pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.03127 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-04 · 💻 cs.HC

Where's the Team Spirit? An Exploratory Study on Team Development Through Co-located Tablet-Based VR

Irina Paraschivoiu , Thomas Layer-Wagner , Klaus Neundlinger , Simone Rack , Markus Tatzgern This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 17:27 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC
keywords asymmetric VRteamwork KSAscollaborative VRco-located interactiontablet-based VRteam developmentvirtual trainingdesign recommendations
0
0 comments X

The pith

Asymmetric co-located VR experiences enable teams to develop communication and coordination skills by requiring verbal negotiation across separated roles.

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

The paper investigates whether narrative-driven asymmetric VR can help build teamwork knowledge, skills, and attitudes such as communication, coordination, trust, and reflexivity. It designs a tablet-based VR setup with spatial separation and interdependent tasks that force verbal coordination. A user study with 16 participants in two scenarios shows users adapting through verbal exchange, role negotiation, and shared representations. This suggests VR can be a tool for practicing these skills in short sessions.

Core claim

The central claim is that users in the asymmetric VR experience adapted dynamically using verbal exchange, role negotiation, and shared representations to coordinate under asymmetric conditions, and that active application of teamwork KSAs was observed during the collaborative scenarios.

What carries the argument

The asymmetric VR design featuring spatial separation, tool asymmetry, and interdependent tasks that require verbal coordination, mapped from HR interviews to established KSAs framework.

If this is right

  • Teams can practice and apply KSAs like communication and reflexivity in co-located VR settings.
  • Design recommendations can guide creation of effective immersive team training interventions.
  • Short consecutive scenarios allow observation of dynamic adaptation behaviors.
  • Users engage in role negotiation and use shared representations to overcome asymmetry.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Such VR setups might transfer to remote or distributed team training if the co-location aspect is adjusted.
  • Integrating these experiences into corporate HR programs could supplement traditional team-building activities.
  • Future studies could test long-term retention of the observed KSAs beyond the VR session.
  • Comparing outcomes to non-VR collaborative tasks would clarify the unique contribution of the VR asymmetry.

Load-bearing premise

The verbal and coordination behaviors observed in the two short VR scenarios reflect meaningful development of transferable teamwork KSAs rather than temporary, task-specific strategies.

What would settle it

A pre-post assessment using validated teamwork skill measures showing no improvement in KSAs after participating in the VR experience compared to a control group.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.03127 by Irina Paraschivoiu, Klaus Neundlinger, Markus Tatzgern, Simone Rack, Thomas Layer-Wagner.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Illustrative collaboration scenario: one player retrieves distances to constellations (left and middle) based on the view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Annotated screenshots of the VR environment, communication and task interdependencies in Task 1 of view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Annotated screenshots of the VR environment, communication and task interdependencies in Task 2 of view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Annotated screenshots of the VR environment and objects in Scenario 2 - view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Codeline examples: Pair 1 and Pair 2 including percentage calculations for each coupling style view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Questionnaire results: "Lost in Space" In the second round of gameplay, the responses improved for most of the items. 60% of the participants agreed or strongly agreed that they worked closely with their teammates. Satisfaction, Contribution and Effectiveness were all positively ranked while Awareness remained the item with the most negative responses. Comparing the results between the first and second exp… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Questionnaire results: "The Journey" The findings suggest that the participants became more coordinated and confident in their collaboration after initial exposure and reflection. 5.2 Findings from the group discussion 5.2.1 Communication and information exchange. In both rounds of gameplay, the participants emphasized the importance and limitations of verbal communication to build shared understanding. Mo… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Code Percentages Lost in Space. Percentages indicate the proportion of total gameplay time spent in each coordination style per pair 5.3.1 Coupling styles in Lost in Space view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Code Percentages The Journey. Percentages indicate the proportion of total gameplay time during which a given coordination style was observed; due to overlapping subgroup activity, totals may exceed 100%. different coordination styles, combined percentages for tightly coupled and loosely coupled modes may exceed 100%. Group 1 maintained a fairly balanced coordination profile. They spent 35% of their time i… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We explore how narrative-driven asymmetric VR experiences can support the development of teamwork-related knowledge, skills, and attitudes (KSAs), such as communication, coordination, trust, and reflexivity. We present the design and evaluation of a tablet-based VR training experience structured around spatial separation, tool asymmetry, and interdependent tasks that require verbal coordination. The experience was designed based on interviews with HR professionals and mapped to a framework of established KSAs. We conducted a co-located user study (N=16) that involved two consecutive collaborative scenarios. Our findings show that users adapted dynamically using verbal exchange, role negotiation, and shared representations to coordinate under asymmetric conditions. We also observed active application of teamwork KSAs. Based on our insights, we present design recommendations for creating effective immersive team training interventions.

