Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 49 references

Investigating the Effect of Prior Exposure and Fidelity on Quality and Realism Perception of VR Digital Twins

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Texture resolution dominates perceived quality and realism of VR digital twins.

desk verdict Texture dominates perceived quality and realism in VR digital twins; the exposure null is not to be trusted because the manipulation is unverified and underpowered. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.20106 v2 pith:SAGEHEBL submitted 2025-09-24 cs.HC

Maximilian Warsinke , Maurizio Vergari , Tanja Kojić , Daniel Nikulin , Sebastian Möller This is my paper
classification cs.HC
keywords perceivedrealismqualitydigitaltwinvirtualrealitytextureresolutiongeometricdetailpriorexposurefidelity
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 asks whether seeing a real object before inspecting its virtual replica in VR changes how people judge the replica's quality and realism, and which component of visual fidelity matters most. The authors created photogrammetric digital twins of three everyday objects, varied texture resolution (256 vs 2084 pixels) and geometric detail (~100 vs 40,000 quads), and had 24 participants rate each variant in a headset. They find that texture resolution has a very large effect on both perceived quality and realism, while geometric detail significantly affects quality but not realism. They find no significant effect of prior exposure to the physical objects. The practical upshot: when building VR digital twins, put effort into high-resolution textures and simplify geometry freely.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is systematic independent variation of the two fidelity factors in photogrammetry-based replicas of office objects, combined with a mixed-design ANOVA and robust resampling tests. Texture resolution is set to 256x256 versus 2084x2084 pixels, and geometry to roughly 100 versus 40,000 quads, with identical lighting and material settings so that each factor's effect can be isolated. The in-VR questionnaire, which adapts the realism subscale of the Igroup Presence Questionnaire plus a Mean Opinion Score quality item, provides the dependent measures.

What would settle it

A follow-up study that gives participants explicit, time-controlled physical inspection (e.g., 60 seconds of handling and a familiarity check) and finds a significant effect of exposure on realism or quality ratings would directly contradict the paper's null exposure result; likewise, showing that geometry changes realism ratings for larger or room-scale digital twins would limit the generality of the texture-dominance claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using a mixed design with 24 participants, the study shows that texture resolution is the dominant visual cue for judgments of both perceived quality (F(1,22)=100.55, p<.001, partial eta-squared=0.820) and perceived realism (F(1,22)=53.71, p<.001, partial eta-squared=0.709) of digital twins in VR. Geometric detail has a statistically significant but much smaller effect on perceived quality and no significant effect on perceived realism. Prior exposure to the physical counterpart produced no significant effect on either rating. The authors interpret the texture dominance as consistent with its immediate visibility and a known texture-substitutes-for-geometry effect, and they caution that the

Load-bearing premise

The prior-exposure manipulation may not have actually made participants familiar with the physical objects, because exposure consisted only of the objects sitting on a table during instruction, so the null result could reflect weak manipulation rather than evidence that prior knowledge does not matter.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • VR digital twin developers can prioritize texture resolution over geometric detail when aiming for perceived quality and realism.
  • Mesh simplification down to roughly 100 quads may preserve perceived realism as long as textures stay high-resolution, offering a low-cost optimization path.
  • The null exposure effect, if taken at face value, challenges the assumption that physical familiarity raises expectations and lowers realism ratings.
  • Perceived quality and realism move together strongly (rho=0.802), so single-metric evaluations may be sufficient for many design decisions.
  • Age correlates weakly with realism perception (rho=0.231), consistent with younger users having higher expectations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the paper's exposure was implicit (objects on a table, no forced inspection), the null result should not be read as evidence that object knowledge never shapes VR judgment; an explicit-exposure replication, as the authors themselves call for, is the needed test.
  • Ratings were made from memory after the object was hidden, so the fidelity effects reflect recalled impressions; simultaneous side-by-side rating might change the geometry-texture balance.
  • The texture-over-geometry dominance may be specific to small, isolated objects; when scaled to rooms or buildings, where geometry defines spatial structure, geometry could matter more for realism.
  • A practical implication left implicit: photogrammetry capture should invest in high-resolution texture acquisition and compression, since aggressive mesh decimation appears relatively safe for perceived realism.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports a mixed-design VR experiment (N=24, 12 per group) that varies texture resolution (256 vs 2084 px) and geometric detail (~100 vs ~40,000 quads) across three photogrammetric digital twins, and manipulates prior exposure to the physical objects by placing them on the table for the exposure group. Perceived quality and realism are measured via in-VR 7-point items. The authors report a very large effect of texture on both quality (F=100.549, p<.001, η²=0.820) and realism (F=53.705, p<.001, η²=0.709), a significant but smaller effect of geometry on quality only, no significant exposure effect, and positive correlations between quality/realism and age/realism. They conclude that texture resolution should be prioritized over geometry in DT development.

