (right) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: CoBlok puzzle [66]. the ability to work on a problem in parallel (VR split) fosters more communication than taking turns, and also leads to less overall test-subject movement. Finally, keeping collaborators working independently leads to lower sense of urgency than tur…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Metaphorical inventory (belt) (left and middle) and Abstract inventory (hand table) (right) [68]. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Partially blended realities: Aligning dissimilar spaces for distributed mixed reality meetings

    Jens Emil Grønbæk, Ken Pfeuffer, Eduardo Velloso, and Hans Gellersen. Partially blended realities: Aligning dissimilar spaces for distributed mixed reality meetings. 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    The past, present, and future of virtual and augmented reality research: a network and cluster analysis of the literature

    Pietro Cipresso, Irene Alice Chicchi Giglioli, Mariano Alcañiz Raya, and Giuseppe Riva. The past, present, and future of virtual and augmented reality research: a network and cluster analysis of the literature. Frontiers in psychology, page 2086, 2018

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    AR & VR - Worldwide | Statista Market Forecast — statista.com

    Statista. AR & VR - Worldwide | Statista Market Forecast — statista.com. https://www.statista.com/ outlook/amo/ar-vr/worldwide, 2022. [Accessed 22-Apr-2023]. 18 Collaboration in Virtual Reality: Survey and Perspectives

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    C. Kolmar. 25+ Amazing Virtual Reality Statistics [2023]: The Future Of VR + AR - Zippia — zippia.com. https://www.zippia.com/advice/virtual-reality-statistics/ , 2023. [Accessed 22-Apr-2023]

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Virtual reality rehabilitation of balance: assessment of the usability of the nintendo wii® fit plus

    Dara Meldrum, Aine Glennon, Susan Herdman, Deirdre Murray, and Rory McConn-Walsh. Virtual reality rehabilitation of balance: assessment of the usability of the nintendo wii® fit plus. Disability and rehabilitation: assistive technology, 7(3):205–210, 2012

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    From visual simulation to virtual reality to games

    Michael Zyda. From visual simulation to virtual reality to games. Computer, 38(9):25–32, 2005

    work page 2005

  7. [7]

    Virtual environments for competency-oriented educa- tion and training

    Thomas Alexander, Martin Westhoven, and Jessica Conradi. Virtual environments for competency-oriented educa- tion and training. In Advances in Human Factors, Business Management, Training and Education: Proceedings of the AHFE 2016 International Conference on Human Factors, Business Management and Society, July 27-31, 2016, Walt Disney World®, Florida, US...

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Improvement of user experience using virtual reality in open-architecture product design

    Hao Song, Fangyuan Chen, Qingjin Peng, Jian Zhang, and Peihua Gu. Improvement of user experience using virtual reality in open-architecture product design. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture, 232(13):2264–2275, 2017

    work page 2017

Show all 72 references
  1. [9]

    Teaching with technology in higher education: understanding conceptual change and development in practice

    Claire Englund, Anders D Olofsson, and Linda Price. Teaching with technology in higher education: understanding conceptual change and development in practice. Higher Education Research & Development, 36(1):73–87, 2017

    2017

  2. [10]

    Virtual reality and avatars in health care

    Siobhan O’Connor. Virtual reality and avatars in health care. Clinical nursing research, 28(5):523–528, 2019

    2019

  3. [11]

    Virtual reality making a real impact across government | govevents, 2022

    Kerry Rea. Virtual reality making a real impact across government | govevents, 2022

    2022

  4. [12]

    Nice: Narrative, immersive, constructionist/collaborative environments for learning in vr

    Maria Roussos, Andrew E Johnson, Jason Leigh, Christina A Vasilakis, and Thomas G Moher. Nice: Narrative, immersive, constructionist/collaborative environments for learning in vr

  5. [13]

    Identifying dropout factors in information technology education: A case study

    Michail N Giannakos, Trond Aalberg, Monica Divitini, Letizia Jaccheri, Patrick Mikalef, Ilias O Pappas, and Guttorm Sindre. Identifying dropout factors in information technology education: A case study. In 2017 IEEE global engineering education conference (EDUCON), pages 1187–...

