Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 8 minor 26 references

VR-Based Control of Multi-Copter Operation

T0 review · 3 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A VR third-person view with live 3D reconstruction matches first-person video control speed while revealing nearby obstacles.

desk verdict A credible VR-TPV teleoperation system integration, but the obstacle-awareness advantage rests on four trials per condition from one pilot and is not statistically supported. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.22599 v2 pith:S4IJ5E57 submitted 2025-05-28 cs.RO

Jack T. Hughes , Garegin Mazmanyan , Mohammad Ghufran , Hossein Rastgoftar This is my paper
classification cs.RO
keywords VRteleoperationthird-personviewmulticopter3Dreconstructionreal-timeSLAMobstacleawarenesslatencyhuman-robotinteraction
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 reports a drone-teleoperation system in which the pilot watches a third-person view of the aircraft in a VR headset, with a live 3D reconstruction of the room generated from the drone's stereo camera. The central claim is that this third-person view (TPV) is as fast as a standard first-person video feed while making nearby hazards more visible: in one pilot's repeated trials, TPV finished the course in 57±7 s versus 55±6 s for FPV, kept the drone 0.20 m farther from the nearest obstacle, and had 0 contacts versus 1 in 4 FPV runs. If true, the result matters because it points to a way to keep the immediacy of first-person control while gaining the lateral and rear hazard awareness that a forward camera cannot provide, and to do it in spaces that were never mapped beforehand and over a WiFi link. The paper presents these numbers as evidence of technical feasibility in controlled indoor conditions, with a multi-pilot study planned as the next step.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a third-person viewpoint built on a live map. An onboard stereo camera tracks and reconstructs the previously unmapped room on an embedded GPU, producing a mesh that is streamed to a WebXR-compatible VR headset; an external camera position shifted 5 m in front of the operator renders the drone and the mesh from behind, so lateral and rear hazards appear in the pilot's field of view. Control commands from the hand controllers travel over WiFi to the flight controller, while pose and video are sent alongside the mesh, and latency is estimated by timestamped echo pings (one-way as RTT/2). The specific elements that carry the argument are the live mesh, the external viewpoint, and the latency estimate: the first two are what make hazards visible, and the third is what makes closed-loop control plausible.

What would settle it

Run the same takeoff–approach–return–land protocol with a panel of pilots and counterbalanced TPV/FPV order, then compare the minimum-obstacle-distance distributions; if the +0.20 m margin and the contact difference do not reproduce beyond one pilot, the obstacle-awareness benefit of TPV does not generalize.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that a third-person VR view fed by real-time SLAM can serve as the pilot's primary visual display for a physical hexacopter without a control-speed penalty. In a takeoff–approach–return–land protocol in an unmapped indoor volume, TPV produced comparable task times (57±7 s vs 55±6 s), a larger minimum obstacle distance (0.82 m vs 0.62 m), and fewer contacts (0/4 vs 1/4) than the FPV baseline, with path length and smoothness within 5%. Two trained pilots completed the protocol, and the repeated-trial statistics come from one pilot (N=8) to limit within-subject variability. The authors interpret the margin as TPV exposing obstacles that FPV hides, and they support the real-time claim with one-way tracking latency of 16.1 ms median (1.47% of steady-state frames above 100 ms), below commonly cited thresholds for perceived real-time interaction.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative TPV advantage over FPV rests on repeated trials from a single trained pilot, with no statistical test and no error bars for the distance or contact differences, so the gap could reflect skill, learning, or trial order rather than the viewing condition itself.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • TPV with live mapping can serve as the primary control display in unmapped indoor flight without a task-time penalty, removing the need for pre-built maps.
  • Because minimum obstacle distance rose by 0.20 m and contacts fell to zero, TPV should reduce collision risk in inspection and search tasks in unfamiliar rooms.
  • One-way latency near 16 ms median, with only 1.47% of steady-state frames above 100 ms, is low enough for closed-loop manual control over WiFi.
  • Because the client is WebXR-based, any compatible headset can display the reconstruction, and multiple users can share the same live view.
  • If the WiFi link congests, the system can pause mapping or fall back to FPV while still showing pose, so control does not fail outright under load.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The biggest practical payoff, if the single-pilot gap generalizes, would be in tight indoor work: +0.20 m of clearance is small in absolute terms but can decide whether a rotor strikes a wall.
  • A cleaner test of the mechanism would compare TPV with the live mesh against TPV with only the video stream, isolating how much of the awareness gain comes from the reconstruction itself.
  • Because the live mesh is already streamed to the headset, the same architecture could let a supervisor watch the pilot's reconstruction remotely, opening a path to collaborative teleoperation without new onboard hardware.
  • The latency profile suggests tail behavior, not the median, is the limiting factor: mapping bursts push the P95 above 100 ms, so adaptive mapping throttling may matter more than average latency for safety.
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