Significance. If the fidelity effects are valid, the study provides actionable evidence that texture resolution is the dominant fidelity dimension for perceived quality and realism of object-level DTs in VR. The within-subjects results are statistically robust, including resampling-based WTS/ATS checks, and the effect sizes are very large. The exposure null, however, is not yet a substantive contribution: the manipulation is implicit and unvalidated, and the between-subjects design is underpowered. The paper's explicit acknowledgment of these limitations is commendable, but as presented the exposure finding is inconclusive rather than evidential.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.7, §5.4, Tables 2–3] The null result for H1/H2 is uninterpretable because the exposure manipulation was not validated. The procedure (Section 3.7) consisted only of placing the physical objects on the table next to consent forms while the instructor explained the procedure; no dedicated inspection time, no instruction to memorize, and no manipulation check are reported. Section 5.4 acknowledges this ('we may have overestimated the impact of placing objects on the table'). The non-significant between-group F-tests (F(1,22)=1.059, p=.315 for quality; F(1,22)=0.374, p=.547 for realism) therefore cannot support the conclusion that prior exposure has no effect. A manipulation check (e.g., comparing Q1 familiarity ratings between groups) should be reported, or the manuscript should be reframed as an inconclusive pilot.
  2. [§3.2, Tables 2–3] The a priori power analysis shows the between-subjects factor was only powered to detect f=0.58 (partial eta²≈0.252). The observed quality effect (partial eta²=0.046, f≈0.22) is far below this, so the null is equally consistent with a Type II error as with a true absence of effect. The conclusion in §5.1 that H1 and H2 'must both be rejected' is too strong; at most, the data fail to support them. This should be stated explicitly in the abstract and conclusion.
  3. [§3.6, §3.8] Perceived quality is measured with a single questionnaire item (Q2), while realism uses four items. The additional fidelity-specific items (Q3, Q4) were excluded post hoc due to 'unsuitable wording' (§3.8). The reliability of a single-item quality measure is not assessed. Because perceived quality is one of the two central dependent variables, the manuscript should either use a multi-item quality scale or explicitly justify the single-item measure and discuss its limitations.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.7 / §4.3] Q1 familiarity ratings are collected but never analyzed; report them at least as a check on the exposure manipulation.
  2. [§4.1, §4.2] The robust analysis reports WTS and ATS values identical to the F-statistic for some effects; clarify which test statistic is being reported in each case.
  3. [Figure 3] The photograph of the physical objects would benefit from a scale reference to convey object size.
  4. [§2 Measurements] The VRCS scale is described as 'Visual Realism Classification Scale' but the cited source uses 'Complexity Scale'; verify the name.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: an empirical ANOVA study with no fitted inputs or self-citation-dependent derivation.