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.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript describes the design of a co-located tablet-based VR experience for team training, derived from HR professional interviews and mapped to established teamwork KSAs such as communication, coordination, trust, and reflexivity. Through an exploratory user study with 16 participants engaging in two asymmetric collaborative scenarios, the authors report observations of dynamic adaptation via verbal exchange, role negotiation, and shared representations, along with active application of these KSAs, and offer design recommendations for immersive team training interventions.

Significance. If the qualitative observations hold, this work offers initial empirical evidence from a co-located asymmetric VR setup that such experiences can elicit verbal coordination and role negotiation behaviors. The interview-driven design process and resulting recommendations provide practical starting points for HCI researchers building team-training tools. The study is small-scale and exploratory, so its value is primarily in hypothesis generation and design insights rather than generalizable claims about KSA development.

major comments (2)
  1. [User Study] User Study section: With N=16 and two consecutive short scenarios, the design lacks baseline KSA measures, control conditions, or post-session transfer tests. This directly affects the central claim that observed behaviors demonstrate 'active application' and support for KSA development, as opposed to ad-hoc, scenario-specific tactics induced by the asymmetric tablet-VR setup.
  2. [Findings] Findings section: The alignment between HR-interview insights and the VR design features (e.g., spatial separation targeting coordination) is presented as direct, but without reported validation such as inter-rater coding reliability for behavior observation or expert review of the KSA mapping. This weakens the link from raw observations to specific KSAs like reflexivity or trust.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The phrasing 'support the development of teamwork-related KSAs' is stronger than the reported findings of 'observed active application'; revise for precision to match the exploratory, observational scope.
  2. [Design] Design section: A explicit table or diagram mapping each asymmetric task element to targeted KSAs from the HR interviews would improve traceability and allow readers to evaluate the design rationale.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive feedback, which highlights important limitations in our exploratory study. We agree that the work is best positioned as hypothesis-generating with design insights rather than definitive evidence of KSA development. We have revised the manuscript to temper claims, clarify the observational nature of the findings, and add explicit limitations. Below we respond point by point to the major comments.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [User Study] User Study section: With N=16 and two consecutive short scenarios, the design lacks baseline KSA measures, control conditions, or post-session transfer tests. This directly affects the central claim that observed behaviors demonstrate 'active application' and support for KSA development, as opposed to ad-hoc, scenario-specific tactics induced by the asymmetric tablet-VR setup.

    Authors: We agree that the study design is exploratory and lacks baseline measures, control conditions, or transfer tests, which prevents strong causal claims about KSA development or long-term effects. Our original intent was to describe observed coordination behaviors in the specific asymmetric co-located setup and note their alignment with established KSAs from the HR interviews. We have revised the abstract, findings, and discussion to emphasize 'observed behaviors consistent with active use of KSAs such as verbal coordination and role negotiation' and removed any implication of KSA development or transfer. A new limitations paragraph explicitly states the absence of baselines/controls and calls for future controlled studies. We maintain that the qualitative observations remain valid for generating design hypotheses even without those elements. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Findings] Findings section: The alignment between HR-interview insights and the VR design features (e.g., spatial separation targeting coordination) is presented as direct, but without reported validation such as inter-rater coding reliability for behavior observation or expert review of the KSA mapping. This weakens the link from raw observations to specific KSAs like reflexivity or trust.