3 major / 8 minor

Summary. The paper presents a VR-based teleoperation system for multirotor flight that combines a third-person view (TPV) of the vehicle with a live 3D reconstruction of the environment, streamed to a Meta Quest 3 headset through a WebXR client and a Jetson Orin NX onboard computer. The authors describe the system architecture, the hexacopter model and controller, and an experimental comparison against a first-person video (FPV) baseline. Quantitative metrics are reported from repeated trials with one pilot (N=8): task time was comparable (FPV 55±6 s vs TPV 57±7 s), minimum obstacle distance improved by +0.20 m, and contacts were 1/4 for FPV vs 0/4 for TPV. The paper also reports one-way tracking latency before and after optimizations, including a steady-state slice excluding the first 10 s and frames above 250 ms.

Significance. If the reported comparison were statistically supported, the paper would demonstrate a useful system integration: TPV with live mapping on embedded hardware, preserving control speed while improving hazard awareness in unmapped indoor environments. The latency measurements are a credible engineering contribution, and the system design (ROS2/WebXR, binary mesh transport, WebRTC video) is clearly described. However, the central quantitative claim of improved obstacle awareness rests on four trials per condition from a single pilot with no per-trial data, significance tests, or order randomization. The paper's own Limitations section concedes the sample is small, yet the abstract and conclusion still assert the improvement. The paper's value is therefore primarily as a feasibility demonstration, not as a validated human-factors result.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section V, Table III] The central claim that TPV improves proximal obstacle awareness rests on four TPV and four FPV trials from a single pilot. The reported +0.20 m minimum-distance difference and the 1/4 vs 0/4 contact counts have no per-trial values, confidence intervals, or significance tests, and no trial-order or counterbalancing information is given. The paper's own Section IV-D states the sample is small and results should be interpreted as feasibility, yet the abstract and conclusions assert the benefit. This is the load-bearing quantitative result; it needs either a proper statistical treatment (per-trial data, effect sizes, and a randomization/counterbalancing description) or a substantially softened claim, such as 'preliminary observation' rather than 'improving'.
  2. [Section V-A, Table IV, Fig. 8] The steady-state slice excludes the first 10 s and all frames above 250 ms. Excluding the tail by threshold is a post hoc choice; the full-run maximum is 497.4 ms and 3.16% of frames exceed 100 ms. The paper presents the steady-state numbers as representative, but the exclusion criteria are not grounded in an a priori definition of 'steady state.' Please justify the exclusion (e.g., state that startup and emergency-stop segments were planned to be excluded) and report both full-run and steady-state numbers with equal emphasis, or provide a sensitivity analysis over exclusion thresholds.
  3. [Section V-A, Fig. 6] The claim that post-optimization latency is 'comparable to commercial FPV offerings' is made without citing a source for the commercial FPV latency figures or describing how they were measured. Without a reproducible basis, this comparison is unsupported; either cite published measurements or remove the quantitative comparison.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Section III-B, Eq. (4)] Equation (4) appears to assign the velocity error to K_p and the position error to K_v; the naming convention is confusing and should be corrected or clarified.
  2. [Section III-A and Table II] 'SeteroLabs' should be 'StereoLabs' in both the hardware description and the camera specification table.
  3. [Section II] 'Drone teleportation' should be 'drone teleoperation'.
  4. [Fig. 10] Panel (b) shows the minimum-distance comparison without error bars or per-trial points; add the raw data or a scatter plot to support the reported difference.
  5. [Table III] The 'Smoothness within 5%' entry is vague; report the actual metric values or the definition of the smoothness metric.
  6. [Section V] 'P95' is used without definition; define it as the 95th percentile at first use.
  7. [Sections IV-D and V] The Limitations section mentions two trained pilots, but the quantitative results are reported from one; clarify which results come from which pilot and whether the second pilot's data were excluded or merely not used in the statistical comparison.
  8. [Section III-C] The sentence 'The headset is connected to ROS2 through rosbridge server, as shown in Fig. 5' is confusing because Fig. 5 is the software architecture diagram; please refer to the relevant component or add a separate connection diagram.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the TPV/FPV comparison is a direct measured system evaluation with no output fed back as input.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing claim is an empirical system comparison: TPV versus an FPV baseline in terms of task time, minimum obstacle distance, contacts, and smoothness. These metrics are direct measurements of flight trials, not quantities derived from the proposed system's own equations. The hexacopter model and cascaded position/attitude controller in Section III are standard textbook formulations and are not used to generate the experimental outcomes. The latency reporting uses RTT/2 from timestamped ROS2 echo messages, which is an instrumentation measurement, and it is not fed back into the TPV/FPV performance comparison. The only weak point, the uncited comparison with 'commercial FPV offerings' in Fig. 6, is a missing external baseline rather than a circular reduction: no equation or fitted parameter is defined in terms of the claim it supports. The paper's own Limitations section acknowledges the small sample and states results should be interpreted as feasibility evidence, which is a statistical-power caveat, not a circularity. No self-citation chain is load-bearing, and no prediction reduces by construction to an input. Therefore the honest finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its claims rest on engineering assumptions: external motion capture, third-party SLAM, a measurement convention, and a single-pilot sample. The main hand-picked numerical choice is the latency exclusion threshold set, treated as an analysis choice rather than a fitted value.