full rationale

This is an empirical mixed-design study rather than a derivation. Perceived quality and realism are operationally defined by in-VR self-report items (Q2 and Q5-Q8, Table 1), and the independent variables (prior exposure, texture resolution 256 vs. 2084 pixels, geometric detail ~100 vs. ~40,000 quads) are manipulated and reported in Section 3. The headline results in Tables 2 and 3 are mixed-design ANOVAs on observed ratings; no free parameter was fitted to the target outcomes and later renamed a prediction. The only self-referential element is the citation of the QUALINET definition of experienced quality [31], whose author list includes two of the present authors; however, it is used only as a shared definition of the construct, and no hypothesis or conclusion reduces to it. The non-significant exposure effect is a genuine null result rather than a constructed one; its evidential value depends on whether the implicit exposure manipulation induced genuine familiarity, a concern the authors themselves raise in Section 5.4 ('we may have overestimated the impact of placing objects on the table'). That is a construct-validity and statistical-power concern, not circularity. No equation or result in the paper is equivalent to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The study is empirical; it does not fit parameters to mathematical equations, so the free-parameter ledger is empty. Its conclusions rest on the validity of the self-report scales, the operationalization of the fidelity and exposure manipulations, and the adequacy of the statistical model. The most fragile of these, the exposure manipulation, is explicitly doubted by the authors in Section 5.4.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Seven-point Likert ratings can be treated as interval data for parametric ANOVA.
    Section 3.8 states Q2 ratings were 'treated as approximately interval'; this is a common but contestable assumption in HCI.
  • domain assumption The average of Q5-Q8 is a valid operationalization of perceived realism.
    Section 3.6/3.8 adapts the IPQ subscale; no validation against a ground-truth realism measure is provided.
  • domain assumption The chosen fidelity levels (256 vs 2084 px texture; ~100 vs ~40000 quads) represent low and high fidelity conditions.
    Section 3.5 sets these levels; the results are conditional on this operationalization.
  • ad hoc to paper The implicit exposure manipulation (objects on table) induces object knowledge.
    Section 3.7 describes the setup; Section 5.4 questions whether this was sufficient, admitting 'we may have overestimated the impact of placing objects on the table'.
  • domain assumption Sample of 24 provides adequate power for the tested effects.
    Section 3.2 power analysis: between-subjects power can detect only large effects (f=0.58), so small-to-medium exposure effects would be missed.
  • standard math Observations used in the correlation analysis are independent.
    Section 3.8 pools repeated measures across conditions and participants; independence is assumed but likely violated, affecting p-values for the reported correlations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Investigating the Effect of Prior Exposure and Fidelity on Quality and Realism Perception of VR Digital Twins." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SAGEHEBL

@misc{pith2026250920106,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Investigating the Effect of Prior Exposure and Fidelity on Quality and Realism Perception of VR Digital Twins},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SAGEHEBL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.20106}
}
read the original abstract

This study explores how prior exposure to physical objects influences the quality and realism perception of Digital Twins (DT) with varying levels of fidelity in Virtual Reality (VR). In a mixed experimental design, 24 participants were divided into two equal groups: an exposure group, in which members were shown physical objects before inspecting and rating their replicas in VR, and a control group without prior knowledge. Three objects were presented, each under four fidelity conditions with varying texture resolution and geometric detail. Participants rated perceived quality and realism through in-VR self-reports. Statistical analysis revealed that texture resolution significantly affected realism and quality perception, whereas geometric detail only influenced quality ratings. Investigating the between-factor, no significant effect of exposure on quality and realism perception was found. These findings raise important questions about the cognitive relationship between physical objects and their digital counterparts and how fidelity influences the perception of DTs in VR.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.20106 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Hypothesized model of the relationship between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Screenshots from the VR application showing the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Photograph of the physical objects as shown to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Renders of the fidelity conditions of the labeler object created with Blender. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Barplot showing the perceived quality scores aver [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Hamza A Al-Jundi and Emad Y Tanbour. 2022. A framework for fidelity evaluation of immersive virtual reality systems.Virtual Reality26, 3 (2022), 1103–1122

