Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 2 minor 86 references

The Impact of Navigation on Proxemics in an Immersive Virtual Environment with Conversational Agents

T0 review · 3 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-05-23 · grok-4.3

Challenge this review Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Users stand closer to virtual conversational agents when moving by teleportation instead of walking.

desk verdict The paper finds closer interpersonal distances under teleportation than natural walking in VR with agents, but the abstract leaves the causal attribution to spatial perception open to confounds like order or implementation. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.20990 v2 submitted 2025-02-28 cs.HC

Rose Connolly , Lauren Buck , Victor Zordan , Rachel McDonnell This is my paper
classification cs.HC
keywords virtualrealityproxemicsinterpersonaldistanceteleportationlocomotionsocialVRembodiedagentsnavigation
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

The paper tests whether locomotion method changes interpersonal distance in social virtual reality. It finds that teleportation produces smaller distances to embodied agents than natural walking does. A reader would care because social VR platforms use both methods and closer approaches risk causing discomfort during conversations. The comparison was run with seventy participants who interacted with agents under each condition. Natural walking also raised reported agency and body ownership while co-presence stayed the same.

What carries the argument

Interpersonal distance (proxemics) measured between participants and embodied conversational agents under two locomotion conditions: teleportation versus natural walking.

What would settle it

A follow-up experiment that finds identical average interpersonal distances under both locomotion conditions after counterbalancing order and holding the VR hardware and agent behavior fixed would falsify the claim that teleportation specifically reduces proximity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Participants maintained closer proximity to the agents during teleportation than during natural walking. The authors attribute the reduction to differences in spatial perception and spatial cognitive load. Female participants kept greater distances than male participants. Natural walking increased agency and body ownership, but co-presence did not change between the two locomotion methods.

Load-bearing premise

The smaller distances observed with teleportation result from altered spatial perception and cognitive load rather than trial order, implementation details of the teleport mechanic, or other unmeasured aspects of the VR setup.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Proximity must be treated as a design factor when selecting locomotion methods for social VR.
  • Teleportation produces reliably smaller interpersonal distances than natural walking.
  • Natural walking raises users' sense of agency and body ownership without changing co-presence.
  • Gender differences appear in the distances participants maintain from agents.
  • Locomotion choice does not affect the sense of co-presence with agents.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If spatial perception changes drive the effect, the same shift may appear in other distance judgments such as reaching for objects.
  • Platforms could add adaptive agent positioning or visual distance cues that compensate when users teleport.
  • The pattern may extend to interactions with other real users in shared VR spaces if the perception change holds.
  • Varying the length or visual feedback of teleport jumps could isolate whether cognitive load is the active mechanism.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports an empirical study with 70 participants examining how locomotion method (teleportation versus natural walking) affects interpersonal distance in an immersive VR environment populated by embodied conversational agents. The central claim is that participants maintained closer proximity to the agents under teleportation. Secondary findings include greater distances kept by female participants, higher agency and body ownership with natural walking, and unchanged co-presence. The authors attribute the proximity reduction to differences in spatial perception and spatial cognitive load.

Significance. If the proximity difference survives controls for order effects and implementation details, the result would be significant for social VR design: it supplies direct evidence that a widely used locomotion technique alters proxemics, a factor known to influence comfort and interaction quality. The sample size and use of embodied agents make the work relevant to practical system development; the gender and agency observations add useful nuance.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methods] Methods section: the experimental design does not state whether the order of locomotion conditions was counterbalanced or randomized across participants. This detail is load-bearing for the central claim, because an order effect could produce the observed proximity difference without any change in spatial perception.
  2. [Results] Results section: the reported findings provide no information on the statistical tests performed, effect sizes, confidence intervals, exclusion criteria, or tests for order-by-condition interactions. Without these, it is impossible to evaluate whether the teleportation–proximity difference is reliable or confounded by VR measurement artifacts or unmeasured variables.
  3. [Discussion] Discussion section: the attribution of reduced interpersonal distance to altered spatial perception and cognitive load is presented without accompanying measures of spatial estimation accuracy or cognitive load. The causal mechanism therefore remains speculative relative to alternative explanations such as teleportation implementation specifics.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the phrasing 'maintained closer proximity from the agents' is imprecise and should be changed to 'maintained closer proximity to the agents'.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: the gender and agency observations are mentioned without any indication of their statistical magnitude or reliability; adding one sentence summarizing these effects would improve clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments. We address each major point below and have revised the manuscript to improve clarity, reporting, and interpretation while preserving the original findings.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods] Methods section: the experimental design does not state whether the order of locomotion conditions was counterbalanced or randomized across participants. This detail is load-bearing for the central claim, because an order effect could produce the observed proximity difference without any change in spatial perception.