free parameters (1)
  • steady-state latency exclusion thresholds = 10 s start cutoff; 250 ms per-frame cutoff
    The latency steady-state slice excludes the first 10 s and frames above 250 ms. These thresholds are chosen by the authors without an independent criterion and improve the reported tail metrics, so they are a hand-picked analysis parameter affecting the latency claim.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Vicon motion capture provides accurate ground-truth pose for the hexacopter in the test volume.
    Section IV.A and IV.D state the pose backbone relies on Vicon; if pose is inaccurate, the mapped scene and pilot-relative view inherit that error.
  • domain assumption The ZED SDK's real-time SLAM output is sufficiently accurate to support obstacle-avoidance decisions.
    Section IV.D notes the system depends entirely on the ZED SDK for SLAM, but no map accuracy or localization error is reported.
  • ad hoc to paper One-way latency is RTT/2 and headset rendering latency is negligible.
    Section IV-B latency measurement; if rendering time and network asymmetry are significant, the 16 ms median understates true end-to-end latency.
  • ad hoc to paper Repeated trials from a single pilot represent the relevant pilot population.
    Section V explains N=8 from one pilot is used to control within-subject variability; the generalization of the TPV benefit depends on this.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of VR-Based Control of Multi-Copter Operation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/S4IJ5E57

@misc{pith2026250522599,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: VR-Based Control of Multi-Copter Operation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/S4IJ5E57}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.22599}
}
read the original abstract

We present a VR-based teleoperation system for multirotor flight that renders a third-person view (TPV) of the vehicle together with a live 3D reconstruction of its surroundings. The system runs on an embedded GPU (Jetson Orin NX) with ROS2-WebXR integration and streams geometry and video to a headset for closed-loop control in previously unmapped spaces. We implement a first-person video (FPV) baseline and perform matched trials with two pilots in unmapped indoor spaces. Quantitative metrics are reported from repeated trials with one pilot (N=8). TPV achieved task time comparable to FPV while improving proximal obstacle awareness (minimum obstacle distance +0.20m) and reducing contacts. These results indicate that TPV can preserve control quality while exposing hazards less visible in FPV, supporting safer teleoperation in unknown environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.22599 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The architecture proposed for the VR-based perception and control. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The hexacopter used for the experiment. A. Hardware Setup For the experimental validation of our proposed approach, we are utilizing a hexacopter ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Operator with Meta Quest 3 B. Software Setup [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Second pilot conducting VR teleoperation with the Meta Quest 3 inside the safety enclosure (TPV/FPV trials). We compute round-trip time (RTT) between transmit and echo receipt and report a one-way estimate as RTT/2. Rendering on the headset is small relative to transpo…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Functionality of software setup [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of latency with commercial offering. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: One-way tracking latency over time estimated as RTT/2. The shaded interval marks a sustained mapping burst where variance rises. The two highest excursions occur at system startup and at a terminal emergency stop issued via the PX4 controller at the end of the flight. …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Post-optimization one-way tracking latency over time (RTT/2). Dashed line shows 100 ms. Full run: median 16.1 ms, mean 29.8 ms, P95 86.0 ms, max 497.4 ms, and 3.16% of frames > 100 ms. Steady state, excluding the first 10 s and frames > 250 ms: median 15.9 ms, mean 24.…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Post-optimization latency summary. Full run: median 16.1 ms, mean 29.8 ms, P95 86.0 ms, max 497.4 ms, and 3.16% > 100 ms. Steady state, excluding first 10 s and frames > 250 ms: median 15.9 ms, mean 24.2 ms, P95 74.6 ms, max 246.4 ms, and 1.47% > 100 ms. (a) Task time …
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FPV camera stream rendered in the VR client. FPV-only fallback prioritizes the video feed while maintaining pose cues. WiFi. This opens the door for fully remote operation of multi￾copters with minimal loss in environmental awareness. Other future work may include inv…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FPV vs TPV performance in matched trials. Top, task time: FPV 55±6 s, TPV 57±7 s. Bottom, minimum distance: FPV 0.62 m, TPV 0.82 m. adequately informs pilots of nearby obstacles in a way that FPV cameras cannot. The virtual drone mimics the movement of the real drone …