    2022

  2. [2]

    Julia Beck, Mattia Rainoldi, and Roman Egger. 2019. Virtual reality in tourism: a state-of-the-art review.Tourism review74, 3 (2019), 586–612

    2019

  3. [3]

    McMahan, Frank Steinicke, Doug Bowman, Rainer Malaka, and Tanja Döring

    Michael Bonfert, Thomas Muender, Ryan P. McMahan, Frank Steinicke, Doug Bowman, Rainer Malaka, and Tanja Döring. 2025. The Interaction Fidelity Model: A Taxonomy to Communicate the Different Aspects of Fidelity in Virtual Reality. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction41, 12 (2025), 7593–7625. arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2024.24003...

    arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    Jennifer Brade, Alexander Kögel, Benjamin Schreiber, and Franziska Klimant

  5. [5]

    Bianca Curi Braga, Pejman Sajjadi, Mahda Bagher, Alexander Klippel, Jessica Menold, and Travis Masterson. 2025. The impact of visual fidelity on screen- based virtual reality food choices: A randomized pilot study.PLOS ONE20, 1 (Jan. 2025), e0312772. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0312772

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0312772 2025

  6. [6]

    Dilanchian, Ronald Andringa, and Walter R

    Andrew T. Dilanchian, Ronald Andringa, and Walter R. Boot. 2021. A Pilot Study Exploring Age Differences in Presence, Workload, and Cybersickness in the Experience of Immersive Virtual Reality Environments.Frontiers in Virtual RealityVolume 2 - 2021 (2021). doi:10.3389/frvir.2021.736793

    arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Shaojing Fan, Tian-Tsong Ng, Bryan Lee Koenig, Jonathan Samuel Herberg, Ming Jiang, Zhiqi Shen, and Qi Zhao. 2018. Image Visual Realism: From Human Perception to Machine Computation.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence40, 9 (Sept. 2018), 2180–2193. doi:10.1109/TPAMI.2017. 2747150

    doi:10.1109/tpami.2017 2018

  8. [8]

    Franz Faul, Edgar Erdfelder, Albert-Georg Lang, and Axel Buchner. 2007. G*Power 3: A Flexible Statistical Power Analysis Program for the Social, Behavioral, and Biomedical Sciences. 39, 2 (2007), 175–191. pubmed:17695343 doi:10.3758/ bf03193146

    2007

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Ferwerda

    James A. Ferwerda. 2003. Three varieties of realism in computer graphics. In Human Vision and Electronic Imaging VIII, Bernice E. Rogowitz and Thrasyvou- los N. Pappas (Eds.), Vol. 5007. International Society for Optics and Photonics, SPIE, 290 – 297. doi:10.1117/12.473899

    2003 doi

  2. [10]

    Sarah Friedrich, Frank Konietschke, and Markus Pauly. 2019. Resampling-Based Analysis of Multivariate Data and Repeated Measures Designs with the R Package MANOVA.RM.The R Journal11, 2 (2019), 380. doi:10.32614/RJ-2019-051

    2019 doi

  3. [11]

    Gerathewohl

    Siegfried J. Gerathewohl. 1969.Fidelity of simulation and transfer of training: a review of the problem. Technical Report AM 69-24; DOT/FAA/AM-69/24. United States. Office of Aviation Medicine. https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/20920

    1969

  4. [12]

    Guilherme Gonçalves, Bruno Peixoto, Miguel Melo, and Maximino Bessa. 2025. Theoretical Model Validation of the Multisensory Role on Subjective Realism, Presence and Involvement in Immersive Virtual Reality.Computer Graphics Forum(April 2025), e70145. doi:10.1111/cgf.70145

    2025 doi

  5. [13]

