Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Exploring Context-aware and LLM-driven Locomotion for Immersive Virtual Reality

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Free-form spoken instructions can replace handheld controllers for navigating virtual worlds, matching teleportation on usability, presence, and cybersickness.

desk verdict A genuinely new LLM-based VR locomotion method with a solid user study, but the central 'comparable to teleportation' claim rests on underpowered null results and needs an equivalence analysis. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.17331 v3 pith:BYXPLAZP submitted 2025-04-24 cs.HC cs.AI

Suleyman Ozdel , Kadir Burak Buldu , Enkelejda Kasneci , Efe Bozkir This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HCcs.AI
keywords virtualrealitylocomotionlargelanguagemodelshands-freeinteractioneyetrackingnaturalinterfacescybersicknesspresence
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 claims that users can navigate virtual worlds by speaking ordinary, unscripted sentences and that this way of moving is a practical hands-free alternative to established VR locomotion. The authors built a pipeline that turns speech into text, feeds it together with real-time scene context (visible object names, colors, positions) to a large language model, and maps the model's answer to a valid destination. In a between-subjects study with 60 participants in a town-like virtual environment, they compared this method with controller teleportation and with fixed-command voice steering, measuring usability, presence, cybersickness, cognitive load, and gaze behavior. No statistically significant differences appeared on usability, presence, or cybersickness between the LLM-driven method and the established techniques, while eye-tracking suggested more focused attention. If the claim holds, VR navigation no longer requires memorized commands or handheld controllers, which matters for accessibility and for tasks that occupy the hands.

What carries the argument

The operative mechanism is a context-aware teleportation loop: the user's free-form speech is transcribed, combined in a prompt with the names, colors, and positions of currently visible tagged objects in the scene, and sent to a large language model instructed to return a target coordinate; the coordinate is then mapped to the nearest valid walkable point, with angle-of-heading tie-breaking and fallbacks that refuse to move on ambiguous or malformed outputs. This machinery replaces predefined command grammars and manual object labeling with dynamic scene understanding.

What would settle it

A pre-registered follow-up with a larger sample per condition and a pre-specified equivalence margin that finds the LLM-driven method's SUS score meaningfully below teleportation's, or its CSQ-VR score meaningfully above, would refute the parity claim; checking the classifier on a held-out set of unseen users would test whether the gaze differences generalize.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery claimed is that LLM-driven, context-aware locomotion reaches parity with established methods on the experience measures that matter. In the study, teleportation remained fastest, but SUS, IPQ, CSQ-VR, and NASA-TLX scores showed no statistically significant differences between conditions, and the LLM condition descriptively led in general and spatial presence. Gaze data showed lower fixation rates and shorter saccade durations in the LLM condition than in continuous voice steering, which the authors read as more deliberate, goal-directed visual engagement; a classifier using eye-tracking features distinguished the three techniques, with fixation duration, pupil size, and saccade duration as the strongest contributors. The authors conclude that free-form, context-aware speech is a viable, accessible, hands-free locomotion alternative.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the study had enough participants to detect meaningful differences, so the absence of statistically significant effects can be read as genuine parity between the LLM method and the baselines.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Users can navigate hands-free in VR by saying where they want to go in their own words and, in principle, their own language, with no command list to memorize.
  • The approach removes the need for authors to pre-label destinations or write grammar rules, so it can transfer to new virtual environments with little per-scene setup.
  • Because movement is teleportation-like instant jumps rather than continuous motion, it avoids the vestibular-visual conflict that makes continuous voice steering uncomfortable.
  • Eye-tracking patterns tied to locomotion technique could be used by adaptive VR systems to infer how a user is moving or whether they are disengaged.
  • For accessibility use cases, the method gives people who cannot use handheld controllers a navigation channel whose usability scores land in the same bracket as teleportation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct corollary the authors do not draw: the same context-extraction-and-prompt loop could be extended beyond locomotion to object manipulation or scene queries, since it already turns visible scene state into language the model can reason over.
  • The parity conclusion rests on null results with 20 participants per condition and no reported power analysis or equivalence test; a larger equivalence-designed study could reasonably find small differences the current study cannot detect.
  • The slightly higher NASA-TLX and pupil diameter in the LLM condition, though not significant, hint that composing context-aware commands costs extra attention; longitudinal exposure might show whether that cost fades.
  • Because the classifier could tell the three techniques apart from gaze alone, a testable extension is using gaze features in real time to detect when a user is struggling to phrase a command and offer proactive suggestions.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents an LLM-driven locomotion technique for VR in which free-form spoken instructions are interpreted with contextual scene information and mapped to teleport destinations. The authors report a between-subjects user study (N=60, 20 per condition) comparing controller teleportation, fixed-command voice steering, and the proposed LLM method, using task completion time, eye-tracking features, and standardized questionnaires (SUS, IPQ, CSQ-VR, NASA-TLX). The main empirical claims are that the LLM method is comparable to teleportation on usability, presence, and cybersickness; that eye tracking shows more focused attention in the LLM condition; and that an exploratory ML/SHAP analysis distinguishes gaze patterns across conditions.