    Authors: The scenarios were designed by mapping HR interview themes to KSAs from established frameworks (e.g., communication via verbal exchange, coordination via spatial separation and tool asymmetry). This mapping was performed by the research team based on the interview data and literature. We did not report inter-rater reliability for observations or obtain external expert validation of the mapping. We have expanded the Design section to detail the step-by-step mapping process with examples of how each scenario targets specific KSAs. We have also added a limitations statement noting the lack of formal coding reliability and external review, while preserving the exploratory value of the observed behaviors. Future work could incorporate these validations. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in empirical exploratory study

full rationale

The paper is an exploratory qualitative user study reporting direct observations of coordination behaviors from N=16 participants across two short scenarios. No mathematical derivations, equations, fitted parameters, or predictive claims appear in the provided text or abstract. The design draws from external HR interviews and established KSA frameworks without self-referential loops, and findings are presented as observed adaptations rather than outputs forced by prior definitions or self-citations. The central claims rest on empirical data collection and interpretation without reducing to inputs by construction, making this a self-contained observational report.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

This is an empirical HCI user study with no mathematical models, free parameters, or new theoretical entities. It assumes an established framework of teamwork KSAs drawn from prior literature and relies on standard qualitative observation methods.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Established framework of teamwork KSAs including communication, coordination, trust, and reflexivity from prior literature.
    The VR experience was explicitly mapped to this framework after interviews with HR professionals.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5448 in / 1313 out tokens · 26905 ms · 2026-05-08T17:27:43.136549+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Technical Report 978-2-940631-90-2

    2025.Future of Jobs Report 2025. Technical Report 978-2-940631-90-2. World Economic Forum, Geneva, Switzerland. 290 pages. https://www.weforum.org/publications/the-future-of-jobs-report-2025/

    2025

  2. [2]

    Kevin Baker, Saul Greenberg, and Carl Gutwin. [n. d.]. Empirical Development of a Heuristic Evaluation Methodology for Shared Workspace Groupware. ([n. d.])

  3. [3]

    Frederik Brudy, Joshua Kevin Budiman, Steven Houben, and Nicolai Marquardt. 2018. Investigating the Role of an Overview Device in Multi-Device Collaboration. InProceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Montreal QC Canada, 1–13. doi:10.1145/3173574.3173874

    work page doi:10.1145/3173574.3173874 2018

  4. [4]

    Shawn Burke, Kevin C

    C. Shawn Burke, Kevin C. Stagl, Eduardo Salas, Linda Pierce, and Dana Kendall. 2006. Understanding team adaptation: A conceptual analysis and model.Journal of Applied Psychology91, 6 (Nov. 2006), 1189–1207. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1189

    work page doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1189 2006

  5. [5]

    Kelly Caine. 2016. Local Standards for Sample Size at CHI. InProceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, San Jose California USA, 981–992. doi:10.1145/2858036.2858498

    work page doi:10.1145/2858036.2858498 2016

  6. [6]

    Anthony Cherbonnier, Brivael Hémon, Nicolas Michinov, Eric Jamet, and Estelle Michinov. 2024. Collaborative Skills Training Using Digital Tools: A Systematic Literature Review.International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction(May 2024), 1–19. doi:10.1080/ 10447318.2024.2348227

    work page arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Depping, Colby Johanson, and Regan L

    Ansgar E. Depping, Colby Johanson, and Regan L. Mandryk. 2018. Designing for Friendship: Modeling Properties of Play, In-Game Social Capital, and Psychological Well-being. InProceedings of the 2018 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play. ACM, Melbourne VIC Australia, 87–100. doi:10.1145/3242671.3242702

    work page doi:10.1145/3242671.3242702 2018

  8. [8]

    Drisko and Tina Maschi

    James W. Drisko and Tina Maschi. 2016.Content analysis. Oxford University Press, New York

    2016

  9. [9]

    Barrett Ens, Joel Lanir, Anthony Tang, Scott Bateman, Gun Lee, Thammathip Piumsomboon, and Mark Billinghurst. 2019. Revisiting collaboration through mixed reality: The evolution of groupware.International Journal of Human-Computer Studies131 (Nov. 2019), 81–98. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2019.05.011

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2019.05.011 2019

  10. [10]