    Guilherme Gonçalves, Hugo Coelho, Pedro Monteiro, Miguel Melo, and Max- imino Bessa. 2023. Systematic Review of Comparative Studies of the Impact of Realism in Immersive Virtual Experiences.Comput. Surveys55, 6 (July 2023), 1–36. doi:10.1145/3533377

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    Guilherme Gonçalves, Pedro Monteiro, Hugo Coelho, Miguel Melo, and Max- imino Bessa. 2021. Systematic Review on Realism Research Methodologies on Immersive Virtual, Augmented and Mixed Realities.IEEE Access9 (2021), 89150–89161. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3089946

    2021

  7. [15]

    Jinjiang Guo, Vincent Vidal, Irene Cheng, Anup Basu, Atilla Baskurt, and Guil- laume Lavoue. 2017. Subjective and Objective Visual Quality Assessment of Tex- tured 3D Meshes. 14, 2 (2017), 1–20. arXiv:2102.03982 [cs] doi:10.1145/2996296

    2017 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Jesús Gutiérrez, Toinon Vigier, and Patrick Le Callet. 2020. Quality Evaluation of 3D Objects in Mixed Reality For Different Lighting Conditions.Electronic Imaging 32, 11 (Jan. 2020), 128–1–128–7. doi:10.2352/ISSN.2470-1173.2020.11.HVEI-128

    2020

  9. [17]

    Jonatan Hvass, Oliver Larsen, Kasper Vendelbo, Niels Nilsson, Rolf Nordahl, and Stefania Serafin. 2017. Visual realism and presence in a virtual reality game. In 2017 3DTV Conference: The True Vision - Capture, Transmission and Display of 3D Video (3DTV-CON). 1–4. doi:10.1109/...

    2017

  10. [18]

    I-Group.org Project. [n. d.]. Igroup Presence Questionnaire (IPQ) Item Download. Online. www.igroup.org/pq/ipq/items.php

  11. [19]

    2016.Mean Opinion Score Interpretation and Reporting

    International Telecommunication Union. 2016.Mean Opinion Score Interpretation and Reporting. Recommendation ITU-T P.800.2. International Telecommunication Union, Geneva, Switzerland

    2016

  12. [20]

    Wenzel Jakob, Marco Tarini, Daniele Panozzo, and Olga Sorkine-Hornung. 2015. Instant field-aligned meshes.ACM Trans. Graph.34, 6, Article 189 (Nov. 2015), 15 pages. doi:10.1145/2816795.2818078

    2015

  13. [21]

    David Jones, Chris Snider, Aydin Nassehi, Jason Yon, and Ben Hicks. 2020. Char- acterising the Digital Twin: A systematic literature review.CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology29 (May 2020), 36–52. doi:10.1016/j.cirpj. 2020.02.002

    2020 doi

  14. [23]

    Lamers and Maik Lanen

    Maarten H. Lamers and Maik Lanen. 2021. Changing Between Virtual Reality and Real-World Adversely Affects Memory Recall Accuracy.Frontiers in Virtual Reality2 (March 2021). doi:10.3389/frvir.2021.602087

    2021

  15. [24]

    Zoe Loh, Alison Crosby, Sri Kurniawan, and Spencer C. Castro. 2023. Toward Evacuation Training in Virtual Reality: Requirements Gathering for Wildfire Experiences.Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting67, 1 (Sept. 2023), 1989–1994. doi:10.1177/2...

    2023 doi

  16. [25]

    McMahan, Doug A

    Ryan P. McMahan, Doug A. Bowman, David J. Zielinski, and Rachael B. Brady

  17. [26]

    Paul Milgram and Fumio Kishino. 1994. A Taxonomy of Mixed Reality Visual Displays.IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems77 (1994), 1321–1329. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:17783728

    1994

  18. [27]

    Shraddhaa Narasimha, Emma Dixon, Jeffrey W Bertrand, and Kapil Chalil Ma- dathil. 2019. An empirical study to investigate the efficacy of collaborative immersive virtual reality systems for designing information architecture of software systems.Applied ergonomics80 (2019), 175–186