Significance. Should the comparability claim hold, the work would be a useful contribution to hands-free VR navigation, particularly for accessibility, and the combination of standardized questionnaires with careful eye-tracking preprocessing (I-VT with head velocity, Savitzky-Golay pupil filtering, blink validation) is a strength. The open-source CUIfy pipeline and the explicit latency and fallback analysis are also valuable. However, the central parity claim is not supported by the current statistical design because it rests entirely on null results from small per-cell samples without equivalence testing or power analysis, and the questionnaire comparisons are confounded by large differences in VR exposure time across conditions.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract, Section 5.1, Section 3.2.7] The statement that LLM-driven locomotion is a viable and comparable alternative is based on the absence of statistically significant differences. Section 3.2.7 describes only ANOVA/Kruskal-Wallis at α=0.05, with no power analysis, equivalence test, or confidence intervals. With n=20 per condition, the design can detect only large effects (roughly d>0.9 at 80% power for a two-group comparison), and the observed means are not trivially close: SUS 82.75 vs 76.13, NASA-TLX 25.44 vs 32.53, CSQ-VR overall 9.75 vs 10.30. These null results are compatible with practically meaningful disadvantages. Please add an equivalence test or report confidence intervals and effect sizes, and revise the abstract and Section 5.1 to say that no differences were detected rather than that the methods are comparable.
  2. [Sections 4.1 and 5.1] Task completion time differs substantially across conditions (teleportation M=96.45 s, LLM M=270.77 s, voice M=275.32 s), so questionnaire responses were collected after very different durations of VR exposure. Section 5.1 acknowledges this ('nearly four times shorter') but does not control for it. The lower cybersickness and workload scores for teleportation may therefore reflect shorter exposure rather than a property of the locomotion technique. Please model exposure time as a covariate or restrict the comparability claim to the achieved exposure conditions.
  3. [Sections 4.4 and 3.2.8] The classifiers are evaluated on 20-second windows with an 80/20 split, but the text does not state that the split respects participant identity. If windows from the same participant appear in both training and test sets, the reported accuracies are inflated by within-participant dependence. Please use participant-level cross-validation and report per-class precision/recall given the class imbalance (teleportation is only 14.62% of the test set).
  4. [Sections 3.1.2, 3.1.3, and 5.3] Both voice-based conditions used a trigger button to start and stop voice recording, yet Section 5.3 claims the LLM method 'does not require additional hardware such as handheld controllers.' This is an internal inconsistency that directly affects the hands-free/accessibility conclusion. Please clarify what device hosted the trigger button and either demonstrate a truly hands-free activation mechanism or soften the claim.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Throughout] The term 'ANOVA' is typeset as 'ANOV A' in several places (e.g., Sections 3.2.7, 4.1, 4.2); please fix the spacing.
  2. [Section 4.4] The condition names contain formatting errors ('fix command-based voice steering', 'V oice LLM'); please use consistent, correctly spaced labels for the three conditions.
  3. [Section 3.2.4] Compensation is reported as 'C7.5'; if this is a currency amount, please state the currency and format it correctly.
  4. [Section 4.3] For the questionnaire analyses, only p-values are reported; please add the test statistic (F or H), degrees of freedom, and effect sizes for each comparison.
  5. [Section 5.2] The discussion of mean fixation duration should be framed as a non-significant trend (p=.065) rather than as evidence supporting the attention account.
  6. [Figure 12] The SHAP summary plot is described in the text, but the caption does not explain the color scale or how to interpret class-specific contributions; please add this information.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's claims rest on an empirical user study, and the sole self-citation (CUIfy [18]) is an implementation tool rather than load-bearing evidence.