    Gibson and Mary E

    Cristina B. Gibson and Mary E. Zellmer-Bruhn. 2001. Metaphors and Meaning: An Intercultural Analysis of the Concept of Teamwork. Administrative Science Quarterly46, 2 (June 2001), 274–303. doi:10.2307/2667088

    work page doi:10.2307/2667088 2001

  11. [11]

    Richardson, Alexandra A

    David Gonçalves, André Rodrigues, Mike L. Richardson, Alexandra A. De Sousa, Michael J. Proulx, and Tiago Guerreiro. 2021. Exploring Asymmetric Roles in Mixed-Ability Gaming. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Yokohama Japan, 1–14. doi:10.1145/3411764.3445494

    work page doi:10.1145/3411764.3445494 2021

  12. [12]

    Jan Gugenheimer, Evgeny Stemasov, Harpreet Sareen, and Enrico Rukzio. 2018. FaceDisplay: Towards Asymmetric Multi-User Interaction for Nomadic Virtual Reality. InProceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Montreal QC Canada, 1–13. doi:10.1145/3173574.3173628

    work page doi:10.1145/3173574.3173628 2018

  13. [13]

    Semmer, and Christof Nägele

    Andrea Gurtner, Franziska Tschan, Norbert K. Semmer, and Christof Nägele. 2007. Getting groups to develop good strategies: Effects of reflexivity interventions on team process, team performance, and shared mental models.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes102, 2 (March 2007), 127–142. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.05.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.05.002 2007

  14. [14]

    John Harris and Mark Hancock. 2019. To Asymmetry and Beyond!: Improving Social Connectedness by Increasing Designed Inter- dependence in Cooperative Play. InProceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Glasgow Scotland Uk, 1–12. doi:10.1145/3290605.3300239

    work page doi:10.1145/3290605.3300239 2019

  15. [15]

    Beam Me ’Round, Scotty!

    John Harris, Mark Hancock, and Stacey D. Scott. 2015. "Beam Me ’Round, Scotty!": Studying Asymmetry and Interdependence in a Prototype Cooperative Game. InProceedings of the 2015 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play. ACM, London United Kingdom, 775–778. doi:10.1145/2793107.2810274

    work page doi:10.1145/2793107.2810274 2015

  16. [16]

    John Harris, Mark Hancock, and Stacey D. Scott. 2016. Leveraging Asymmetries in Multiplayer Games: Investigating Design Elements of Interdependent Play. InProceedings of the 2016 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play. ACM, Austin Texas USA, 350–361. doi:10.1145/2967934.2968113

    work page doi:10.1145/2967934.2968113 2016

  17. [17]

    Gallup Inc. 2024. State of the Global Workplace: 2024 Report. (2024)

    2024

  18. [18]

    Isenberg, D

    P. Isenberg, D. Fisher, S. A. Paul, M. R. Morris, K. Inkpen, and M. Czerwinski. 2012. Co-Located Collaborative Visual Analytics around a Tabletop Display.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics18, 5 (May 2012), 689–702. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2011.287

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2011.287 2012

  19. [19]

    Jakobsen and Kasper HornbÆk

    Mikkel R. Jakobsen and Kasper HornbÆk. 2014. Up close and personal: Collaborative work on a high-resolution multitouch wall display. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction21, 2 (Feb. 2014), 1–34. doi:10.1145/2576099 Where’s the Team Spirit?•29

    work page doi:10.1145/2576099 2014

  20. [20]

    Hans-Christian Jetter, Jan-Henrik Schröder, Jan Gugenheimer, Mark Billinghurst, Christoph Anthes, Mohamed Khamis, and Tiare Feuchtner. 2021. Transitional Interfaces in Mixed and Cross-Reality: A new frontier?. InCompanion Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Interactive Surfaces and Spaces. ACM, Lodz Poland, 46–49. doi:10.1145/3447932.3487940

    work page doi:10.1145/3447932.3487940 2021

  21. [21]

    Erica Kleinman, Rana Jahani, Eileen McGivney, Mehmet Kosa, Seth Cooper, and Casper Harteveld. 2025. From Locked Rooms to Open Minds: Escape Room Best Practices to Enhance Reflection in Extended Reality Learning Environments. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Yokohama Japan, 1–16. doi:10.1145/3706598.3713811