    2019

  19. [28]

    Yana Nehmé, Florent Dupont, Jean-Philippe Farrugia, Patrick Le Callet, and Guillaume Lavoué. 2021. Visual Quality of 3D Meshes With Diffuse Colors in Virtual Reality: Subjective and Objective Evaluation. 27, 3 (2021), 2202–2219. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2020.3036153

    2021

  20. [29]

    Yana Nehmé, Jean-Philippe Farrugia, Florent Dupont, Patrick Le Callet, and Guil- laume Lavoué. 2021. Comparison of Subjective Methods for Quality Assessment of 3D Graphics in Virtual Reality.ACM Trans. Appl. Percept.18, 1 (Dec. 2021), 2:1–2:23. doi:10.1145/3427931

    2021 doi

  21. [30]

    Viviana Pentangelo, Dario Di Dario, Vincenzo De Martino, Marco Dello Buono, and Stefano Lambiase. 2024. Accelerating 3D Scene Development for the Meta- verse: Lessons from Photogrammetry and Manual Modeling. In2024 2nd Inter- national Conference on Intelligent Metaverse Techno...

    2024

  22. [31]

    Andrew Perkis, Christian Timmerer, Sabina Baraković, Jasmina Baraković Husić, Søren Bech, Sebastian Bosse, Jean Botev, Kjell Brunnström, Luis Cruz, Katrien De Moor, Andrea de Polo Saibanti, Wouter Durnez, Sebastian Egger-Lampl, Ulrich Engelke, Tiago H. Falk, Jesús Gutiérrez, A...

    2020 doi arXiv

  23. [32]

    Anupama Raveendran, Manayath Dhanya, and Abith Vijayakumaran. 2024. Re- tailing in the Metaverse: Exploring Opportunities and Challenges. InICT for Intelligent Systems, Jyoti Choudrie, Parikshit N. Mahalle, Thinagaran Perumal, and Amit Joshi (Eds.). Springer Nature Singapore, ...

    2024

  24. [33]

    Bruno Rodriguez-Garcia, Ines Miguel-Alonso, Henar Guillen-Sanz, and Andres Bustillo. 2025. LoDCalculator: A level of detail classification software for 3D models in the Blender environment.SoftwareX30 (2025), 102107. doi:10.1016/j. softx.2025.102107

    2025

  25. [34]

    Andrew Rukangu, Alexander Tuttle, and Kyle Johnsen. 2021. Virtual Reality for Remote Controlled Robotics in Engineering Education. In2021 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces Abstracts and Workshops (VRW). 751–752. doi:10.1109/VRW52623.2021.00258

    2021

  26. [35]

    Timo Ruohomäki, Enni Airaksinen, Petteri Huuska, Outi Kesäniemi, Mikko Martikka, and Jarmo Suomisto. 2018. Smart City Platform Enabling Digital Twin. In2018 International Conference on Intelligent Systems (IS)(2018-09). 155–161. doi:10.1109/IS.2018.8710517

    2018

  27. [36]

    Rushmeier, Bernice E

    Holly E. Rushmeier, Bernice E. Rogowitz, and Christine Piatko. 2000. Perceptual Issues in Substituting Texture for Geometry. InSPIE Proceedings, Bernice E. Rogowitz and Thrasyvoulos N. Pappas (Eds.), Vol. 3959. SPIE, San Jose, CA, 372–383. doi:10.1117/12.387174

    2000 doi

  28. [37]

    Rzepka, Kieran J

    Anna M. Rzepka, Kieran J. Hussey, Margaret V. Maltz, Karsten Babin, Laurie M. Wilcox, and Jody C. Culham. 2023. Familiar Size Affects Perception Differently in Virtual Reality and the Real World. 378, 1869 (2023). doi:10.1098/rstb.2021.0464

    2023

  29. [38]

    Rahel Schmied-Kowarzik, Lina Kaschub, Thore Keser, Rebecca Rodeck, and Gerko Wende. 2024. Does It Look Real? Visual Realism Complexity Scale for 3D Objects in VR. InVirtual, Augmented and Mixed Reality, Jessie Y. C. Chen and Gino Fragomeni (Eds.). Springer Nature Switzerland, ...

