Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 42 references

Co-Located VR with Hybrid SLAM-based HMD Tracking and Motion Capture Synchronization

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Hybrid tracking makes co-located VR accurate by using headset SLAM every frame and motion capture only to fix drift.

desk verdict A genuinely useful hybrid tracking architecture for co-located VR, but the ATE evaluation is likely confounded by the documented 70 ms MoCap latency and never exercises the dynamic realignment loop that defines the contribution. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.06582 v1 pith:BZ62N56T submitted 2025-09-08 cs.RO cs.HC

Carlos A. Pinheiro de Sousa , Niklas Gröne , Mathias Günther , Oliver Deussen This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.HC
keywords co-locatedVRhybridtrackingmotioncaptureSLAMinside-outmulti-uservirtualrealitydynamicalignmentcorrectionhead-mounteddisplay
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 proposes a middle path for multi-user VR co-location: let each headset's inside-out SLAM tracking run continuously for low-latency pose updates, and use an external motion-capture system only to detect drift and occasionally realign users to a shared physical frame. The authors argue that this hybrid avoids the two failure modes of existing approaches—one-time calibration cannot correct drift, while continuous external tracking injects latency and jitter that cause cybersickness. They report single-user absolute trajectory errors of roughly 3.1 to 4.9 centimeters root-mean-square, multi-user errors near 5.2 centimeters per user, and successful fist-bump interactions in all trials. If the claim holds, co-located VR can keep the responsiveness of standalone headsets while preserving centimeter-level inter-user alignment, with external infrastructure used sparingly rather than continuously.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the fixed rigid transform $T_{\mathrm{EyeLocal}}^{\mathrm{Mocap}} \in \mathrm{SE}(3)$ from the motion-capture rigid body to the HMD's eye-center frame, estimated once by least-squares alignment of synchronized trajectories. The alignment step solves $T_{\mathrm{XROW}} = T_{\mathrm{EyeW}} \cdot (T_{\mathrm{CamL}})^{-1}$ to place the XR Origin so that the virtual camera matches the MoCap-derived eye pose, and the dynamic alignment correction re-applies this solve whenever the residual between SLAM-derived and MoCap-derived poses exceeds a threshold. A yaw-only variant of the solve prevents the tracking space from inheriting a tilt from the user's head orientation during alignment. This loop is what lets the system run at the HMD's native frame rate while still correcting drift or tracking loss.

What would settle it

Deliberately loosen or shift the marker-carrying rigid body on the headset by a few millimeters mid-session and watch the ATE: if the residuals move correspondingly, the fixed-offset assumption is load-bearing. Independently, run the extrinsics calibration twice and compute the ATE difference under each offset estimate; a large swing would show that the reported 3–5 cm accuracy is conditional on a single calibration.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a hybrid loop—HMD SLAM supplying every-frame pose estimates, with motion capture reserved for drift-triggered realignment—achieves the accuracy needed for co-located multi-user VR without inheriting the latency of continuous external tracking. The system first estimates a constant rigid offset $T_{\mathrm{EyeLocal}}^{\mathrm{Mocap}} \in \mathrm{SE}(3)$ between the MoCap marker frame and the HMD's eye-center frame, then sets the XR Origin transform so the virtual camera coincides with the MoCap-derived eye pose. During operation, the residual between the HMD SLAM pose and the MoCap pose is monitored, and only when it exceeds a configurable threshold is a realignment applied. In the reported experiments, single-user ATE RMSE values are 3.102–4.880 cm, multi-user values are 5.192 and 5.184 cm, the measured MoCap-to-HMD latency is about 70 ms, and all fist-bump trials succeeded. The authors present these numbers as evidence that sparse realignment preserves spatial consistency while keeping the responsiveness of native headset tracking.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the once-per-session rigid offset between the motion-capture marker frame and the headset's eye-center frame staying exactly fixed; if the marker-carrying rigid body slips, or the least-squares estimate is biased by the 70 ms latency between MoCap and HMD signals, every subsequent alignment and every ATE measurement inherits that error.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Because the HMD's SLAM pose is used every frame, the roughly 70 ms MoCap latency is kept out of the per-frame tracking path, so the user-facing responsiveness is that of the headset rather than the external system.
  • Drift or temporary SLAM failure no longer requires restarting the session; a realignment event pulls the user back to the shared physical frame.
  • The reported accuracy, with ATE RMSE of 3–5 cm and successful fist-bump interactions, supports close-proximity collaborative tasks such as hand-to-hand contact in co-located VR.
  • The residual threshold is exposed as a configurable parameter, allowing operators to trade alignment strictness against how often corrections are triggered.
  • The modular design around a standard XR interface and a generic MoCap stream means the same method can pair different SLAM-tracking headsets with different external tracking systems.