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598.3713811 2025

  22. [22]

    David A. Kolb. 2015.Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development(second edition ed.). Pearson Education, Inc, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey

    2015

  23. [23]

    Michaela Kolbe, Adrian Marty, Julia Seelandt, and Bastian Grande. 2016. How to debrief teamwork interactions: using circular questions to explore and change team interaction patterns.Advances in Simulation1, 1 (Jan. 2016), 29. doi:10.1186/s41077-016-0029-7

    work page doi:10.1186/s41077-016-0029-7 2016

  24. [24]

    Schippers, and Corinna Steenfatt

    Udo Konradt, Kai-Philip Otte, Michaéla C. Schippers, and Corinna Steenfatt. 2016. Reflexivity in Teams: A Review and New Perspectives. The Journal of Psychology150, 2 (Feb. 2016), 153–174. doi:10.1080/00223980.2015.1050977

    work page doi:10.1080/00223980.2015.1050977 2016

  25. [25]

    Schippers, Yvonne Garbers, and Corinna Steenfatt

    Udo Konradt, Michaéla C. Schippers, Yvonne Garbers, and Corinna Steenfatt. 2015. Effects of guided reflexivity and team feedback on team performance improvement: The role of team regulatory processes and cognitive emergent states.European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology24, 5 (Aug. 2015), 777–795. doi:10.1080/1359432X.2015.1005608

    work page doi:10.1080/1359432x.2015.1005608 2015

  26. [26]

    Lacerenza, Shannon L

    Christina N. Lacerenza, Shannon L. Marlow, Scott I. Tannenbaum, and Eduardo Salas. 2018. Team development interventions: Evidence- based approaches for improving teamwork.American Psychologist73, 4 (May 2018), 517–531. doi:10.1037/amp0000295

    work page doi:10.1037/amp0000295 2018

  27. [27]

    Stefan Liszio, Katharina Emmerich, and Maic Masuch. 2017. The influence of social entities in virtual reality games on player experience and immersion. InProceedings of the 12th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games. ACM, Hyannis Massachusetts, 1–10. doi:10.1145/3102071.3102086

    work page doi:10.1145/3102071.3102086 2017

  28. [28]

    Stephan Lukosch, Mark Billinghurst, Leila Alem, and Kiyoshi Kiyokawa. 2015. Collaboration in Augmented Reality.Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)24, 6 (Dec. 2015), 515–525. doi:10.1007/s10606-015-9239-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s10606-015-9239-0 2015

  29. [29]

    Christian Mai, Sarah Aragon Bartsch, and Lea Rieger. 2018. Evaluating Shared Surfaces for Co-Located Mixed-Presence Collaboration. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia. ACM, Cairo Egypt, 1–5. doi:10.1145/3282894.3282910

    work page doi:10.1145/3282894.3282910 2018

  30. [30]

    McDaniel and Gilles O

    Mark A. McDaniel and Gilles O. Einstein. 2005. Material Appropriate Difficulty: A Framework for Determining When Difficulty Is Desirable for Improving Learning. InExperimental cognitive psychology and its applications., Alice F. Healy (Ed.). American Psychological Association, Washington, 73–85. doi:10.1037/10895-006

    work page doi:10.1037/10895-006 2005

  31. [31]

    Mekler, and Ioanna Iacovides

    Josh Aaron Miller, Kutub Gandhi, Matthew Alexander Whitby, Mehmet Kosa, Seth Cooper, Elisa D. Mekler, and Ioanna Iacovides. 2024. A Design Framework for Reflective Play. InProceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Honolulu HI USA, 1–21. doi:10.1145/3613904.3642455

    work page doi:10.1145/3613904.3642455 2024

  32. [32]

    Thomas Neumayr, Hans-Christian Jetter, Mirjam Augstein, Judith Friedl, and Thomas Luger. 2018. Domino: A Descriptive Framework for Hybrid Collaboration and Coupling Styles in Partially Distributed Teams.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction2, CSCW (Nov. 2018), 1–24. doi:10.1145/3274397

    work page doi:10.1145/3274397 2018

  33. [33]