full rationale

This paper does not attempt a derivation that could reduce to its own inputs. The central claim—that LLM-driven, context-aware natural-language locomotion is a viable hands-free alternative—is supported by a between-subjects user study with standardized questionnaires and eye-tracking data. The statistical comparisons described in Section 3.2.7 are performed on data collected in the study, so the reported absence of statistically significant differences is an empirical outcome, not a parameter fitted from, or defined in terms of, the input. The self-citation of the CUIfy package [18] in Section 3.2.2 is an implementation dependency for speech-to-text and LLM-based interaction; it is not used to justify the validity of the evaluation, and the conclusions would stand or fall on the collected data regardless of that citation. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz, or renamed empirical pattern is imported from the authors' prior work, and the ML/SHAP analysis in Section 4.4 is explicitly exploratory and does not feed back into the central usability claim. The absence of a power analysis or equivalence test for the null results is a genuine statistical limitation, but it concerns inferential validity rather than circularity. No circular step meets the required evidence bar.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper has no mathematical derivation, so the ledger captures the empirical assumptions that the conclusions rest on: the validity of eye-tracking measures, the consistency of the LLM, and the adequacy of the sample size for equivalence claims.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Eye-tracking metrics are valid proxies for cognitive load and attention in VR.
    Used to interpret fixation rate, saccade duration, and pupil diameter as engagement/cognitive load in Sections 3.2.5 and 4.2.
  • domain assumption The I-VT thresholds in Table 1 correctly segment fixations and saccades for this dataset.
    Section 3.2.6 applies these thresholds without validation on the collected data.
  • domain assumption ChatGPT-4o produces consistent and correct destination coordinates from free-form commands.
    Section 3.1.3 relies on LLM output; no response-quality audit is reported.
  • domain assumption Between-subjects assignment yields comparable groups on relevant experience and spatial ability.
    Section 3.2.3 uses a between-subjects design; no per-condition breakdown of prior VR experience is provided.
  • domain assumption Standard questionnaires are valid and reliable for the study population.
    SUS, IPQ, CSQ-VR, NASA-TLX are used as dependent measures in Section 3.2.5.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exploring Context-aware and LLM-driven Locomotion for Immersive Virtual Reality." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BYXPLAZP

@misc{pith2026250417331,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exploring Context-aware and LLM-driven Locomotion for Immersive Virtual Reality},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BYXPLAZP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.17331}
}
read the original abstract

Locomotion plays a crucial role in shaping the user experience within virtual reality environments. In particular, hands-free locomotion offers a valuable alternative by supporting accessibility and freeing users from reliance on handheld controllers. To this end, traditional speech-based methods often depend on rigid command sets, limiting the naturalness and flexibility of interaction. In this study, we propose a novel locomotion technique powered by large language models (LLMs), which allows users to navigate virtual environments using natural language with contextual awareness. We evaluate three locomotion methods: controller-based teleportation, voice-based steering, and our language model-driven approach. Our evaluation combines eye-tracking data analysis, including exploratory explainable machine learning analysis with SHAP, and standardized questionnaires (SUS, IPQ, CSQ-VR, NASA-TLX) to examine user experience through both objective gaze-based measures and subjective self-reports of usability, presence, cybersickness, and cognitive load. Our findings show no statistically significant differences in usability, presence, or cybersickness between LLM-driven locomotion and established methods such as teleportation, suggesting its potential as a viable, natural language-based, hands-free alternative. In addition, eye-tracking analysis revealed patterns suggesting tendency toward increased user attention and engagement in the LLM-driven condition. Complementary to these findings, exploratory SHAP analysis revealed that fixation, saccade, and pupil-related features vary across techniques, indicating distinct patterns of visual attention and cognitive processing. Overall, we state that our method can facilitate hands-free locomotion in virtual spaces, especially in supporting accessibility.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.17331 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of our LLM-driven locomotion system in VR. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Top-down view of the virtual environment with the blue ‘X’ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. presents the participants’ task completion times across the three locomotion conditions. On average, participants com￾pleted the task in M = 96.45, SD = 57.76s using teleportation, M = 270.77, SD = 84.67s with the LLM-driven locomotion, and M = 275.32, SD = 183.38s with the fixed voice command ap￾proach. As expected, teleportation was the fastest method, serv￾ing as the baseline for comparison. A one-way ANOVA revea… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Results for fixation rates [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: illustrates the CSQ-VR scores across locomotion tech￾niques, covering overall cybersickness as well as the subcategories of nausea, vestibular, and oculomotor symptoms. The general score range for the CSQ-VR questionnaire is between 0 and 12 for nau￾sea, vestibular, an…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: IPQ Scores [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: SHAP summary plot showing the 20 most important fea [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. SEER-VAR: Semantic Egocentric Environment Reasoner for Vehicle Augmented Reality

    cs.CV 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    A framework that fuses semantic grounding, dual-branch SLAM, and an LLM to generate context-aware AR overlays for egocentric driving, evaluated on a new dataset.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 76 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Agtzidis, M