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Uas navigation in the real world using visual observation,

    Y . Han, J. Wei, and A. Yilmaz, “Uas navigation in the real world using visual observation,” in2022 IEEE Sensors. IEEE, 2022, pp. 1–4. 8

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Human factors guidelines for unmanned aircraft systems,

    A. Hobbs and B. Lyall, “Human factors guidelines for unmanned aircraft systems,”Ergonomics in Design, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 23–28, 2016

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Devel- opment of an aerial manipulation system using onboard cameras and a multi-fingered robotic hand with proximity sensors,

    R. Sato, E. M. Badard, C. S. Romulo, T. Wada, and A. Ming, “Devel- opment of an aerial manipulation system using onboard cameras and a multi-fingered robotic hand with proximity sensors,”Sensors, vol. 25, no. 2, p. 470, 2025

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    Utilization of augmented and virtual reality in geoscience,

    V . Holuˇsa, F. Beneˇs, and M. Vanˇek, “Utilization of augmented and virtual reality in geoscience,”GeoScience Engineering, vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 22– 32, 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Applica- tions of 3d reconstruction in virtual reality-based teleoperation: A review in the mining industry,

    A. Kamran-Pishhesari, A. Moniri-Morad, and J. Sattarvand, “Applica- tions of 3d reconstruction in virtual reality-based teleoperation: A review in the mining industry,”Technologies, vol. 12, no. 3, p. 40, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Virtual reality and augmented reality applications in agriculture: a literature review,

    M. E. de Oliveira and C. G. Corr ˆea, “Virtual reality and augmented reality applications in agriculture: a literature review,” in2020 22nd symposium on virtual and augmented reality (svr). IEEE, 2020, pp. 1–9

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Soil sampling with drones and aug- mented reality in precision agriculture,

    J. Huuskonen and T. Oksanen, “Soil sampling with drones and aug- mented reality in precision agriculture,”Computers and electronics in agriculture, vol. 154, pp. 25–35, 2018

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Construction worker-drone safety training in a 360 virtual reality environment: A pilot study,

    J.-Y . Cheng, E. Lunardini Silva Mendes, M. Gheisari, and I. Jeelani, “Construction worker-drone safety training in a 360 virtual reality environment: A pilot study,”EPiC Series in Built Environment, vol. 3, 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 26 references
  1. [9]

    Dronesim: A vr- based flight training simulator for drone-mediated building inspections,

    G. Albeaino, R. Eiris, M. Gheisari, and R. R. Issa, “Dronesim: A vr- based flight training simulator for drone-mediated building inspections,” Construction Innovation, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 831–848, 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    Vrtab- map: A configurable immersive teleoperation framework with online 3d reconstruction,

    H. Stedman, B. B. Kocer, M. Kovac, and V . M. Pawar, “Vrtab- map: A configurable immersive teleoperation framework with online 3d reconstruction,” in2022 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality Adjunct (ISMAR-Adjunct), 2022, pp. 104–110

    2022

  3. [11]

    Teleoperation of a fast omnidirectional unmanned ground vehicle in the cyber-physical world via a vr interface,

    Y . Luo, J. Wang, Y . Pan, S. Luo, P. Irani, and H.-N. Liang, “Teleoperation of a fast omnidirectional unmanned ground vehicle in the cyber-physical world via a vr interface,” inProceedings of the 18th ACM SIGGRAPH International Conference on Virtual-Reality Continuum and Its ...

    2023

  4. [12]

    Immersive view and interface design for teleoperated aerial manipulation,

    B. B. Kocer, H. Stedman, P. Kulik, I. Caves, N. Van Zalk, V . M. Pawar, and M. Kovac, “Immersive view and interface design for teleoperated aerial manipulation,” in2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2022, pp. 4919–4926

    2022

  5. [13]

    An augmented reality interaction interface for autonomous drone,

    C. Liu and S. Shen, “An augmented reality interaction interface for autonomous drone,” in2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2020, pp. 11 419–11 424

    2020

  6. [14]

    Real-time 3d unstructured environment reconstruction utilizing vr and kinect-based immersive teleoperation for agricultural field robots,

    Y . Chen, B. Zhang, J. Zhou, and K. Wang, “Real-time 3d unstructured environment reconstruction utilizing vr and kinect-based immersive teleoperation for agricultural field robots,”Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, vol. 175, p. 105579, 2020. [Online]. Available: https:...