    Authors: We apologize for the omission in the original submission. The order of the two locomotion conditions was counterbalanced across participants. This detail has been added explicitly to the Methods section of the revised manuscript. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results] Results section: the reported findings provide no information on the statistical tests performed, effect sizes, confidence intervals, exclusion criteria, or tests for order-by-condition interactions. Without these, it is impossible to evaluate whether the teleportation–proximity difference is reliable or confounded by VR measurement artifacts or unmeasured variables.

    Authors: We agree that fuller statistical reporting strengthens the paper. The revised Results section now reports the exact tests (paired t-tests for the primary comparison), effect sizes, confidence intervals, exclusion criteria, and the absence of a significant order-by-condition interaction. The proximity difference remains reliable after these controls. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Discussion] Discussion section: the attribution of reduced interpersonal distance to altered spatial perception and cognitive load is presented without accompanying measures of spatial estimation accuracy or cognitive load. The causal mechanism therefore remains speculative relative to alternative explanations such as teleportation implementation specifics.

    Authors: We accept that direct measures of spatial estimation accuracy and cognitive load were not collected. The original discussion framed the explanation as a proposal based on prior VR locomotion literature. In the revision we have (a) explicitly labeled it as a hypothesized mechanism, (b) noted the lack of direct measures, (c) discussed alternative accounts including implementation details of the teleportation technique, and (d) added a call for future work that would collect those measures. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

Empirical user study with no derivation chain or fitted predictions

full rationale

The paper is a between-subjects user study (N=70) that directly measures interpersonal distance via head/hand tracking during interactions with agents under two locomotion conditions. No equations, models, parameters, or first-principles derivations appear anywhere in the text. The central claim is an observed mean difference in proximity; the proposed mechanism (spatial perception / cognitive load) is explicitly labeled as a post-hoc hypothesis rather than a derived prediction. No self-citations are used to justify uniqueness or forbid alternatives. The study is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks and contains zero load-bearing steps that reduce to their own inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 1 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This is a controlled user study relying on standard experimental design and statistical comparison assumptions with no mathematical derivations, free parameters, or new postulated entities.

assumptions (1)
  • standard math Standard assumptions for between-subjects or within-subjects statistical comparison of means
    Implicit when reporting group differences in proximity, agency, and ownership.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Impact of Navigation on Proxemics in an Immersive Virtual Environment with Conversational Agents." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2502.20990

@misc{pith2026250220990,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Impact of Navigation on Proxemics in an Immersive Virtual Environment with Conversational Agents},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2502.20990}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.20990}
}
read the original abstract

As social VR grows in popularity, understanding how to optimise interactions becomes increasingly important. Interpersonal distance (the physical space people maintain between each other) is a key aspect of user experience. Previous work in psychology has shown that breaches of personal space cause stress and discomfort. Thus, effectively managing this distance is crucial in social VR, where social interactions are frequent. Teleportation, a commonly used locomotion method in these environments, involves distinct cognitive processes and requires users to rely on their ability to estimate distance. Despite its widespread use, the effect of teleportation on proximity remains unexplored. To investigate this, we measured the interpersonal distance of 70 participants during interactions with embodied conversational agents, comparing teleportation to natural walking. Our findings revealed that participants maintained closer proximity from the agents during teleportation. Female participants kept greater distances from the agents than male participants, and natural walking was associated with higher agency and body ownership, though co-presence remained unchanged. We propose that differences in spatial perception and spatial cognitive load contribute to reduced interpersonal distance with teleportation. These findings emphasise that proximity should be a key consideration when selecting locomotion methods in social VR, highlighting the need for further research on how locomotion impacts spatial perception and social dynamics in virtual environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.20990 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (left to right), participant with HMD and controllers immersed in the virtual scene, the participant’s first-person view of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Third-person view of a participant (left) teleporting towards an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. User (left) and avatar they were embodied in (right). Note that [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Boxplots of proximity measurement distribution across locomotion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 86 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A. E. Abele. The dynamics of masculine-agentic and feminine-communal traits: findings from a prospective study. Journal of personality and social psychology, 85(4):768, 2003. 8

    work page 2003

  2. [2]