    Thomas Olsson, Pradthana Jarusriboonchai, Paweł Woźniak, Susanna Paasovaara, Kaisa Väänänen, and Andrés Lucero. 2020. Technolo- gies for Enhancing Collocated Social Interaction: Review of Design Solutions and Approaches.Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)29, 1-2 (April 2020), 29–83. doi:10.1007/s10606-019-09345-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s10606-019-09345-0 2020

  34. [34]

    Ouverson and Stephen B

    Kaitlyn M. Ouverson and Stephen B. Gilbert. 2021. A Composite Framework of Co-located Asymmetric Virtual Reality.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction5, CSCW1 (April 2021), 1–20. doi:10.1145/3449079

    work page doi:10.1145/3449079 2021

  35. [35]

    Pedro Pais, David Gonçalves, Kathrin Gerling, Teresa Romão, Tiago Guerreiro, and André Rodrigues. 2024. Promoting Family Play through Asymmetric Game Design.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction8, CSCW1 (April 2024), 1–24. doi:10.1145/3637392

    work page doi:10.1145/3637392 2024

  36. [36]

    Irina Paraschivoiu, Robert Steiner, Judith Wieser, and Alexander Meschtscherjakov. 2025. Crafting Cities Together: Co-located Collaboration with Augmented Reality for Urban Design.Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)(Feb. 2025). doi:10.1007/s10606- 025-09510-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s10606- 2025

  37. [37]

    Thomas D. Parsons. 2015. Virtual Reality for Enhanced Ecological Validity and Experimental Control in the Clinical, Affective and Social Neurosciences.Frontiers in Human Neuroscience9 (Dec. 2015). doi:10.3389/fnhum.2015.00660

    work page doi:10.3389/fnhum.2015.00660 2015

  38. [38]

    Klokmose, Thomas Luger, and Harald Reiterer

    Thomas Plank, Hans-Christian Jetter, Roman Rädle, Clemens N. Klokmose, Thomas Luger, and Harald Reiterer. 2017. Is Two Enough?: ! Studying Benefits, Barriers, and Biases of Multi-Tablet Use for Collaborative Visualization. InProceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Denver Colorado USA, 4548–4560. doi:10.1145/30254...

    work page doi:10.1145/3025453.3025537 2017

  39. [39]

    Fabian Pointecker, Judith Friedl, Daniel Schwajda, Hans-Christian Jetter, and Christoph Anthes. 2022. Bridging the Gap Across Realities: Visual Transitions Between Virtual and Augmented Reality. In2022 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR). IEEE, Singapore, Singapore, 827–836. doi:10.1109/ISMAR55827.2022.00101

    work page doi:10.1109/ismar55827.2022.00101 2022

  40. [40]

    Lev Poretski Poretski, Joel Lanir, Ram Margalit, and Ofer Arazy. 2021. Physicality As an Anchor for Coordination: Examining Collocated Collaboration in Physical and Mobile Augmented Reality Settings.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction5, CSCW2 (Oct. 2021), 1–29. doi:10.1145/3479857 30•Paraschivoiu et al

    work page doi:10.1145/3479857 2021

  41. [41]

    Dominic Potts, Miloni Gada, Aastha Gupta, Kavya Goel, Klaus Philipp Krzok, Genevieve Pate, Joseph Hartley, Mark Weston-Arnold, Jakob Aylott, Christopher Clarke, Crescent Jicol, and Christof Lutteroth. 2025. RetroSketch: A Retrospective Method for Measuring Emotions and Presence in Virtual Reality. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors ...