    2017

  6. [14]

    Holistic game development curriculum

    Ben Kenwright. Holistic game development curriculum. In SIGGRAPH ASIA 2016 Symposium on Education, pages 1–5, 2016

    2016

  7. [15]

    Immersive 3d geovisualization in higher education

    Andrea Philips, Ariane Walz, Andreas Bergner, Thomas Graeff, Maik Heistermann, Sarah Kienzler, Oliver Korup, Torsten Lipp, Wolfgang Schwanghart, and Gerold Zeilinger. Immersive 3d geovisualization in higher education. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 39(3):437–449, 2015

    2015

  8. [16]

    Authenticity, interactivity, and col- laboration in virtual reality games: Best practices and lessons learned

    Annie Wang, Meredith Thompson, Cigdem Uz-Bilgin, and Eric Klopfer. Authenticity, interactivity, and col- laboration in virtual reality games: Best practices and lessons learned. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 2:734083, 2021

    2021

  9. [17]

    iprogvr: Design of a virtual reality environment to improve introductory programming learning

    Chyanna Wee, Kian Meng Yap, and Woan Ning Lim. iprogvr: Design of a virtual reality environment to improve introductory programming learning. IEEE Access, 10:100054–100078, 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    It certification: Demand, characteristics and integration into traditional university mis curriculum

    Mohammad A Rob. It certification: Demand, characteristics and integration into traditional university mis curriculum. Communications of the IIMA, 14(1):2, 2014

    2014

  11. [19]

    A systematic literature review on teaching and learning introductory programming in higher education

    Rodrigo Pessoa Medeiros, Geber Lisboa Ramalho, and Taciana Pontual Falcão. A systematic literature review on teaching and learning introductory programming in higher education. IEEE Transactions on Education , 62(2):77–90, 2018

    2018

  12. [20]

    Online Classes vs

    Goodwin University. Online Classes vs. Traditional Classes | Goodwin University — goodwin.edu. https: //www.goodwin.edu/enews/online-classes-vs-traditional-classes/ . [Accessed 22-Apr-2023]

    2023

  13. [21]

    Collaborative immersive virtual environments for education in geography

    ˇCenˇek Šašinka, Zdenˇek Stachoˇn, Michal Sedlák, Jiˇrí Chmelík, Lukáš Herman, Petr Kubíˇcek, Alžbˇeta Šašinková, Milan Doležal, Hynek Tejkl, Tomáš Urbánek, et al. Collaborative immersive virtual environments for education in geography. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Infor...

    2018

  14. [22]

    Give-me-a-hand: The effect of partner’s gender on collaboration quality in virtual reality

    Amal Yassien, ElHassan B Makled, Passant Elagroudy, Nouran Sadek, and Slim Abdennadher. Give-me-a-hand: The effect of partner’s gender on collaboration quality in virtual reality. In Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 1–6, 2021

    2021

  15. [23]

    Gender and tenure diversity in github teams

    Bogdan Vasilescu, Daryl Posnett, Baishakhi Ray, Mark GJ van den Brand, Alexander Serebrenik, Premkumar Devanbu, and Vladimir Filkov. Gender and tenure diversity in github teams. In Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems, pages 3789–...

    2015

  16. [24]

    Virtual reality’s influence on education

    Jagvinder Singh and Rajveer Kaur. Virtual reality’s influence on education. Journal of Critical Reviews, 08(03), 2021

    2021

  17. [25]

    A review of the virtual reality applications in education and training

    Pavel Smutny, Marek Babiuch, and Petr Foltynek. A review of the virtual reality applications in education and training. In 2019 20th International Carpathian Control Conference (ICCC), pages 1–4, 2019. 19 Collaboration in Virtual Reality: Survey and Perspectives

    2019

  18. [26]

    A serious game for interactive teaching of newton’s laws

    Anne Van Der Linden and Wouter Van Joolingen. A serious game for interactive teaching of newton’s laws. In Proceedings of the 3rd Asia-Europe Symposium on Simulation & Serious Gaming, pages 165–167, 2016

    2016

  19. [27]

    A critical review of the use of virtual reality in construction engineering education and training

    Peng Wang, Peng Wu, Jun Wang, Hung-Lin Chi, and Xiangyu Wang. A critical review of the use of virtual reality in construction engineering education and training. International journal of environmental research and public health, 15(6):1204, 2018

    2018

  20. [28]

    Benefits of immersive collaborative learning in cave-based virtual reality

    Tycho T deBack, Angelica M Tinga, Phong Nguyen, and Max M Louwerse. Benefits of immersive collaborative learning in cave-based virtual reality. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education , 17:1–18, 2020

    2020

  21. [29]

    On the effectiveness of virtual reality in the education of software engineering

    Akhan Akbulut, Cagatay Catal, and Burak Yıldız. On the effectiveness of virtual reality in the education of software engineering. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 26(4):918–927, 2018

    2018

  22. [30]