    Armbrüster, M

    C. Armbrüster, M. Wolter, T. Kuhlen, W. Spijkers, and B. Fimm. Depth perception in virtual reality: distance estimations in peri-and extrapersonal space. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 11(1):9–15, 2008. 2, 7

    work page 2008

  3. [3]

    M. T. Bach, P. A. Jensen, A.-I. Lucaci, D. G. Pupczyk, and C. B. Madsen. Effect of environment size on spatial perception in virtual reality. In International Conference on Computer-Human Interaction Research and Applications, pp. 97–104. SCITEPRESS Digital Library, 2022. 2

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    J. N. Bailenson, J. Blascovich, A. C. Beall, and J. M. Loomis. Interper- sonal distance in immersive virtual environments. Personality and social psychology bulletin, 29(7):819–833, 2003. 2, 4, 5

    work page 2003

  5. [5]

    J. N. Bailenson, K. Swinth, C. Hoyt, S. Persky, A. Dimov, and J. Blas- covich. The independent and interactive effects of embodied-agent ap- pearance and behavior on self-report, cognitive, and behavioral markers of copresence in immersive virtual environments. Presence, 14(4):379–393,

    work page

  6. [6]

    N. H. Bakker, P. O. Passenier, and P. J. Werkhoven. Effects of head- slaved navigation and the use of teleports on spatial orientation in virtual environments. Human factors, 45(1):160–169, 2003. 1

    work page 2003

  7. [7]

    Bhandari, P

    J. Bhandari, P. R. MacNeilage, and E. Folmer. Teleportation without spatial disorientation using optical flow cues. In Graphics interface, pp. 162–167, 2018. 1, 3

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Biocca, C

    F. Biocca, C. Harms, and J. K. Burgoon. Toward a more robust theory and measure of social presence: Review and suggested criteria. Presence: Teleoperators & virtual environments, 12(5):456–480, 2003. 5

    work page 2003

Show all 86 references
  1. [9]

    Boletsis, J

    C. Boletsis, J. E. Cedergren, et al. Vr locomotion in the new era of virtual reality: an empirical comparison of prevalent techniques. Advances in Human-Computer Interaction, 2019, 2019. 2

    2019

  2. [10]

    D. A. Bowman, D. Koller, and L. F. Hodges. Travel in immersive virtual environments: An evaluation of viewpoint motion control techniques. In Proceedings of IEEE 1997 Annual International Symposium on Virtual Reality, pp. 45–52. IEEE, 1997. 1, 3

    1997

  3. [11]

    Braun and V

    V . Braun and V . Clarke. Thematic analysis. American Psychological Association, 2012. 6, 7, 12

    2012

  4. [12]

    L. E. Buck, S. Park, and B. Bodenheimer. Determining peripersonal space boundaries and their plasticity in relation to object and agent characteristics in an immersive virtual environment. In 2020 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR), pp. 332–342. IEE...

    2020

  5. [13]

    L. E. Buck, M. K. Young, and B. Bodenheimer. A comparison of distance estimation in hmd-based virtual environments with different hmd-based conditions. ACM Transactions on Applied Perception (TAP), 15(3):1–15,

  6. [14]

    J. L. Campos, J. S. Butler, and H. H. Bülthoff. Multisensory integration in the estimation of walked distances. Experimental brain research, 218:551– 565, 2012. 3, 7

    2012

  7. [15]

    J. L. Campos, J. S. Butler, and H. H. Bülthoff. Contributions of visual and proprioceptive information to travelled distance estimation during changing sensory congruencies. Experimental Brain Research, 232:3277– 3289, 2014. 1, 4

    2014

  8. [16]

    J. Cassell. Embodied conversational agents: representation and intelli- gence in user interfaces. AI magazine, 22(4):67–67, 2001. 2, 3

    2001

  9. [17]

    L. A. Cherep, A. F. Lim, J. W. Kelly, D. Acharya, A. Velasco, E. Busta- mante, A. G. Ostrander, and S. B. Gilbert. Spatial cognitive implications of teleporting through virtual environments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 26(3):480, 2020. 1, 3, 7

    2020

  10. [18]