    I. Agtzidis, M. Startsev, and M. Dorr. 360-degree video gaze be- haviour: A ground-truth data set and a classification algorithm for eye movements. InProceedings of the 27th ACM international conference on multimedia, 2019. 5

    2019

  2. [2]

    Alfaro, R

    L. Alfaro, R. Linares, and J. Herrera. Scientific articles exploration system model based in immersive virtual reality and natural language processing techniques.International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 9(7), 2018. 2

    2018

  3. [3]

    Anderton, C

    C. Anderton, C. Creed, S. Sarcar, and A. Theil. From teleportation to climbing: A review of locomotion techniques in the most used com- mercial virtual reality applications.International Journal of Human– Computer Interaction, 41(4), 2025. 2, 3

    2025

  4. [4]

    M. S. Ayhan, A. Y . Ong, E. Ruffell, S. K. Wagner, D. A. Merle, and P. A. Keane. In-context learning for data-efficient classification of diabetic retinopathy with multimodal foundation models.medRxiv,

  5. [5]

    J. Bates. Virtual reality, art, and entertainment.Presence: Teleopera- tors & Virtual Environments, 1(1), 1992. 1

    work page 1992

  6. [6]

    J. Beatty. Task-evoked pupillary responses, processing load, and the structure of processing resources.Psychological bulletin, 91(2), 1982. 5

    work page 1982

  7. [7]

    Benedetto, M

    S. Benedetto, M. Pedrotti, L. Minin, T. Baccino, A. Re, and R. Monta- nari. Driver workload and eye blink duration.Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour, 14(3), 2011. 5

    work page 2011

  8. [8]

    are you feeling sick?

    N. Biswas, A. Mukherjee, and S. Bhattacharya. “are you feeling sick?”–a systematic literature review of cybersickness in virtual re- ality.ACM Computing Surveys, 56(11):1–38, 2024. 9

    work page 2024

Show all 84 references
  1. [9]

    Blattgerste, P

    J. Blattgerste, P. Renner, and T. Pfeiffer. Advantages of eye-gaze over head-gaze-based selection in virtual and augmented reality under varying field of views. InProceedings of the workshop on communi- cation by gaze interaction, 2018. 3

    2018

  2. [10]

    D. A. Bowman, D. Koller, and L. F. Hodges. Travel in immersive vir- tual environments: An evaluation of viewpoint motion control tech- niques. InProceedings of IEEE 1997 Annual International Sympo- sium on Virtual Reality. IEEE, 1997. 2

    1997

  3. [11]

    Bozgeyikli, A

    E. Bozgeyikli, A. Raij, S. Katkoori, and R. Dubey. Point & teleport locomotion technique for virtual reality. InProceedings of the 2016 annual symposium on computer-human interaction in play, 2016. 2, 3

    2016

  4. [12]

    Bozgeyikli, A

    E. Bozgeyikli, A. Raij, S. Katkoori, and R. Dubey. Locomotion in virtual reality for room scale tracked areas.International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 122, 2019. 1, 2

    2019

  5. [13]

    Bozkir, D

    E. Bozkir, D. Geisler, and E. Kasneci. Assessment of driver attention during a safety critical situation in vr to generate vr-based training. In ACM Symposium on Applied Perception 2019, 2019. 5

    2019

  6. [14]

    Bozkir, D

    E. Bozkir, D. Geisler, and E. Kasneci. Person independent, privacy preserving, and real time assessment of cognitive load using eye track- ing in a virtual reality setup. In2019 IEEE conference on virtual re- ality and 3D user interfaces (VR). IEEE, 2019. 5

    2019

  7. [15]

    Bozkir, S

    E. Bozkir, S. ¨Ozdel, K. H. C. Lau, M. Wang, H. Gao, and E. Kas- neci. Embedding large language models into extended reality: Op- portunities and challenges for inclusion, engagement, and privacy. In Proceedings of the 6th ACM Conference on Conversational User In- terfaces, 2024. 1, 3