Reading between the lines

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

  • We infer that the reported 70 ms latency is a floor for this setup: under network congestion the cross-correlation shift could grow, and the threshold-triggered design would then either correct less often or align to stale MoCap poses, an interaction the paper does not model.
  • If the fixed-offset assumption is the limiting factor, a natural extension would be continuous online refinement of $T_{\mathrm{EyeLocal}}^{\mathrm{Mocap}}$ whenever the residual is small, turning an offline calibration into a self-maintaining estimate.
  • The same sparse-alignment pattern could be driven by collaborative SLAM map sharing instead of motion capture, with external tracking used only to bootstrap the first shared frame; this would reduce dependence on external infrastructure while retaining the paper's correction mechanism.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a hybrid co-located VR tracking framework that uses each HMD's SLAM-based inside-out tracking as the primary pose source, with a motion capture system providing occasional realignment. The method first estimates a fixed SE(3) offset between the MoCap rigid body and the HMD's eye center, then computes the XR Origin transform so that the virtual camera coincides with the MoCap-derived eye pose; drift is monitored and corrected when a residual threshold is exceeded. Evaluation reports ATE RMSE of 3.1–4.9 cm for single-user motions and about 5.2 cm for each user in a two-user fist-bump scenario, plus a measured 70 ms MoCap-to-HMD latency.