    Dewez, L

    D. Dewez, L. Hoyet, A. Lécuyer, and F. Argelaguet. Studying the inter- relation between locomotion techniques and embodiment in virtual reality. In 2020 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR), pp. 452–461. IEEE, 2020. 3

    2020

  11. [19]

    El Jamiy and R

    F. El Jamiy and R. Marsh. Distance estimation in virtual reality and augmented reality: A survey. In 2019 IEEE international conference on electro information technology (EIT), pp. 063–068. IEEE, 2019. 2

    2019

  12. [20]

    F. Faul, E. Erdfelder, A.-G. Lang, and A. Buchner. G* power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior research methods, 39(2):175–191, 2007. 5

    2007

  13. [21]

    Ferstl, S

    Y . Ferstl, S. Thomas, C. Guiard, C. Ennis, and R. McDonnell. Human or robot? investigating voice, appearance and gesture motion realism of conversational social agents. In Proceedings of the 21st ACM international conference on intelligent virtual agents, pp. 76–83, 2021. 3

    2021

  14. [22]

    J. P. Freiwald, J. Schenke, N. Lehmann-Willenbrock, and F. Steinicke. Effects of avatar appearance and locomotion on co-presence in virtual reality collaborations. In Proceedings of Mensch Und Computer 2021, pp. 393–401. 2021. 1, 2, 4, 8

    2021

  15. [23]

    H. C. Gagnon, L. Buck, T. N. Smith, G. Narasimham, J. Stefanucci, S. H. Creem-Regehr, and B. Bodenheimer. Far distance estimation in mixed reality. In ACM Symposium on Applied Perception 2020, pp. 1–8, 2020. 2

    2020

  16. [24]

    M. N. Geuss, J. K. Stefanucci, S. H. Creem-Regehr, and W. B. Thompson. Effect of viewing plane on perceived distances in real and virtual envi- ronments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(5):1242, 2012. 2, 4, 6, 7

    2012

  17. [25]

    Gonzalez-Franco and T

    M. Gonzalez-Franco and T. C. Peck. Avatar embodiment. towards a standardized questionnaire. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 5:74, 2018. 5

    2018

  18. [26]

    N. N. Griffin, J. Liu, and E. Folmer. Evaluation of handsbusy vs handsfree virtual locomotion. In Proceedings of the 2018 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play, pp. 211–219, 2018. 3

    2018

  19. [27]

    Guimarães, R

    M. Guimarães, R. Prada, P. A. Santos, J. Dias, A. Jhala, and S. Mascaren- has. The impact of virtual reality in the social presence of a virtual agent. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents, pp. 1–8, 2020. 3

    2020

  20. [28]

    E. T. Hall and E. T. Hall. The hidden dimension, vol. 609. Anchor, 1966. 1, 2, 8

    1966

  21. [29]

    L. A. Hayduk. Personal space: Where we now stand. Psychological bulletin, 94(2):293, 1983. 2

    1983

  22. [30]

    Iachini, Y

    T. Iachini, Y . Coello, F. Frassinetti, and G. Ruggiero. Body space in social interactions: a comparison of reaching and comfort distance in immersive virtual reality. PloS one, 9(11):e111511, 2014. 2, 8

    2014

  23. [31]

    Iachini, Y

    T. Iachini, Y . Coello, F. Frassinetti, V . P. Senese, F. Galante, and G. Rug- giero. Peripersonal and interpersonal space in virtual and real environ- ments: Effects of gender and age. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 45:154–164, 2016. 2, 4, 8

    2016

  24. [32]

    Iachini, G

    T. Iachini, G. Ruggiero, F. Ruotolo, A. Schiano di Cola, and V . P. Senese. The influence of anxiety and personality factors on comfort and reachabil- ity space: a correlational study. Cognitive processing, 16:255–258, 2015. 8

    2015

  25. [33]

    K. R. Kanaga and M. Flynn. The relationship between invasion of personal space and stress. Human Relations, 34(3):239–248, 1981. 1

    1981

  26. [34]

    J. Keil, D. Edler, D. O’Meara, A. Korte, and F. Dickmann. Effects of virtual reality locomotion techniques on distance estimations. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 10(3):150, 2021. 1, 2, 3, 7

    2021

  27. [35]

    J. W. Kelly and S. B. Gilbert. The effectiveness of locomotion interfaces depends on self-motion cues, environmental cues, and the individual. In 2021 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces Abstracts and Workshops (VRW), pp. 391–392. IEEE, 2021. 1

    2021

  28. [36]

    Kilteni, R

    K. Kilteni, R. Groten, and M. Slater. The sense of embodiment in virtual reality. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 21(4):373–387,

  29. [37]

    H. Kim, B. Han, J. Kim, M. F. S. Lubis, G. J. Kim, and J.-I. Hwang. Engaged and affective virtual agents: Their impact on social presence, trustworthiness, and decision-making in the group discussion. In Proceed- ings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems...