    2024

  8. [16]

    Brooke et al

    J. Brooke et al. Sus-a quick and dirty usability scale.Usability evalu- ation in industry, 189(194), 1996. 2, 5

    1996

  9. [17]

    Bruder, V

    G. Bruder, V . Interrante, L. Phillips, and F. Steinicke. Redirecting walking and driving for natural navigation in immersive virtual envi- ronments.IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics, 18(4), 2012. 2

    2012

  10. [18]

    K. B. Buldu, S. ¨Ozdel, K. H. C. Lau, M. Wang, D. Saad, S. Sch¨onborn, A. Boch, E. Kasneci, and E. Bozkir. CUIfy the XR: An open- source package to embed llm-powered conversational agents in XR. In2025 IEEE International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and eXtended and V...

    2025

  11. [19]

    Caggianese, N

    G. Caggianese, N. Capece, U. Erra, L. Gallo, and M. Rinaldi. Freehand-steering locomotion techniques for immersive virtual en- vironments: A comparative evaluation.International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 36(18):1734–1755, 2020. 3

    2020

  12. [20]

    Calandra, F

    D. Calandra, F. Lamberti, and M. Migliorini. On the usability of consumer locomotion techniques in serious games: Comparing arm swinging, treadmills and walk-in-place. In2019 IEEE 9th Inter- national Conference on Consumer Electronics (ICCE-Berlin). IEEE,

  13. [21]

    Calandra, F

    D. Calandra, F. G. Prattic `o, and F. Lamberti. Comparison of hands- free speech-based navigation techniques for virtual reality training. In 2022 IEEE 21st Mediterranean Electrotechnical Conference (MELE- CON). IEEE, 2022. 2, 3, 4

    2022

  14. [22]

    I. Cho, J. Li, and Z. Wartell. Multi-scale 7dof view adjustment.IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics, 24(3), 2017. 2

    2017

  15. [23]

    C. G. Christou and P. Aristidou. Steering versus teleport locomotion for head mounted displays. InAugmented Reality, Virtual Reality, and Computer Graphics: 4th International Conference, AVR 2017, Ugento, Italy, June 12-15, 2017, Proceedings, Part II 4. Springer,

    2017

  16. [24]

    Ciftci, X

    U. Ciftci, X. Zhang, and L. Tin. Partially occluded facial action recog- nition and interaction in virtual reality applications. In2017 IEEE In- ternational Conference on Multimedia and Expo (ICME). IEEE, 2017. 3

    2017

  17. [25]

    Clifton and S

    J. Clifton and S. Palmisano. Effects of steering locomotion and tele- porting on cybersickness and presence in hmd-based virtual reality. Virtual Reality, 24(3), 2020. 1

    2020

  18. [26]

    Coomer, S

    N. Coomer, S. Bullard, W. Clinton, and B. Williams-Sanders. Evalu- ating the effects of four vr locomotion methods: joystick, arm-cycling, point-tugging, and teleporting. InProceedings of the 15th ACM sym- posium on applied perception, 2018. 1, 2

    2018

  19. [27]

    De La Torre, C

    F. De La Torre, C. M. Fang, H. Huang, A. Banburski-Fahey, J. Amores Fernandez, and J. Lanier. LLMR: Real-time prompting of interactive worlds using large language models. InProceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM,

  20. [28]

    M. K. Eckstein, B. Guerra-Carrillo, A. T. M. Singley, and S. A. Bunge. Beyond eye gaze: What else can eyetracking reveal about cognition and cognitive development?Developmental cognitive neuroscience, 25:69–91, 2017. 5

    2017

  21. [29]

    Farinazzo Martins, P

    V . Farinazzo Martins, P. N. M. Sampaio, F. da S. Mendes, A. San- tos Lima, and M. Paiva Guimar ˜aes. Usability and functionality as- sessment of an oculus rift in immersive and interactive systems using voice commands. InVirtual, Augmented and Mixed Reality, 2016. 2

    2016

  22. [30]

    Feasel, M

    J. Feasel, M. C. Whitton, and J. D. Wendt. Llcm-wip: Low-latency, continuous-motion walking-in-place. In2008 IEEE symposium on 3D user interfaces. IEEE, 2008. 2

    2008

  23. [31]