    Development of modular virtual lab for introductory computing courses

    Irina Branovic, Dragan Markovic, Ranko Popovic, Violeta Tomasevic, and Dejan Zivkovic. Development of modular virtual lab for introductory computing courses. In 2013 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), pages 1027–1031. IEEE, 2013

    2013

  23. [31]

    Interdisciplinary collaboration approaches on undergraduate virtual reality technology projects

    Eric Nersesian, Margarita Vinnikov, Jessica Ross-Nersesian, and Michael J Lee. Interdisciplinary collaboration approaches on undergraduate virtual reality technology projects. In 2020 IEEE Integrated STEM Education Conference (ISEC), pages 1–8. IEEE, 2020

    2020

  24. [32]

    Applied virtual reality in 3d geometry

    Konstantinos Sakkas, Alexandra Tsogka, Nikolaos Giannakeas, Katerina D Tzimourta, Alexandros T Tzallas, and Euripidis Glavas. Applied virtual reality in 3d geometry. In 2022 7th South-East Europe Design Automation, Computer Engineering, Computer Networks and Social Media Confe...

    2022

  25. [33]

    nroom: an immersive virtual environment for collaborative spatial design

    Cagri Hakan Zaman, Asiya Yakhina, and Federico Casalegno. nroom: an immersive virtual environment for collaborative spatial design. In Proceedings of the International HCI and UX Conference in Indonesia, pages 10–17, 2015

    2015

  26. [34]

    Spacetime: Enabling fluid individual and collaborative editing in virtual reality

    Haijun Xia, Sebastian Herscher, Ken Perlin, and Daniel Wigdor. Spacetime: Enabling fluid individual and collaborative editing in virtual reality. In Proceedings of the 31st annual ACM symposium on user interface software and technology, pages 853–866, 2018

    2018

  27. [35]

    Towards collaborative learning in virtual reality: A comparison of co-located symmetric and asymmetric pair-learning

    Tobias Drey, Patrick Albus, Simon der Kinderen, Maximilian Milo, Thilo Segschneider, Linda Chanzab, Michael Rietzler, Tina Seufert, and Enrico Rukzio. Towards collaborative learning in virtual reality: A comparison of co-located symmetric and asymmetric pair-learning. In Proce...

    2022

  28. [36]

    Take-over control paradigms in collaborative virtual environments for training

    Gwendal Le Moulec, Ferran Argelaguet, Anatole Lécuyer, and Valérie Gouranton. Take-over control paradigms in collaborative virtual environments for training. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM Conference on Virtual Reality Software and Technology, pages 65–68, 2016

    2016

  29. [37]

    No longer alone: finding common ground in collaborative virtual environments

    Li Liu and Adam Kaplan. No longer alone: finding common ground in collaborative virtual environments. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, pages 240–246, 2018

    2018

  30. [38]

    Effects of avatar appearance and locomotion on co-presence in virtual reality collaborations

    Jann Philipp Freiwald, Julius Schenke, Nale Lehmann-Willenbrock, and Frank Steinicke. Effects of avatar appearance and locomotion on co-presence in virtual reality collaborations. In Proceedings of Mensch und Computer 2021, pages 393–401. 2021

    2021

  31. [39]

    Vishnu: virtual immersive support for helping users an interaction paradigm for collaborative remote guiding in mixed reality

    Morgan Le Chénéchal, Thierry Duval, Valérie Gouranton, Jérôme Royan, and Bruno Arnaldi. 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 ...

    2016

  32. [40]

    Shisha: Enabling shared perspective with face-to-face collaboration using redirected avatars in virtual reality

    Adrian H Hoppe, Florian van de Camp, and Rainer Stiefelhagen. Shisha: Enabling shared perspective with face-to-face collaboration using redirected avatars in virtual reality. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 4(CSCW3):1–22, 2021

    2021

  33. [41]

    these are not my hands!

    V Schwind, P Knierim, C Tasci, P Franczak, N Haas, and N Henze. "these are not my hands!" effect of gender on the perception of avatar hands in virtual reality. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 1577–1582. 2017

    2017

  34. [42]

    How 3d interaction metaphors affect user experience in collaborative virtual environment

    Hamid Hrimech, Leila Alem, and Frederic Merienne. How 3d interaction metaphors affect user experience in collaborative virtual environment. Advances in Human-Computer Interaction, 2011:1–11, 2011

    2011

  35. [43]

    Substituting teleportation visualization for collaborative virtual environments

    Santawat Thanyadit, Parinya Punpongsanon, Thammathip Piumsomboon, and Ting-Chuen Pong. Substituting teleportation visualization for collaborative virtual environments. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Symposium on Spatial User Interaction, pages 1–2, 2020. 20 Collaboration in Vi...