    2024

  30. [38]

    Kim and J

    I. Kim and J. Sung. New proxemics in new space: proxemics in vr. Virtual Reality, 28(2):85, 2024. 2

    2024

  31. [39]

    R. L. Klatzky. Allocentric and egocentric spatial representations: Defini- tions, distinctions, and interconnections. In Spatial cognition: An interdis- ciplinary approach to representing and processing spatial knowledge, pp. 1–17. Springer, 1998. 2

    1998

  32. [40]

    N. Kudoh. Dissociation between visual perception of allocentric distance and visually directed walking of its extent. Perception, 34(11):1399–1416,

  33. [41]

    Kyrlitsias and D

    C. Kyrlitsias and D. Michael-Grigoriou. Social interaction with agents and avatars in immersive virtual environments: A survey. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 2:786665, 2022. 3

    2022

  34. [42]

    D. R. Lampton, D. P. McDonald, M. Singer, and J. P. Bliss. Distance estimation in virtual environments. In Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting, vol. 39, pp. 1268–1272. SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, 1995. 7

    1995

  35. [43]

    Langbehn, P

    E. Langbehn, P. Lubos, and F. Steinicke. Evaluation of locomotion tech- niques for room-scale vr: Joystick, teleportation, and redirected walking. In Proceedings of the Virtual Reality International Conference-Laval Vir- tual, pp. 1–9, 2018. 3

    2018

  36. [44]

    J. J. LaViola Jr, D. A. Feliz, D. F. Keefe, and R. C. Zeleznik. Hands-free multi-scale navigation in virtual environments. In Proceedings of the 2001 symposium on Interactive 3D graphics, pp. 9–15, 2001. 3, 7

    2001

  37. [45]

    Leonardis, A

    D. Leonardis, A. Frisoli, M. Barsotti, M. Carrozzino, and M. Bergamasco. Multisensory feedback can enhance embodiment within an enriched virtual walking scenario. Presence, 23(3):253–266, 2014. 1, 3, 4, 8

    2014

  38. [46]

    Z. Li, J. Phillips, and F. H. Durgin. The underestimation of egocentric distance: Evidence from frontal matching tasks. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 73:2205–2217, 2011. 6

    2011

  39. [47]

    A. F. Lim, J. W. Kelly, N. C. Sepich, L. A. Cherep, G. C. Freed, and S. B. Gilbert. Rotational self-motion cues improve spatial learning when teleporting in virtual environments. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Symposium on Spatial User Interaction, pp. 1–7, 2020. 3

    2020

  40. [48]

    C. J. Lin, B. H. Woldegiorgis, and D. Caesaron. Distance estimation of near-field visual objects in stereoscopic displays. Journal of the Society for Information Display, 22(7):370–379, 2014. 2, 4, 6

    2014

  41. [49]

    A. Linn. Gaze teleportation in virtual reality, 2017. 3

    2017

  42. [50]

    Llobera, B

    J. Llobera, B. Spanlang, G. Ruffini, and M. Slater. Proxemics with mul- tiple dynamic characters in an immersive virtual environment. ACM Transactions on Applied Perception (TAP), 8(1):1–12, 2010. 2

    2010

  43. [51]

    D. C. Lochner and J. E. Gain. Vr natural walking in impossible spaces. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGGRAPH Conference on Motion, Interac- tion and Games, pp. 1–9, 2021. 2

    2021

  44. [52]

    J. M. Loomis, J. A. Da Silva, N. Fujita, and S. S. Fukusima. Visual space perception and visually directed action. Journal of experimental psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18(4):906, 1992. 2

    1992

  45. [53]

    X. Lou, X. Li, P. Hansen, and Z. Feng. An empirical evaluation on arm fatigue in free hand interaction and guidelines for designing natural user interfaces in vr. In Virtual, Augmented and Mixed Reality. Design and Interaction: 12th International Conference, VAMR 2020, Held as...