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598.3713957 2025

  42. [42]

    Iulian Radu, Tugce Joy, Yiran Bowman, Ian Bott, and Bertrand Schneider. 2021. A Survey of Needs and Features for Augmented Reality Collaborations in Collocated Spaces.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction5, CSCW1 (April 2021), 1–21. doi:10.1145/3449243

    work page doi:10.1145/3449243 2021

  43. [43]

    Katja Rogers, Sukran Karaosmanoglu, Dennis Wolf, Frank Steinicke, and Lennart E. Nacke. 2021. A Best-Fit Framework and Systematic Review of Asymmetric Gameplay in Multiplayer Virtual Reality Games.Frontiers in Virtual Reality2 (July 2021), 694660. doi:10.3389/ frvir.2021.694660

    work page arXiv 2021

  44. [44]

    Pejman Sajjadi, Edgar Omar Cebolledo Gutierrez, Sandra Trullemans, and Olga De Troyer. 2014. Maze commander: a collaborative asynchronous game using the oculus rift & the sifteo cubes. InProceedings of the first ACM SIGCHI annual symposium on Computer-human interaction in play. ACM, Toronto Ontario Canada, 227–236. doi:10.1145/2658537.2658690

    work page doi:10.1145/2658537.2658690 2014

  45. [45]

    Shawn Burke, Kevin C

    Eduardo Salas, Deborah DiazGranados, Cameron Klein, C. Shawn Burke, Kevin C. Stagl, Gerald F. Goodwin, and Stanley M. Halpin. 2008. Does Team Training Improve Team Performance? A Meta-Analysis.Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society50, 6 (Dec. 2008), 903–933. doi:10.1518/001872008X375009

    work page doi:10.1518/001872008x375009 2008

  46. [46]

    Jan-Henrik Schröder, Daniel Schacht, Niklas Peper, Anita Marie Hamurculu, and Hans-Christian Jetter. 2023. Collaborating Across Realities: Analytical Lenses for Understanding Dyadic Collaboration in Transitional Interfaces. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Hamburg Germany, 1–16. doi:10.1145/3544548.3580879

    work page doi:10.1145/3544548.3580879 2023

  47. [47]

    Scott, M

    Stacey D. Scott, M. Sheelagh T. Carpendale, and Kori Inkpen. 2004. Territoriality in collaborative tabletop workspaces. InProceedings of the 2004 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work. ACM, Chicago Illinois USA, 294–303. doi:10.1145/1031607.1031655

    work page doi:10.1145/1031607.1031655 2004

  48. [48]

    Hanieh Shakeri, Samarth Singhal, Rui Pan, Carman Neustaedter, and Anthony Tang. 2017. Escaping Together: The Design and Evaluation of a Distributed Real-Life Escape Room. InProceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play. ACM, Amsterdam The Netherlands, 115–128. doi:10.1145/3116595.3116601

    work page doi:10.1145/3116595.3116601 2017

  49. [49]

    Shuffler, Deborah Diazgranados, M

    Marissa L. Shuffler, Deborah Diazgranados, M. Travis Maynard, and Eduardo Salas. 2018. Developing, Sustaining, and Maximizing Team Effectiveness: An Integrative, Dynamic Perspective of Team Development Interventions.Academy of Management Annals12, 2 (June 2018), 688–724. doi:10.5465/annals.2016.0045

    work page doi:10.5465/annals.2016.0045 2018

  50. [50]

    Shuffler, Deborah DiazGranados, and Eduardo Salas

    Marissa L. Shuffler, Deborah DiazGranados, and Eduardo Salas. 2011. There’s a Science for That: Team Development Interventions in Organizations.Current Directions in Psychological Science20, 6 (Dec. 2011), 365–372. doi:10.1177/0963721411422054

    work page doi:10.1177/0963721411422054 2011

  51. [51]

    Sottilare, C

    Robert A. Sottilare, C. Shawn Burke, Eduardo Salas, Anne M. Sinatra, Joan H. Johnston, and Stephen B. Gilbert. 2018. Designing Adaptive Instruction for Teams: a Meta-Analysis.International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education28, 2 (June 2018), 225–264. doi:10.1007/s40593-017-0146-z

    work page doi:10.1007/s40593-017-0146-z 2018

  52. [52]

    Stevens and Michael A

    Michael J. Stevens and Michael A. Campion. 1994. The Knowledge, Skill, and Ability Requirements for Teamwork: Implications for Human Resource Management.Journal of Management20, 2 (April 1994), 503–530. doi:10.1177/014920639402000210

    work page doi:10.1177/014920639402000210 1994

  53. [53]