    2020

  36. [44]

    Getting there together: Group navigation in distributed virtual environments

    Tim Weissker, Pauline Bimberg, and Bernd Froehlich. Getting there together: Group navigation in distributed virtual environments. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 26(5):1860–1870, 2020

    2020

  37. [45]

    Reality avatar for customer conversation in the metaverse

    Ryoto Kato, Yusuke Kikuchi, Vibol Yem, and Yasushi Ikei. Reality avatar for customer conversation in the metaverse. In Human Interface and the Management of Information: Applications in Complex Technological Environments: Thematic Area, HIMI 2022, Held as Part of the 24th HCI ...

    2022

  38. [46]

    Hedgewarssgc: A competitive shared game control setting

    Pascal Lessel, Maximilian Altmeyer, Matthias Hennemann, and Antonio Krüger. Hedgewarssgc: A competitive shared game control setting. In Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 1–6, 2019

    2019

  39. [47]

    Crowdchess: A system to investigate shared game control in live-streams

    Pascal Lessel, Alexander Vielhauer, and Antonio Krüger. Crowdchess: A system to investigate shared game control in live-streams. In Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play, pages 389–400, 2017

    2017

  40. [48]

    Multi-ray jumping: comprehensible group navigation for collocated users in immersive virtual reality

    Tim Weissker, Alexander Kulik, and Bernd Froehlich. Multi-ray jumping: comprehensible group navigation for collocated users in immersive virtual reality. In 2019 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR), pages 136–144. IEEE, 2019

    2019

  41. [49]

    Guided navigation of virtual environments

    Tinsley A Galyean. Guided navigation of virtual environments. In Proceedings of the 1995 symposium on Interactive 3D graphics, pages 103–ff, 1995

    1995

  42. [50]

    A collaborative previsualiza- tion tool for filmmaking in virtual reality

    Dui Ardal, Simon Alexandersson, Mirko Lempert, and André Tiago Abelho Pereira. A collaborative previsualiza- tion tool for filmmaking in virtual reality. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGGRAPH European Conference on Visual Media Production, pages 1–10, 2019

    2019

  43. [51]

    Collaborative virtual environments: an introductory review of issues and systems

    Elizabeth F Churchill and Dave Snowdon. Collaborative virtual environments: an introductory review of issues and systems. virtual reality, 3(1):3–15, 1998

    1998

  44. [52]

    Isaac: A virtual environment tool for the interactive construction of virtual worlds

    Mark Mine. Isaac: A virtual environment tool for the interactive construction of virtual worlds. UNC Chapel Hill Computer Science Technical Report TR95-020, 1995

    1995

  45. [53]

    Addison-Wesley Professional, 2017

    Joseph J LaViola Jr, Ernst Kruijff, Ryan P McMahan, Doug Bowman, and Ivan P Poupyrev.3D user interfaces: theory and practice. Addison-Wesley Professional, 2017

    2017

  46. [54]

    A two-handed interface for object manipulation in virtual environments

    Daniel P Mapes and J Michael Moshell. A two-handed interface for object manipulation in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 4(4):403–416, 1995

    1995

  47. [55]

    Characterizing asymmetric collabo- rative interactions in virtual and augmented realities

    Jerônimo Gustavo Grandi, Henrique Galvan Debarba, and Anderson Maciel. Characterizing asymmetric collabo- rative interactions in virtual and augmented realities. In 2019 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR), pages 127–135. IEEE, 2019

    2019

  48. [56]

    A new interactive haptic device for getting physical contact feeling of virtual objects

    Keishirou Kataoka, Takuya Yamamoto, Mai Otsuki, Fumihisa Shibata, and Asako Kimura. A new interactive haptic device for getting physical contact feeling of virtual objects. In 2019 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR), pages 1323–1324. IEEE, 2019

    2019

  49. [57]

    Grabity: A wearable haptic interface for simulating weight and grasping in virtual reality

    Inrak Choi, Heather Culbertson, Mark R Miller, Alex Olwal, and Sean Follmer. Grabity: A wearable haptic interface for simulating weight and grasping in virtual reality. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pages 119–130, 2017

    2017

  50. [58]

    Haptic-enabled collaborative learning in virtual reality for schools

    Mary Webb, Megan Tracey, William Harwin, Ozan Tokatli, Faustina Hwang, Ros Johnson, Natasha Barrett, and Chris Jones. Haptic-enabled collaborative learning in virtual reality for schools. Education and Information Technologies, pages 1–24, 2022

    2022

  51. [59]

    Haptic feedback helps me? a vr-sar remote collaborative system with tangible interaction