Significance. If the reported accuracy is trustworthy, the framework is a useful practical contribution: it offers a simple, open-source path to co-located VR with commercial HMDs, and the mathematical formulation is clean and correct. The paper's strengths include a clear SE(3) derivation, a yaw-only alignment reduction to preserve floor leveling, and a publicly available GitHub release. However, the evaluation as reported does not yet substantiate the central hybrid-realignment claim: the ATE numbers may be contaminated by the documented 70 ms latency, the single-user protocol deliberately avoids realignment, and no inter-user relative error is reported. The core idea is defensible, but the evidence needs strengthening before the accuracy and comfort claims are supported.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.2, Table 1; §5.1] The ATE computation is not described as including temporal synchronization between the MoCap and HMD trajectories. Section 5.1 reports a constant 7-frame (70 ms) offset between these signals. If this offset is not removed before computing the RMSE, each sample's error contains a temporal term of roughly v·0.07 s; at walking speeds of 1–1.4 m/s this alone contributes 7–10 cm, which is comparable to or larger than the reported 3.1–4.9 cm. Please state explicitly whether the trajectories were time-aligned before computing the values in Table 1, and if they were not, re-run the evaluation with temporal alignment.
  2. [§4.1 and §5.2] The single-user trials were executed 'without restarting or realigning the system' to observe cumulative drift, which means the dynamic alignment correction described in Section 3.6 was deliberately not exercised during the accuracy evaluation. The reported ATE therefore measures the accuracy of the one-time calibration plus accumulated SLAM drift, not the hybrid correction loop that distinguishes this system from prior work. The paper provides no data on correction frequency, threshold sensitivity, or accuracy immediately after a realignment event; this evidence is needed to support the central hybrid-system claim.
  3. [§5.3, Table 2] Co-location accuracy is fundamentally an inter-user relative quantity, but the multi-user ATE is reported as per-user absolute error against the MoCap reference. This metric does not directly quantify the error in the relative pose between users, which is what determines whether a fist bump or other close interaction is spatially correct. In addition, the values in Table 2 are averages over only three runs with no reported spread or confidence interval. Please report an inter-user relative error metric (for example, the difference between the MoCap-derived and HMD-derived relative position of the two users) and provide per-run values or standard deviations.
  4. [§3.2.2 and §6] The extrinsic calibration offset T_EyeLocal_Mocap is estimated from MoCap and HMD trajectories, and Section 6 attributes residual error to 'imperfect calibration offsets' without quantifying the sensitivity of the final alignment to this parameter. Because the same calibration is used in the ATE evaluation, the reported accuracy is conditional on the offset remaining rigidly fixed and unbiased. Please report the calibration residual, assess its temporal stability, and, if possible, evaluate the ATE with a held-out session or a calibration trajectory different from the evaluation trajectories.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.3 and §4.1] There are typographical errors in the manuscript: 'abreviate' should be 'abbreviate' in Section 3.3, and the heading 'Singe-user Evaluation' in Section 4.1 should be 'Single-user Evaluation'.
  2. [§3.4] The right-handed to left-handed coordinate-system conversion is mentioned but not specified; a brief description of the axis mapping would help readers reproduce the framework.
  3. [§5.1] The text states that the limitations of frame-based latency estimation 'are negligible in this setup' but does not provide evidence for this claim; a short justification based on the stable logging rate or the cross-correlation peak sharpness would strengthen the latency discussion.
  4. [§7] The conclusion that the approach 'completely mitigates the latency introduced by continuous pose streaming' is too strong given that external tracking is still used for calibration and occasional correction; consider a more measured phrasing such as 'largely avoids the sustained latency of continuous streaming'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the alignment equations are explicit constructions and the ATE is an empirical measurement, not a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The central claim is a system design, not a derived law. The extrinsics calibration in Sec. 3.2.2 fits T_EyeLocal_Mocap by least squares, and the alignment in Sec. 3.3 sets T_XROW = T_EyeW * (T_CamL)^-1 so that the virtual camera coincides with the MoCap pose by construction; this is an implementation step, not a prediction. The reported ATE values (Sec. 5.2-5.3) are empirical measurements against the same MoCap reference used for calibration, which is a standard systems-validation loop; because the evaluation motions are separate from the calibration procedure and no equation in the paper reduces the ATE to the fitted parameter, this does not constitute circularity. The only self-citation, Mesh2SLAM [19], appears in related work as a contrast and is not load-bearing. Concerns about the undocumented time alignment of the 70 ms MoCap-HMD latency, and the single-user runs being done without realignment, are correctness and validity risks rather than circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on one fitted calibration parameter (MoCap-to-eye-center offset), one user-set threshold (realignment), and several domain assumptions about tracking consistency and platform control. No invented entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Eye center offset T_EyeLocal_Mocap = Not reported (least-squares estimate from calibration data)
    Estimated by minimizing sum ||T_EyeW(t) - T_MocapW(t) * T_EyeLocal_Mocap||^2 in Section 3.2.2. This transform maps the MoCap body frame to the HMD eye center frame; if inaccurate, all downstream alignment inherits the error.
  • Residual tolerance for dynamic correction = Not reported; exposed as configurable parameter
    Section 3.6 defines a threshold that determines how often realignment is triggered. The paper does not report the chosen value or vary it in experiments, so it directly controls the ATE results.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The MoCap world poses T_MocapW(t) and HMD eye-center poses T_EyeW(t) correspond to the same physical motion with zero-mean noise.
    Section 3.2.2 fits the offset T_EyeLocal_Mocap by least squares; any latency bias or coordinate convention mismatch between the two systems corrupts the fitted offset.
  • domain assumption The calibrated rigid offset T_EyeLocal_Mocap stays constant for the whole session.
    Section 3.6 re-aligns through this offset; if the marker rigid body slips or the eye-center estimate is wrong, all alignments inherit that error.
  • ad hoc to paper Reducing the alignment to position and yaw, ignoring roll and pitch, maintains correct floor leveling.
    Section 3.3.1 introduces this reduction to avoid a tilted tracking space but gives no analysis of the residual pitch/roll error it introduces.
  • domain assumption OpenXR and Unity allow the XR Origin transform to be set to any world pose, giving full control over the virtual camera alignment.
    Section 3.3 relies on this to place the virtual camera at the MoCap-derived eye center; platform behavior is not validated independently.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Co-Located VR with Hybrid SLAM-based HMD Tracking and Motion Capture Synchronization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BZ62N56T