    2024 doi

  30. [39]

    Maulshree Singh, Rupal Srivastava, Evert Fuenmayor, Vladimir Kuts, Yuansong Qiao, Niall Murray, and Declan Devine. 2022. Applications of Digital Twin across Industries: A Review.Applied Sciences12, 11 (Jan. 2022), 5727. doi:10.3390/ app12115727

    2022

  31. [40]

    Gabbard, Doug A

    Richard Skarbez, Joseph L. Gabbard, Doug A. Bowman, J. Todd Ogle, and Thomas Tucker. 2022. Virtual Replicas of Real Places: Experimental Investigations. 28, 12 (2022), 4594–4608. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2021.3096494

    2022

  32. [41]

    Richard Skarbez, Missie Smith, and Mary C. Whitton. 2021. Revisiting Milgram and Kishino’s Reality-Virtuality Continuum. 2 (2021). doi:10.3389/frvir.2021. 647997

    2021 doi

  33. [42]

    Mel Slater. 2009. Place Illusion and Plausibility Can Lead to Realistic Behaviour in Immersive Virtual Environments.Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B(2009). doi:10.1098/rstb.2009.0138

    2009

  34. [43]

    Mel Slater, Pankaj Khanna, Jesper Mortensen, and Insu Yu. 2009. Visual Realism Enhances Realistic Response in an Immersive Virtual Environment.IEEE Com- puter Graphics and Applications29, 3 (May 2009), 76–84. doi:10.1109/MCG.2009.55

    2009 doi

  35. [44]

    John Smart, Jamais Cascio, and Jerry Paffendorf. 2007. Metaverse Roadmap Overview (2007-2025): A Cross-Industry Public Foresight Project. doi:10.13140/ RG.2.2.30365.18406

    2007

  36. [45]

    Kenneth Vanhoey, Basile Sauvage, Pierre Kraemer, and Guillaume Lavoué. 2017. Visual Quality Assessment of 3D Models: On the Influence of Light-Material Interaction.ACM Trans. Appl. Percept.15, 1, Article 5 (Oct. 2017), 18 pages. doi:10.1145/3129505

    2017 doi

  37. [46]

    Stefan Weber, David Weibel, and Fred W. Mast. 2021. How to Get There When You Are There Already? Defining Presence in Virtual Reality and the Importance of Perceived Realism.Frontiers in Psychology12 (May 2021), 628298. doi:10.3389/ fpsyg.2021.628298

    2021

  38. [47]

    Qian Yang, Marit Nijman, Martin Flintham, Paul Tennent, Claire Hidrio, and Rebecca Ford. 2022. Improving Simulated Consumption Context with Virtual Reality: A Focus on Participant Experience. 98 (2022), 104531. doi:10.1016/j. foodqual.2022.104531

    2022

  39. [48]

    Ji-Eun Yu. 2022. Exploration of Educational Possibilities by Four Metaverse Types in Physical Education. 10, 5 (2022), 104. doi:10.3390/technologies10050104

    2022 doi

  40. [49]

    Zexuan Zhu, Chao Liu, and Xun Xu. 2019. Visualisation of the Digital Twin Data in Manufacturing by Using Augmented Reality. 81 (2019), 898–903. doi:10.1016/ j.procir.2019.03.223

    2019

  41. [2012]

    doi:10.1109/TVCG.2012.43

    Evaluating Display Fidelity and Interaction Fidelity in a Virtual Reality Game.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics18, 4 (April 2012), 626–633. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2012.43

    2012 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.