    2020

  46. [54]

    Loup and E

    G. Loup and E. Loup-Escande. Effects of travel modes on performances and user comfort: a comparison between armswinger and teleporting. In- ternational Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 35(14):1270–1278,

  47. [55]

    Luck and R

    M. Luck and R. Aylett. Applying artificial intelligence to virtual reality: Intelligent virtual environments. Applied artificial intelligence, 14(1):3–32,

  48. [56]

    Maruhn, S

    P. Maruhn, S. Schneider, and K. Bengler. Measuring egocentric distance perception in virtual reality: Influence of methodologies, locomotion and translation gains. PloS one, 14(10):e0224651, 2019. 2

    2019

  49. [57]

    M. R. Miller, C. DeVeaux, E. Han, N. Ram, and J. N. Bailenson. A large- scale study of proxemics and gaze in groups. In 2023 IEEE Conference Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR), pp. 409–417. IEEE, 2023. 2, 5

    2023

  50. [58]

    M. Mori. Bukimi no tani [the uncanny valley]. Energy, 7:33, 1970. 3

    1970

  51. [59]

    Mottelson, A

    A. Mottelson, A. Muresan, K. Hornbæk, and G. Makransky. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of body ownership illusions in virtual reality. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 30(5):1–42, 2023. 8

    2023

  52. [60]

    Naceri, R

    A. Naceri, R. Chellali, and T. Hoinville. Depth perception within periper- sonal space using head-mounted display. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 20(3):254–272, 2011. 2, 7

    2011

  53. [61]

    A. K. Ng, L. K. Chan, and H. Y . Lau. Depth perception in virtual en- vironment: The effects of immersive system and freedom of movement. In Virtual, Augmented and Mixed Reality: 8th International Conference, VAMR 2016, Held as Part of HCI International 2016, Toronto, Canada, ...

    2016

  54. [62]

    D. Oh, E. Shafir, and A. Todorov. Economic status cues from clothes affect perceived competence from faces.Nature human behaviour, 4(3):287–293,

  55. [63]

    Paris, J

    R. Paris, J. Klag, P. Rajan, L. Buck, T. P. McNamara, and B. Bodenheimer. How video game locomotion methods affect navigation in virtual environ- ments. In ACM Symposium on Applied Perception 2019, pp. 1–7, 2019. 1, 3

    2019

  56. [64]

    Peillard, T

    E. Peillard, T. Thebaud, J.-M. Normand, F. Argelaguet, G. Moreau, and A. Lécuyer. Virtual objects look farther on the sides: The anisotropy of distance perception in virtual reality. In 2019 ieee conference on virtual reality and 3d user interfaces (vr), pp. 227–236. IEEE, 2019. 7

    2019

  57. [65]

    Pejsa, M

    T. Pejsa, M. Gleicher, and B. Mutlu. Who, me? how virtual agents can shape conversational footing in virtual reality. In Intelligent Virtual Agents: 17th International Conference, IVA 2017, Stockholm, Sweden, August 27-30, 2017, Proceedings 17, pp. 347–359. Springer, 2017. 3

    2017

  58. [66]

    Podkosova and H

    I. Podkosova and H. Kaufmann. Co-presence and proxemics in shared walkable virtual environments with mixed colocation. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology, pp. 1–11, 2018. 5, 8

    2018

  59. [67]

    Prithul, J

    A. Prithul, J. Bhandari, W. Spurgeon, and E. Folmer. Evaluation of hands- free teleportation in vr. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Symposium on Spatial User Interaction, pp. 1–6, 2022. 3

    2022

  60. [68]

    R. S. Renner, B. M. Velichkovsky, and J. R. Helmert. The perception of egocentric distances in virtual environments-a review. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 46(2):1–40, 2013. 2, 6

    2013

  61. [69]

    Saracini, M

    C. Saracini, M. Olivetti Belardinelli, A. Hoepfner, and D. Basso. Dif- ferences in distance estimations in real and virtual 3d environments. In Proceedings of the 2nd International and Interdisciplinary Conference on Image and Imagination: IMG 2019, pp. 881–896. Springer, 2020. 2

    2019

  62. [70]