    Peng Wang, Xiaoliang Bai, Mark Billinghurst, Shusheng Zhang, Dechuan Han, Mengmeng Sun, Zhuo Wang, Hao Lv, and Shu Han. Haptic feedback helps me? a vr-sar remote collaborative system with tangible interaction. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 36(13):1242–1257, 2020

    2020

  52. [60]

    Magic: Manipulating avatars and gestures to improve remote collaboration

    Catarina G Fidalgo, Maurício Sousa, Daniel Mendes, Rafael Kuffner dos Anjos, Daniel Medeiros, Karan Singh, and Joaquim Jorge. Magic: Manipulating avatars and gestures to improve remote collaboration. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.07909, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Sketch pad a man-machine graphical communication system

    Ivan E Sutherland. Sketch pad a man-machine graphical communication system. In Proceedings of the SHARE design automation workshop, pages 6–329, 1964

    1964

  54. [62]

    A generic model for embedding users’ physical workspaces into multi-scale collaborative virtual environments

    Cédric Fleury, Alain Chauffaut, Thierry Duval, Valérie Gouranton, and Bruno Arnaldi. A generic model for embedding users’ physical workspaces into multi-scale collaborative virtual environments. In ICAT 2010 (20th International Conference on Artificial Reality and Telexistence), 2010

    2010

  55. [63]

    Users’ locomotor behavior in collaborative virtual reality

    Alejandro Ríos, Marc Palomar, and Nuria Pelechano. Users’ locomotor behavior in collaborative virtual reality. In Proceedings of the 11th ACM SIGGRAPH Conference on Motion, Interaction and Games, pages 1–9, 2018. 21 Collaboration in Virtual Reality: Survey and Perspectives

    2018

  56. [64]

    Collaborators awareness for user cohabi- tation in co-located collaborative virtual environments

    Jérémy Lacoche, Nico Pallamin, Thomas Boggini, and Jérôme Royan. Collaborators awareness for user cohabi- tation in co-located collaborative virtual environments. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology, pages 1–9, 2017

    2017

  57. [65]

    From presence to consciousness through virtual reality

    Maria V Sanchez-Vives and Mel Slater. From presence to consciousness through virtual reality. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 6(4):332–339, 2005

    2005

  58. [66]

    Coblok: Collaborative performance in virtual reality and face-to-face

    Valtteri Wikström, Silja Martikainen, Mari Falcon, Niina Seittenranta, Pyry Heikkinen, and Katri Saarikivi. Coblok: Collaborative performance in virtual reality and face-to-face. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts, pages 1–4, 2022

    2022

  59. [67]

    Synthesizing game levels for collaborative gameplay in a shared virtual environment

    Huimin Liu, Minsoo Choi, Dominic Kao, and Christos Mousas. Synthesizing game levels for collaborative gameplay in a shared virtual environment. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems, 13(1):1–36, 2023

    2023

  60. [68]

    Comparison of two inventory design concepts in a collaborative virtual reality serious game

    Konstantin Wegner, Sven Seele, Helmut Buhler, Sebastian Misztal, Rainer Herpers, and Jonas Schild. Comparison of two inventory design concepts in a collaborative virtual reality serious game. InExtended Abstracts Publication of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interactio...

    2017

  61. [69]

    A study on the factors affecting audio-video subjective experience in virtual reality environments

    Junzhe Zhao, Bo Zhang, Zhaoyu Yan, Jing Wang, and Zesong Fei. A study on the factors affecting audio-video subjective experience in virtual reality environments. In 2017 International Conference on Virtual Reality and Visualization (ICVRV), pages 303–306. IEEE, 2017

    2017

  62. [70]

    E. Landy. US20100040349A1 - System and method for real-time synchronization of a video resource and different audio resources - Google Patents — patents.google.com. https://patents.google.com/patent/ US20100040349A1/en, 2010. [Accessed 22-Apr-2023]

    2010

  63. [71]

    Negative space: Workspace awareness in 3d face-to-face remote collaboration

    Maurício Sousa, Daniel Mendes, Rafael K dos Anjos, Daniel Simões Lopes, and Joaquim Jorge. Negative space: Workspace awareness in 3d face-to-face remote collaboration. In The 17th International Conference on Virtual-Reality Continuum and its Applications in Industry, pages 1–2, 2019

    2019

  64. [72]

    Collaborative virtual reality for low-latency interaction

    Carmine Elvezio, Frank Ling, Jen-Shuo Liu, and Steven Feiner. Collaborative virtual reality for low-latency interaction. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 31st Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pages 179–181, 2018. 22

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.