    Ferracani, M

    A. Ferracani, M. Faustino, G. X. Giannini, L. Landucci, and A. Del Bimbo. Natural experiences in museums through virtual reality and voice commands. InProceedings of the 25th ACM international conference on Multimedia, 2017. 1, 2, 4

    2017

  24. [32]

    Gallo, G

    L. Gallo, G. De Pietro, A. Coronato, and I. Marra. Toward a natural interface to virtual medical imaging environments. InProceedings of the working conference on Advanced visual interfaces, 2008. 2

    2008

  25. [33]

    H. Gao, E. Bozkir, L. Hasenbein, J.-U. Hahn, R. G ¨ollner, and E. Kas- neci. Digital transformations of classrooms in virtual reality. InPro- ceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Comput- ing Systems, 2021. 1, 5

    2021

  26. [34]

    Gelsomini, G

    M. Gelsomini, G. Leonardi, and F. Garzotto. Embodied learning in immersive smart spaces. InProceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, 2020. 3

    2020

  27. [35]

    Halbig, S

    A. Halbig, S. K. Babu, S. Gatter, M. E. Latoschik, K. Brukamp, and S. V on Mammen. Opportunities and challenges of virtual reality in healthcare–a domain experts inquiry.Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 3,

  28. [36]

    S. G. Hart and L. E. Staveland. Development of nasa-tlx (task load index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. InAdvances in psychology, vol. 52. Elsevier, 1988. 2, 5

    1988

  29. [37]

    Hepperle, Y

    D. Hepperle, Y . Weiß, A. Siess, and M. W ¨olfel. 2d, 3d or speech? a case study on which user interface is preferable for what kind of object interaction in immersive virtual reality.Computers & Graphics, 82,

  30. [38]

    Holmqvist, M

    K. Holmqvist, M. Nystr ¨om, R. Andersson, R. Dewhurst, H. Jarodzka, and J. Van de Weijer.Eye tracking: A comprehensive guide to methods and measures. OUP Oxford, 2011. 5

    2011

  31. [39]

    Hombeck, H

    J. Hombeck, H. V oigt, T. Heggemann, R. R. Datta, and K. Lawonn. Tell me where to go: V oice-controlled hands-free locomotion for vir- tual reality systems. In2023 IEEE Conference Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR). IEEE, 2023. 1, 2, 3, 4

    2023

  32. [40]

    J. F. Hopstaken, D. Van Der Linden, A. B. Bakker, and M. A. Kom- pier. The window of my eyes: Task disengagement and mental fatigue covary with pupil dynamics.Biological psychology, 110, 2015. 5

    2015

  33. [41]

    R. Hou, T. F ¨utterer, B. B¨uhler, E. Bozkir, P. Gerjets, U. Trautwein, and E. Kasneci. Automated assessment of encouragement and warmth in classrooms leveraging multimodal emotional features and chatgpt. In Artificial Intelligence in Education. Springer Nature, 2024. 3

    2024

  34. [42]

    R. J. Jacob. The use of eye movements in human-computer interaction techniques: what you look at is what you get.ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), 9(2), 1991. 3

    1991

  35. [43]

    M. A. Just and P. A. Carpenter. A theory of reading: from eye fixations to comprehension.Psychological review, 87(4), 1980. 5

    1980

  36. [44]

    Kasneci, H

    E. Kasneci, H. Gao, S. Ozdel, V . Maquiling, E. Thaqi, C. Lau, Y . Rong, G. Kasneci, and E. Bozkir. Introduction to eye tracking: A hands-on tutorial for students and practitioners.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.15435, 2024. 5

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Kourtesis, J

    P. Kourtesis, J. Linnell, R. Amir, F. Argelaguet, and S. E. MacPherson. Cybersickness in virtual reality questionnaire (csq-vr): A validation and comparison against ssq and vrsq. InVirtual Worlds, 2023. 2, 5

    2023

  38. [46]

    Langbehn, P

    E. Langbehn, P. Lubos, and F. Steinicke. Evaluation of locomo- tion techniques for room-scale vr: Joystick, teleportation, and redi- rected walking. InProceedings of the Virtual Reality International Conference-Laval Virtual, 2018. 2

    2018

  39. [47]

    K. H. C. Lau, B. Yun, S. Saruba, E. Bozkir, and E. Kasneci. Wrapped in anansi’s web: Unweaving the impacts of generative-ai personaliza- tion and vr immersion in oral storytelling, 2024. doi: 10.48550/arXiv .2409.16894 3

    2024 doi arXiv

  40. [48]