@misc{pith2026250906582,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Co-Located VR with Hybrid SLAM-based HMD Tracking and Motion Capture Synchronization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BZ62N56T}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.06582}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce a multi-user VR co-location framework that synchronizes users within a shared virtual environment aligned to physical space. Our approach combines a motion capture system with SLAM-based inside-out tracking to deliver smooth, high-framerate, low-latency performance. Previous methods either rely on continuous external tracking, which introduces latency and jitter, or on one-time calibration, which cannot correct drift over time. In contrast, our approach combines the responsiveness of local HMD SLAM tracking with the flexibility to realign to an external source when needed. It also supports real-time pose sharing across devices, ensuring consistent spatial alignment and engagement between users. Our evaluation demonstrates that our framework achieves the spatial accuracy required for natural multi-user interaction while offering improved comfort, scalability, and robustness over existing co-located VR solutions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.06582 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Co-located User Interaction: Fist Bump in VR. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Rigid pose offset T EyeLocal Mocap (translation and rotation) from motion capture frame TMocapW to eye center frame TEyeW Additionally, most commercial HMDs do not specify the exact location of the eye center, making accurate alignment difficult. Typ￾ically, this point is described merely as the midpoint between the user’s eyes [33]. However, inaccurate eye center pose estimation can significantly degrade tracking c… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The virtual camera pose TCamL with respect to its parent, the XR Origin TXROW. In Unity, the virtual camera local pose is defined relative to an XR Origin world transform, which we abreviate as TCamL and TXROW respectively. This hierarchy is shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Co-location alignment: determine TXROW such that TCamL = TEyeW. To correctly align the virtual camera with the calibrated eye cen￾ter pose, it is necessary to adjust the XR Origin transform since directly manipulating virtual camera is not possible: The alignment proce…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Schema of the proposed framework with one exemplary [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Motion circuit, used for guiding users. For each of the different motion experiment repetition, all execu￾tion is done in a single run 10 times, without restarting or realigning the system, with the assumption to better observe cumulative or gradual drift. 4.2 Multi-us…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Fist bump interaction, used for co-location validation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Latency across motion types. The data was logged in Unity using FixedUpdate() at a fixed timestep of 0.01 s (100 Hz). Across all test sequences, the shift was consis￾tently 7 frames, which corresponds to a latency of approximately 70 ms. Although frame-based estimation…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Top-down views of single-user motion patterns. Left: line motion. Middle: circle. Right: patrol. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Fist bump events showing 3D trajectories (top row), legend (center) where [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_11.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepres- ence,

    J. Steuer, “Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepres- ence,”Journal of Communication, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 73–93, 1992

    work page 1992

  2. [2]

    At the heart of it all: The concept of pres- ence,

    M. Lombard and T. Ditton, “At the heart of it all: The concept of pres- ence,”Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, vol. 3, no. 2, p. JCMC321, 1997

    work page 1997

  3. [3]

