arxiv: 2603.21381 · v1 · submitted 2026-03-22 · 💻 cs.HC

Recognition: no theorem link

Exploring Experiential Differences Between Virtual and Physical Memory-Linked Objects in Extended Reality

Zaid Ahmed , Omar A. Khan , Hyeongil Nam , Kangsoo Kim

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 06:34 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC

keywords extended realitymemory sharingphysical objectsvirtual objectssocial connectionuser experienceinterface designXR memories

0 comments

The pith

Physical and virtual memory-linked objects foster stronger social connection when sharing XR-captured memories than a standard gallery interface.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper compares three interfaces for accessing and sharing memories recorded as 360-degree video in extended reality: physical objects that hold the memory, virtual objects that do the same, and a conventional gallery view. In paired sessions, 24 participants first captured shared experiences and then used each interface in turn, describing perceived value, enjoyment, usability, emotional attachment, and social connection. Physical objects produced more tangible exchanges and conversation, virtual objects delivered solid engagement with fewer drawbacks, and the gallery proved fastest yet least personal. These patterns indicate that tying memories to objects, whether real or digital, better preserves the interpersonal side of reliving experiences.

Core claim

In a within-subjects study with 24 participants in 12 pairs, physical memory-linked objects increased social connection and conversation through direct, tangible exchange; virtual memory-linked objects balanced engagement and usability; and the gallery interface enabled efficient access but reduced personal and emotional qualities. Object-based representations therefore support key social dimensions of XR memory experiences that galleries do not.

What carries the argument

Three interaction approaches—physical memory-linked objects, virtual memory-linked objects, and a conventional virtual gallery—used to access and share 360-degree video memories, evaluated through open-ended responses on value, enjoyment, usability, emotional attachment, and social connection.

If this is right

Physical objects increase conversation and tangible social exchange during memory sharing.
Virtual objects maintain engagement while preserving usable interaction.
Gallery interfaces prioritize speed and efficiency over personal connection.
Object-based designs better support interpersonal meaning in XR memory systems.
Future XR tools can use these representations to emphasize shared experience rather than solitary viewing.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Hybrid physical-virtual object designs might combine the social benefits of tangibility with the flexibility of digital access.
The same trade-offs could appear in other collaborative XR uses such as education or remote storytelling.
Testing the interfaces with more diverse groups outside the lab would clarify how robust the differences remain in daily life.

Load-bearing premise

That qualitative responses from 24 participants in a controlled lab setting with researcher-designed interfaces accurately capture general experiential differences without unintended biases in realism or interaction quality.

What would settle it

A larger study in everyday settings that finds no measurable difference in social connection or conversation between physical and virtual object conditions would undermine the reported trade-offs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.21381 by Hyeongil Nam, Kangsoo Kim, Omar A. Khan, Zaid Ahmed.

read the original abstract

Extended Reality (XR) enables immersive capture and re-experience of personal memories, yet how interface representations shape these experiences remains underexplored. We examine how users relive and share XR memories through three interaction approaches: (1) physical memory-linked objects, (2) virtual memory-linked objects, and (3) a conventional virtual gallery interface. In a within-subjects study (N=24, 12 pairs), participants captured shared experiences using 360{\deg} video and later accessed and shared these memories across the three interfaces. We analyzed open-ended qualitative responses focusing on perceived value, enjoyment, usability, emotional attachment, and social connection. The findings reveal trade-offs: physical objects fostered stronger social connection and conversation through tangible exchange; virtual objects balanced engagement and usability; and the gallery interface was efficient but less personal. These results suggest that object-based representations, physical and virtual, support key social dimensions of XR memory experiences, offering lessons for designing future systems that emphasize shared meaning and interpersonal connection.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This is a straightforward qualitative comparison of physical vs virtual objects for XR memory sharing that identifies some usable design trade-offs, but the evidence rests on unverified condition equivalence and missing controls for order effects.

read the letter

Hi, the main point here is a within-subjects lab study with 24 participants in pairs that compares three interfaces for reliving and sharing 360-video memories: physical objects, virtual objects, and a standard gallery. The reported themes are that physical objects encouraged more social conversation through tangible passing, virtual objects struck a workable balance on engagement and ease, and the gallery felt efficient but impersonal. That comparison itself is the new piece; it takes existing ideas from tangible interfaces and applies them specifically to XR memory capture and sharing, which hasn't been directly tested in the cited prior work. The paper does a clean job of keeping the questions focused and using open-ended responses to surface practical trade-offs around social connection and emotional attachment. The within-subjects setup is reasonable for spotting differences, and the themes line up with what matters for shared memory experiences. On the soft spots, the biggest gap is implementation detail. The central claims need the three conditions to have been built with comparable realism and interaction quality, yet nothing is said about how the physical and virtual objects were constructed, any pilot checks, or whether they felt equally natural. With pairs going through all conditions, order and novelty effects are likely, and without reported counterbalancing or any quantitative scales to back the themes, the patterns could partly reflect uneven condition strength rather than the physical-versus-virtual distinction. N=24 is also small even for qualitative work, so generalization stays limited. This is for HCI researchers who design XR systems for personal or shared memories. A reader looking for concrete interface trade-offs would get some value from the themes, though they'd want the full methods section to assess how solid the differences really are. It deserves a serious referee because the research question is clear, the methods fit the goals, and the topic is timely; revisions would mainly need to add implementation specifics, counterbalancing info, and perhaps some usage logs or ratings to strengthen the qualitative findings. I'd send it to peer review.