    2020

  7. [15]

    Design and evaluation of a mixed reality-based human-robot interface for teleoperation of omnidirectional aerial vehicles,

    M. Allenspach, T. K ¨otter, R. B ¨ahnemann, M. Tognon, and R. Siegwart, “Design and evaluation of a mixed reality-based human-robot interface for teleoperation of omnidirectional aerial vehicles,” in2023 Interna- tional Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS), 2023, pp...

    2023

  8. [16]

    Multi-sensor fusion for navigation and mapping in autonomous vehicles: Accurate localization in urban environments,

    Q. Li, J. P. n. Queralta, T. N. Gia, Z. Zou, and T. Westerlund, “Multi-sensor fusion for navigation and mapping in autonomous vehicles: Accurate localization in urban environments,”Unmanned Systems, vol. 08, no. 03, pp. 229–237, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.11...

    2020 doi

  9. [17]

    A survey on map-based localization techniques for autonomous vehicles,

    A. Chalvatzaras, I. Pratikakis, and A. A. Amanatiadis, “A survey on map-based localization techniques for autonomous vehicles,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent V ehicles, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 1574–1596, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    A general framework for lifelong localization and mapping in changing environment,

    M. Zhao, X. Guo, L. Song, B. Qin, X. Shi, G. H. Lee, and G. Sun, “A general framework for lifelong localization and mapping in changing environment,” in2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2021, pp. 3305–3312

    2021

  11. [19]

    Dloam: Real-time and robust lidar slam system based on cnn in dynamic urban environments,

    W. Liu, W. Sun, and Y . Liu, “Dloam: Real-time and robust lidar slam system based on cnn in dynamic urban environments,”IEEE Open Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems, pp. 1–1, 2021

    2021

  12. [20]

    A comparative analysis of lidar slam-based indoor navigation for autonomous vehicles,

    Q. Zou, Q. Sun, L. Chen, B. Nie, and Q. Li, “A comparative analysis of lidar slam-based indoor navigation for autonomous vehicles,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 23, no. 7, pp. 6907–6921, 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    Challenges and solutions for autonomous ground robot scene understanding and navigation in unstructured outdoor environments: A review,

    L. Wijayathunga, A. Rassau, and D. Chai, “Challenges and solutions for autonomous ground robot scene understanding and navigation in unstructured outdoor environments: A review,”Applied Sciences, vol. 13, no. 17, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/ 2076-3417/13/17/9877

    2023

  14. [22]

    Birdviewar: Surroundings-aware remote drone piloting using an augmented third- person perspective,

    M. Inoue, K. Takashima, K. Fujita, and Y . Kitamura, “Birdviewar: Surroundings-aware remote drone piloting using an augmented third- person perspective,” inProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ser. CHI ’23. New York, NY , USA: Associati...

    2023

  15. [23]

    Third-person piloting: Increasing situational awareness using a spatially coupled second drone,

    R. Temma, K. Takashima, K. Fujita, K. Sueda, and Y . Kitamura, “Third-person piloting: Increasing situational awareness using a spatially coupled second drone,” 10 2019, pp. 507–519

    2019

  16. [24]

    Multi-robot interfaces and operator situational awareness: Study of the impact of immersion and prediction,

    J. J. Rold ´an, E. Pe ˜na-Tapia, A. Mart ´ın-Barrio, M. A. Olivares- M´endez, J. Del Cerro, and A. Barrientos, “Multi-robot interfaces and operator situational awareness: Study of the impact of immersion and prediction,”Sensors, vol. 17, no. 8, 2017. [Online]. Available: https...

    2017

  17. [25]

    Keep my head on my shoulders!: Why third-person is bad for navigation in VR,

    D. Medeiros, R. K. dos Anjos, D. Mendes, J. M. Pereira, A. Raposo, and J. A. Jorge, “Keep my head on my shoulders!: Why third-person is bad for navigation in VR,” inProceedings of the 24th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology (VRST ’18). New York, NY , USA:...

    2018

  18. [26]

    Are 100 ms fast enough? characterizing latency perception thresholds in mouse-based interaction,

    V . Forch, T. Franke, N. Rauh, and J. F. Krems, “Are 100 ms fast enough? characterizing latency perception thresholds in mouse-based interaction,” inEngineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics: Cognition and Design, D. Harris, Ed. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2...

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.