    Walkable multi-user vr: Effects of physical and virtual colocation,

    I. Podkosova, “Walkable multi-user vr: Effects of physical and virtual colocation,” Ph.D. dissertation, TU Wien, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.cg.tuwien.ac.at/research/publications/2019/ podkosova-2019-MVR/

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Co-located augmented and virtual reality systems,

    C. DeFanti, “Co-located augmented and virtual reality systems,” Ph.D. dissertation, New York University, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://cs.nyu.edu/media/publications/defanti connor.pdf

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    A quest for co-located mixed reality: Aligning and assessing slam tracking for same-space multi-user experiences,

    M. McGill, J. Gugenheimer, and E. Freeman, “A quest for co-located mixed reality: Aligning and assessing slam tracking for same-space multi-user experiences,” inProc. ACM Symp. Virtual Reality Software and Technology, 2020, pp. 1–10

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Colocation for slam-tracked vr headsets with hand tracking,

    D. Reimer, I. Podkosova, D. Scherzer, and H. Kaufmann, “Colocation for slam-tracked vr headsets with hand tracking,”Computers, vol. 10, no. 5, p. 58, 2021

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Slam: Bringing art to life through technology,

    A. Collet and T. Meyer, “Slam: Bringing art to life through technology,” https://engineering.fb.com/2017/09/21/virtual-reality/ slam-bringing-art-to-life-through-technology/, 2017, accessed: 2025- 05-30

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Carlone, A

    L. Carlone, A. Kim, F. Dellaert, T. Barfoot, and D. Cremers, Eds.,SLAM Handbook. From Localization and Mapping to Spatial Intelligence. Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 2025, pDF available at GitHub. [On- line]. Available: https://github.com/SLAM-Handbook-contributors/ slam-handbook-public-release/blob/main/main.pdf

    work page 2025

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Robust slam systems: Are we there yet?

    M. Bujanca, X. Shi, M. Spear, P. Zhao, B. Lennox, and M. Lujan, “Robust slam systems: Are we there yet?” 2021. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2109.13160

    2021 arXiv

  2. [10]

    J. Li, B. Yang, D. Chen, N. Wang, G. Zhang, and H. Bao. (2019) Survey and evaluation of monocular visual-inertial slam algorithms for augmented reality. Accessed: 2025-05-29. [Online]. Available: https: //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S209657961930052X

    2019

  3. [11]

    Apple vs. meta: A com- parative study on spatial tracking in sota xr headsets,

    T. Hu, F. Yang, T. Scargill, and M. Gorlatova, “Apple vs. meta: A com- parative study on spatial tracking in sota xr headsets,” inProceedings of the 30th Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking (MobiCom ’24). ACM, 2024, pp. 2020–2027

    2024

  4. [12]

    OpenCV Contributors,solvePnP Function Documentation, OpenCV , 2024, https://docs.opencv.org/4.x/d5/d1f/calib3d solvePnP.html

    2024

  5. [13]

    Immer- sivedeck: A large-scale wireless vr system for multiple users,

    J. Gugenheimer, E. Stemasov, J. Frommel, and E. Rukzio, “Immer- sivedeck: A large-scale wireless vr system for multiple users,” inProc. IEEE Conf. Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces, 2016, pp. 284–285

    2016

  6. [14]

    Splat-slam: Globally optimized rgb-only slam with 3d gaussians,

    E. Sandstr ¨om, K. Tateno, M. Oechsle, M. Niemeyer, L. V . Gool, M. R. Oswald, and F. Tombari, “Splat-slam: Globally optimized rgb-only slam with 3d gaussians,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.16544

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Gs-slam: Dense visual slam with 3d gaussian splatting,

    C. Yan, D. Qu, D. Xu, B. Zhao, Z. Wang, D. Wang, and X. Li, “Gs-slam: Dense visual slam with 3d gaussian splatting,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.11700