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a within-subjects study (N=24 participants in 12 pairs) examining how three interfaces shape the reliving and sharing of 360° video-captured memories in XR: physical memory-linked objects, virtual memory-linked objects, and a conventional virtual gallery. Qualitative thematic analysis of open-ended responses on perceived value, enjoyment, usability, emotional attachment, and social connection identifies trade-offs, with physical objects supporting stronger social connection via tangible exchange, virtual objects balancing engagement and usability, and the gallery being efficient but less personal. The authors conclude that object-based representations (physical or virtual) better support social dimensions of XR memory experiences than gallery-style interfaces.

Significance. If the central claims hold after methodological strengthening, the work provides useful early design guidance for XR memory systems by surfacing concrete trade-offs between social connection, engagement, and usability. The within-subjects pairing approach and focus on shared experiences are appropriate for the research questions and yield actionable distinctions between object-based and gallery representations. The absence of quantitative corroboration or implementation-fidelity checks, however, keeps the current contribution exploratory rather than definitive.

major comments (3)

[Methods] Methods section: The paper provides no details on how the physical and virtual memory-linked objects were implemented (e.g., how 360° video is attached, triggered, or interacted with) or on any pilot testing to verify comparable realism and interaction quality across the three conditions. This is load-bearing for the central claim because observed differences in social connection and engagement could arise from uneven condition strength rather than the intended physical-vs-virtual distinction.
[Methods] Methods section: No information is given on counterbalancing of condition order or explicit controls for order/carry-over effects, despite the within-subjects design with sequential memory reliving. This is load-bearing because sequence or novelty artifacts could drive the reported themes on social connection and usability.
[Analysis] Analysis section: The description of the qualitative analysis does not report the coding process, number of coders, or inter-rater reliability for the thematic analysis of responses concerning social connection, emotional attachment, and usability. This is load-bearing because the identified trade-offs rest entirely on these themes.

minor comments (1)

[Abstract] Abstract: Adding one sentence on the analysis approach (thematic analysis of open-ended responses) would help readers immediately understand the evidential basis for the reported trade-offs.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed feedback. The comments highlight important areas for strengthening the transparency of our methods and analysis, which will improve the manuscript's rigor. We will revise the Methods and Analysis sections to address each point directly, providing the requested details on implementation, counterbalancing, and qualitative coding procedures. These changes will help confirm that the observed trade-offs arise from the intended interface distinctions.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Methods] Methods section: The paper provides no details on how the physical and virtual memory-linked objects were implemented (e.g., how 360° video is attached, triggered, or interacted with) or on any pilot testing to verify comparable realism and interaction quality across the three conditions. This is load-bearing for the central claim because observed differences in social connection and engagement could arise from uneven condition strength rather than the intended physical-vs-virtual distinction.

Authors: We agree that implementation details are essential for interpreting the results. In the revised manuscript, we will expand the Methods section to fully describe the hardware (e.g., specific XR headsets and tracking systems) and software used to attach, trigger, and interact with 360° videos in the physical and virtual object conditions, as well as the gallery interface. We will also report on pilot testing with a separate sample that verified comparable interaction quality, realism, and usability across conditions prior to the main study. This addition will directly address the concern about potential confounds from uneven condition strength. revision: yes
Referee: [Methods] Methods section: No information is given on counterbalancing of condition order or explicit controls for order/carry-over effects, despite the within-subjects design with sequential memory reliving. This is load-bearing because sequence or novelty artifacts could drive the reported themes on social connection and usability.

Authors: We acknowledge the need for explicit reporting on order effects in a within-subjects design. The revised Methods section will clarify that condition order was counterbalanced across the 12 pairs using a Latin square design to distribute potential sequence effects evenly. We will also describe controls such as mandatory breaks between conditions, randomized starting interfaces where applicable, and instructions to participants to treat each memory reliving session independently. These details will help rule out carry-over artifacts as the primary driver of the themes. revision: yes
Referee: [Analysis] Analysis section: The description of the qualitative analysis does not report the coding process, number of coders, or inter-rater reliability for the thematic analysis of responses concerning social connection, emotional attachment, and usability. This is load-bearing because the identified trade-offs rest entirely on these themes.