    Sayyad, M

    E. Sayyad, M. Sra, and T. Höllerer. Walking and teleportation in wide-area virtual reality experiences. In 2020 IEEE international symposium on mixed and augmented reality (ISMAR), pp. 608–617. IEEE, 2020. 2, 3

    2020

  63. [71]

    Schneider, P

    S. Schneider, P. Maruhn, and K. Bengler. Locomotion, non-isometric mapping and distance perception in virtual reality. In Proceedings of the 2018 10th International Conference on Computer and Automation Engineering, pp. 22–26, 2018. 1

    2018

  64. [72]

    Sharika, A

    K. Sharika, A. Ramakrishnan, and A. Murthy. Use of exocentric and ego- centric representations in the concurrent planning of sequential saccades. Journal of Neuroscience, 34(48):16009–16021, 2014. 2

    2014

  65. [73]

    Slater, M

    M. Slater, M. Usoh, and A. Steed. Taking steps: the influence of a walking technique on presence in virtual reality. ACM Transactions on Computer- Human Interaction (TOCHI), 2(3):201–219, 1995. 2

    1995

  66. [74]

    Takahashi, Y

    K. Takahashi, Y . Inoue, and M. Kitazaki. Interpersonal distance to a speaking avatar: Loudness matters irrespective of contents. In 2022 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces Abstracts and Workshops (VRW), pp. 774–775. IEEE, 2022. 5

    2022

  67. [75]

    Thaler, S

    M. Thaler, S. Schlögl, and A. Groth. Agent vs. avatar: comparing em- bodied conversational agents concerning characteristics of the uncanny valley. In 2020 IEEE international conference on human-machine systems (ICHMS), pp. 1–6. IEEE, 2020. 3

    2020

  68. [76]

    it doesn’t matter what you are!

    A. M. V on der Pütten, N. C. Krämer, J. Gratch, and S.-H. Kang. “it doesn’t matter what you are!” explaining social effects of agents and avatars. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6):1641–1650, 2010. 3

    2010

  69. [77]

    D. Waller. Factors affecting the perception of interobject distances in virtual environments. Presence, 8(6):657–670, 1999. 2, 6

    1999

  70. [78]

    Wartenberg and P

    C. Wartenberg and P. Wiborg. Precision of exocentric distance judgments in desktop and cube presentation. Presence, 12(2):196–206, 2003. 2, 6

    2003

  71. [79]

    Welsch, S

    R. Welsch, S. Rothe, and S. Mayer. Proxemics in virtual reality: What should we put to the test in social vr? In Proc. of Social VR Workshop–A New Medium for Remote Comm. & Coll, 2021. 2

    2021

  72. [80]

    Welsch, C

    R. Welsch, C. von Castell, and H. Hecht. The anisotropy of personal space. PloS one, 14(6):e0217587, 2019. 1

    2019

  73. [81]

    M. J. White. Interpersonal distance as affected by room size, status, and sex. The Journal of Social Psychology, 95(2):241–249, 1975. 2

    1975

  74. [82]

    Williamson, J

    J. Williamson, J. Li, V . Vinayagamoorthy, D. A. Shamma, and P. Cesar. Proxemics and social interactions in an instrumented virtual reality work- shop. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pp. 1–13, 2021. 2

    2021

  75. [83]

    D. Wolf, M. Rietzler, L. Bottner, and E. Rukzio. Augmenting telepor- tation in virtual reality with discrete rotation angles. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.04257, 2021. 3

    2021

  76. [84]

    Zibrek, E

    K. Zibrek, E. Kokkinara, and R. McDonnell. Don’t stand so close to me: investigating the effect of control on the appeal of virtual humans using immersion and a proximity-based behavioral task. In Proceedings of the ACM symposium on applied perception, pp. 1–11, 2017. 3

    2017

  77. [85]

    Zibrek, E

    K. Zibrek, E. Kokkinara, and R. McDonnell. The effect of realistic appear- ance of virtual characters in immersive environments-does the character’s personality play a role? IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics, 24(4):1681–1690, 2018. 3

    2018

  78. [86]

    Positive

    K. Zibrek, B. Niay, A.-H. Olivier, L. Hoyet, J. Pettre, and R. McDonnell. The effect of gender and attractiveness of motion on proximity in virtual reality. ACM Transactions on Applied Perception (TAP), 17(4):1–15, 2020. 2, 4, 8 SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL Participants were invited...

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed May 23, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.