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Experiments with a large heterogeneous mobile robot team: exploration, mapping, deploy- ment and detection,

    A. Howard, L. E. Parker, and G. S. Sukhatme, “Experiments with a large heterogeneous mobile robot team: exploration, mapping, deploy- ment and detection,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 25, no. 5-6, pp. 431–447, 2006

    2006

  9. [17]

    Swarm-slam: Sparse decentralized collaborative simultaneous localization and mapping framework for multi-robot systems,

    P.-Y . Lajoie and G. Beltrame, “Swarm-slam: Sparse decentralized collaborative simultaneous localization and mapping framework for multi-robot systems,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 475–482, Jan. 2024. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/LR...

    2024

  10. [18]

    Dvm-slam: Decentralized visual monocular simultaneous localization and mapping for multi- agent systems,

    J. Bird, J. Blumenkamp, and A. Prorok, “Dvm-slam: Decentralized visual monocular simultaneous localization and mapping for multi- agent systems,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2503. 04126

    2025

  11. [19]

    Mesh2slam in vr: A fast geometry-based slam framework for rapid prototyping in virtual reality applications,

    C. A. P. de Sousa, H. Hamann, and O. Deussen, “Mesh2slam in vr: A fast geometry-based slam framework for rapid prototyping in virtual reality applications,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2501.09600

    2025 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Sharear: Communication-efficient multi-user mobile augmented reality,

    X. Ran, C. Slocum, M. Gorlatova, and J. Chen, “Sharear: Communication-efficient multi-user mobile augmented reality,” in Proceedings of the 18th ACM Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks (HotNets ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, 2019, pp. 109–

    2019

  13. [21]

    Slam-share: visual simultaneous localization and mapping for real-time multi-user augmented reality,

    A. Dhakal, X. Ran, Y . Wang, J. Chen, and K. K. Ramakrishnan, “Slam-share: visual simultaneous localization and mapping for real-time multi-user augmented reality,” inProceedings of the 18th International Conference on Emerging Networking EXperiments and Technologies, ser. CoN...

    2022

  14. [22]

    Unity shared spatial anchors,

    Meta Platforms, Inc., “Unity shared spatial anchors,” https://developers.meta.com/horizon/documentation/unity/ unity-shared-spatial-anchors/, 2024, accessed: 2024-05-20

    2024

  15. [23]

    Rheingold,Virtual Reality

    H. Rheingold,Virtual Reality. Summit Books, 1991

    1991

  16. [24]

    Metaspace: Full-body tracking for immer- sive multiperson virtual reality,

    M. Sra and C. Schmandt, “Metaspace: Full-body tracking for immer- sive multiperson virtual reality,” inProc. ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology Adjunct, 2015, pp. 47–48

    2015

  17. [25]

    Virtual reality for immersive multi-user firefighter- training scenarios,

    P. Braunet al., “Virtual reality for immersive multi-user firefighter- training scenarios,”Virtual Reality & Intelligent Hardware, vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 406–417, 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    [Online]

    Qualisys AB,Real-Time Latency Tests of a Qualisys System, 2024, accessed: 2025-05-29. [Online]. Available: https://www.qualisys.com/ news/

    2024

  19. [27]

    [Online]

    Vicon Motion Systems Ltd.,Tracker User Guide, 2024, accessed: 2025-05-29. [Online]. Available: https://help.vicon.com/download/ attachments/13930079/Vicon%20Tracker%20User%20Guide.pdf

    2024

  20. [28]

    Alpha ivbo—construction of a scale to measure the illusion of virtual body ownership,

    M. E. Latoschik, D. Roth, D. Gall, J.-L. Lugrin, and S. Huber, “Alpha ivbo—construction of a scale to measure the illusion of virtual body ownership,” inProc. CHI Conf. Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2017, pp. 2875–2883

    2017

  21. [29]