Authors: We agree that greater transparency in the qualitative analysis process is warranted. In the revised Analysis section, we will detail the thematic analysis following Braun and Clarke's six-phase approach, specify that two researchers independently coded the open-ended responses, describe the iterative codebook development and theme refinement process, and report inter-rater reliability (e.g., Cohen's kappa value). This will provide stronger support for the credibility of the trade-offs identified between the interfaces. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical qualitative study with direct data analysis

full rationale

The paper reports a within-subjects qualitative user study (N=24) using thematic analysis of open-ended responses on experiential differences across three interfaces. No mathematical derivations, equations, fitted parameters, predictions, or self-citations appear in the load-bearing claims. Central findings derive from participant data collection rather than reducing to inputs by construction or self-referential loops. Methodological concerns (e.g., order effects) pertain to validity, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Empirical HCI study with no mathematical derivations, free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; relies on standard qualitative methods and participant self-report.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5481 in / 1096 out tokens · 45576 ms · 2026-05-15T06:34:12.514828+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

13 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

Aron, and Danny Smollan

Arthur Aron, Elaine N. Aron, and Danny Smollan. 1992. Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology63, 4 (1992), 596–612. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.596 Place: US Publisher: American Psychological Association

work page doi:10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.596 1992
[2]

Sébastien Cuendet, Engin Bumbacher, and Pierre Dillenbourg. 2012. Tangible vs. virtual representations: when tangibles benefit the training of spatial skills. In Proceedings of the 7th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Making Sense Through Design (NordiCHI ’12). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 99–108. doi:10.1145/239...

work page doi:10.1145/2399016.2399032 2012
[3]

Eva Hornecker and Jacob Buur. 2006. Getting a grip on tangible interaction. doi:10.1145/1124772.1124838

work page doi:10.1145/1124772.1124838 2006
[4]

Hiroshi Ishii and Brygg Ullmer. 1997. Tangible bits: towards seamless interfaces between people, bits and atoms. InProceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 234–241. doi:10.1145/258549.258715

work page doi:10.1145/258549.258715 1997
[5]

Omar Khan, Zaid Ahmed, Hyeongil Nam, and Kangsoo Kim. 2025. TangibleMo- ments: Embedding XR Memories onto Physical Objects. In2025 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces Abstracts and Workshops (VRW). 1147–

work page 2025
[6]

doi:10.1109/VRW66409.2025.00227

work page doi:10.1109/vrw66409.2025.00227 2025
[7]

Memento: Towards Proactive Visualization of Everyday Memories with Personal Wearable AR Assistant

Yoonsang Kim, Yalong Yang, and Arie Kaufman. 2026.Memento: Towards Proactive Visualization of Everyday Memories with Personal Wearable AR Assistant. doi:10. 48550/arXiv.2601.17622

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026
[8]

Elena Mugellini, Elisa Rubegni, Sandro Gerardi, and Omar Abou Khaled. 2007. Using personal objects as tangible interfaces for memory recollection and sharing. InProceedings of the 1st International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction. Association for Computing Machinery, 231–238. doi:10.1145/1226969. 1227016

work page doi:10.1145/1226969 2007
[9]

Daniela Petrelli and Steve Whittaker. 2010. Family memories in the home: Con- trasting physical and digital mementos.Personal and Ubiquitous Computing14 (Feb. 2010), 153–169. doi:10.1007/s00779-009-0279-7

work page doi:10.1007/s00779-009-0279-7 2010
[10]

Orit Shaer and Eva Hornecker. 2009. Tangible User Interfaces: Past, Present, and Future Directions.Foundations and Trends in Human-Computer Interaction3 (Jan. 2009), 1–137. doi:10.1561/1100000026

work page doi:10.1561/1100000026 2009
[11]

Elise van den Hoven and Berry Eggen. 2008. Informing augmented memory system design through autobiographical memory theory.Personal and Ubiquitous Computing12, 6 (2008), 433–443. doi:10.1007/s00779-007-0177-9

work page doi:10.1007/s00779-007-0177-9 2008
[12]

Sara Ventura, Eleonora Brivio, Giuseppe Riva, and Rosa M. Baños. 2019. Immer- sive Versus Non-immersive Experience: Exploring the Feasibility of Memory Assessment Through 360°Technology.Frontiers in Psychology10 (Nov. 2019). doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02509 Publisher: Frontiers

work page doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02509 2019
[13]

Nannan Xi, Juan Chen, Filipe Gama, Henry Korkeila, and Juho Hamari. 2024. Virtual Experiences, Real Memories? A Study on Information Recall and Recogni- tion in the Metaverse.Information Systems Frontiers(2024). doi:10.1007/s10796- 024-10500-2

work page doi:10.1007/s10796- 2024