    Anthony Tang, Melanie Tory, Barry Po, Petra Neumann, and Sheelagh Carpendale. 2006. Collaborative coupling over tabletop displays. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Montréal Québec Canada, 1181–1190. doi:10.1145/1124772.1124950

    work page doi:10.1145/1124772.1124950 2006

  54. [54]

    2003.Rules of play: game design fundamentals

    Katie Salen Tekinbaş and Eric Zimmerman. 2003.Rules of play: game design fundamentals. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass

    2003

  55. [55]

    Tanh Quang Tran, Tobias Langlotz, and Holger Regenbrecht. 2024. A Survey On Measuring Presence in Mixed Reality. InProceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Honolulu HI USA, 1–38. doi:10.1145/3613904.3642383

    work page doi:10.1145/3613904.3642383 2024

  56. [56]

    Bruce W. Tuckman. 1965. Developmental sequence in small groups.Psychological Bulletin63, 6 (June 1965), 384–399. doi:10.1037/h0022100

    work page doi:10.1037/h0022100 1965

  57. [57]

    Tuckman and Mary Ann C

    Bruce W. Tuckman and Mary Ann C. Jensen. 1977. Stages of Small-Group Development Revisited.Group & Organization Studies2, 4 (Dec. 1977), 419–427. doi:10.1177/105960117700200404

    work page doi:10.1177/105960117700200404 1977

  58. [58]

    Wang, Sebastian Cmentowski, Reza Hadi Mogavi, Kaushall Senthil Nathan, Eugene Kukshinov, Joseph Tu, and Lennart E

    Derrick M. Wang, Sebastian Cmentowski, Reza Hadi Mogavi, Kaushall Senthil Nathan, Eugene Kukshinov, Joseph Tu, and Lennart E. Nacke. 2025. From Solo to Social: Exploring the Dynamics of Player Cooperation in a Co-located Cooperative Exergame. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–16. doi:10.1145/3706598.3713937 ...

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598.3713937 2025

  59. [59]

    Harald Warmelink, Igor Mayer, Jessika Weber, Bram Heijligers, Mata Haggis, Erwin Peters, and Max Louwerse. 2017. AMELIO: Evaluating the Team-building Potential of a Mixed Reality Escape Room Game. InExtended Abstracts Publication of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play. ACM, Amsterdam The Netherlands, 111–123. doi:10.1145/3130859.3131436

    work page doi:10.1145/3130859.3131436 2017

  60. [60]

    Thomas Wells and Steven Houben. 2020. CollabAR Investigating the Mediating Role of Mobile AR Interfaces on Co-Located Group Collaboration. InProceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Honolulu HI USA, 1–13. doi:10.1145/3313831.3376541

    work page doi:10.1145/3313831.3376541 2020

  61. [61]

    Michael A. West. 2006.Effective teamwork: practical lessons from organizational research(2. ed., [nachdr.] ed.). Blackwell [u.a.], Malden, Mass. Where’s the Team Spirit?•31

    2006

  62. [62]

    Russell Bernard

    Amber Wutich, Melissa Beresford, and H. Russell Bernard. 2024. Sample Sizes for 10 Types of Qualitative Data Analysis: An Integrative Review, Empirical Guidance, and Next Steps.International Journal of Qualitative Methods23 (Jan. 2024), 16094069241296206. doi:10. 1177/16094069241296206

    2024

  63. [63]

    Qiao Zhang, Glen Smith, Ziyu Li, Yuxuan Dong, Erik Harpstead, and Christopher Maclellan. 2025. Dice Adventure: An Asymmetrical Collaborative Game for Exploring the Hybrid Teaming Effects. InProceedings of the 20th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games. ACM, Vienna & Graz Austria, 1–9. doi:10.1145/3723498.3723793

    work page doi:10.1145/3723498.3723793 2025

  64. [64]

    Zhuoming Zhou, Elena Márquez Segura, Jared Duval, Michael John, and Katherine Isbister. 2019. Astaire: A Collaborative Mixed Reality Dance Game for Collocated Players. InProceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play. ACM, Barcelona Spain, 5–18. doi:10.1145/3311350.3347152 Received May 2025, accepted April 2026 to ACM CSCW

    work page doi:10.1145/3311350.3347152 2019