    Effects of visual display on joint excursions used to play virtual dodgeball,

    J. S. Thomas, C. R. France, M. E. Applegate, S. T. Leitkam, and S. Pidcoe, “Effects of visual display on joint excursions used to play virtual dodgeball,”IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph., vol. 20, no. 12, pp. 1770–1779, 2014

    2014

  22. [30]

    Blended reality: Combining physical and virtual worlds with reconfig- urable interfaces,

    D. Schmidt, R. Kovacs, V . Mehta, U. Umapathi, and P. Baudisch, “Blended reality: Combining physical and virtual worlds with reconfig- urable interfaces,”IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph., vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 1443–1452, 2018

    2018

  23. [31]

    A survey of full-body motion reconstruction in immersive virtual reality applications,

    P. Caserman, A. Garcia-Agundez, and S. G¨obel, “A survey of full-body motion reconstruction in immersive virtual reality applications,”IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph., vol. 26, no. 10, pp. 3089–3108, 2020

    2020

  24. [32]

    Impact of latency on qoe, performance, and collaboration in interactive multi-user virtual reality,

    S. V . Damme, J. Sameriet al., “Impact of latency on qoe, performance, and collaboration in interactive multi-user virtual reality,”Applied Sciences, vol. 14, no. 6, p. 2290, 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    Unity: HMD Setup,

    OptiTrack Documentation Team, “Unity: HMD Setup,” https://docs. optitrack.com/plugins/optitrack-unity-plugin/unity-hmd-setup, 2023, accessed: 2025-05-28

    2023

  26. [34]

    Least-squares estimation of transformation parameters between two point patterns,

    S. Umeyama, “Least-squares estimation of transformation parameters between two point patterns,”IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 376–380, 1991

    1991

  27. [35]

    3 Graphics — OpenXR Tu- torial,

    OpenXR Tutorial Contributors, “3 Graphics — OpenXR Tu- torial,” https://www.openxr-tutorial.com/android/vulkan/3-graphics. html, 2023, accessed: 2025-05-27

    2023

  28. [36]

    Input in Unity OpenXR,

    Unity Technologies, “Input in Unity OpenXR,” https://docs.unity3d. com/Packages/com.unity.xr.openxr@0.1/manual/input.html, 2023, ac- cessed: 2025-05-27

    2023

  29. [37]

    Redirected walking,

    S. Razzaque, Z. Kohn, and M. C. Whitton, “Redirected walking,” in EUROGRAPHICS 2001 - Short Presentations. Manchester, UK: The Eurographics Association, 2001, presented at EUROGRAPHICS

    2001

  30. [38]

    Colibri: A toolkit for rapid prototyping of networking across realities,

    S. Hubenschmid, D. I. Fink, J. Zagermann, J. Wieland, H. Reiterer, and T. Feuchtner, “Colibri: A toolkit for rapid prototyping of networking across realities,” inProc. IEEE ISMAR Adjunct, 2023, pp. 9–13

    2023

  31. [39]

    Comparing the accuracy and precision of steamvr tracking 2.0 and oculus quest 2 in a room scale setup,

    V . Holzwarth, J. Gisler, and G. Zachmann, “Comparing the accuracy and precision of steamvr tracking 2.0 and oculus quest 2 in a room scale setup,” inProceedings of the 27th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology (VRST ’21), 2021, pp. 1–10. [Online]. Availabl...

    2021

  32. [40]

    Validity and reliability of the tracking measures extracted from the oculus quest 2 during locomotion,

    J. Boulo, A. K. Blanchette, A. Cyr, and B. J. McFadyen, “Validity and reliability of the tracking measures extracted from the oculus quest 2 during locomotion,”Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering: Imaging & Visualization, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 1–5, 2024

    2024

  33. [116]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3365609.3365867

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3365609.3365867

  34. [2001]

    Available: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/ 2376964 Redirected Walking

    [Online]. Available: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/ 2376964 Redirected Walking

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.