    J. Liu, H. Parekh, M. Al-Zayer, and E. Folmer. Increasing walking in vr using redirected teleportation. InProceedings of the 31st annual ACM symposium on user interface software and technology, 2018. 2

    2018

  41. [49]

    S. Liu, G. Lee, Y . Li, T. Piumsomboon, and B. Ens. Force-based foot gesture navigation in virtual reality. InProceedings of the 27th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology, 2021. 1

    2021

  42. [50]

    S. M. Lundberg and S.-I. Lee. A unified approach to interpreting model predictions.Advances in neural information processing sys- tems, 30, 2017. 2, 6

    2017

  43. [51]

    X. Ma, Z. Yao, Y . Wang, W. Pei, and H. Chen. Combining brain- computer interface and eye tracking for high-speed text entry in vir- tual reality. InProceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, 2018. 3

    2018

  44. [52]

    Mardanbegi and T

    D. Mardanbegi and T. Pfeiffer. Eyemrtk: A toolkit for developing eye gaze interactive applications in virtual and augmented reality. In Proceedings of the 11th ACM Symposium on Eye Tracking Research & Applications, 2019. 3

    2019

  45. [53]

    E. S. Martinez, A. S. Wu, and R. P. McMahan. Research trends in virtual reality locomotion techniques. In2022 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR). IEEE, 2022. 2

    2022

  46. [54]

    Math ˆot, J

    S. Math ˆot, J. Fabius, E. Van Heusden, and S. Van der Stigchel. Safe and sensible preprocessing and baseline correction of pupil-size data. Behavior research methods, 50, 2018. 5

    2018

  47. [55]

    Mayor, L

    J. Mayor, L. Raya, and A. Sanchez. A comparative study of virtual reality methods of interaction and locomotion based on presence, cy- bersickness, and usability.IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computing, 9(3), 2019. 3

    2019

  48. [56]

    Medeiros, E

    D. Medeiros, E. Cordeiro, D. Mendes, M. Sousa, A. Raposo, A. Fer- reira, and J. Jorge. Effects of speed and transitions on target-based travel techniques. InProceedings of the 22Nd ACM Conference on Virtual Reality Software and Technology, 2016. 2

    2016

  49. [57]

    X. Meng, W. Xu, and H.-N. Liang. An exploration of hands-free text selection for virtual reality head-mounted displays. In2022 IEEE In- ternational Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR),

  50. [58]

    Monteiro, G

    P. Monteiro, G. Gonc ¸alves, H. Coelho, M. Melo, and M. Bessa. Hands-free interaction in immersive virtual reality: A systematic re- view.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 27(5), 2021. 2

    2021

  51. [59]

    Oculus VR, LLC.Oculus Best Practices, 2017. 3

    2017

  52. [60]

    Hello gpt-4o, 2024

    OpenAI. Hello gpt-4o, 2024. Accessed: 2024-08-30. 4

    2024

  53. [61]

    S. F. Paulo, D. Medeiros, P. B. Borges, J. Jorge, and D. S. Lopes. Improving camera travel for immersive colonography. In2020 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces Abstracts and Workshops (VRW). IEEE, 2020. 2

    2020

  54. [62]

    Prithul, I

    A. Prithul, I. B. Adhanom, and E. Folmer. Teleportation in virtual reality; a mini-review.Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 2, 2021. 1, 3

    2021

  55. [63]

    Y . Y . Qian and R. J. Teather. Look to go: An empirical evaluation of eye-based travel in virtual reality. InProceedings of the 2018 ACM Symposium on Spatial User Interaction, 2018. 2

    2018

  56. [64]

    Radford, J

    A. Radford, J. W. Kim, T. Xu, G. Brockman, C. McLeavey, and I. Sutskever. Robust speech recognition via large-scale weak super- vision. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning, 2023. 4

    2023

  57. [65]

    Raees, S

    M. Raees, S. Ullah, and S. U. Rahman. Ven-3dve: vision based ego- centric navigation for 3d virtual environments.International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing (IJIDeM), 13(1), 2019. 2

    2019

  58. [66]

    Rahimi, C

    K. Rahimi, C. Banigan, and E. D. Ragan. Scene transitions and tele- portation in virtual reality and the implications for spatial awareness and sickness.IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graph- ics, 26(6), 2018. 2

    2018

  59. [67]

    D. D. Salvucci and J. H. Goldberg. Identifying fixations and saccades in eye-tracking protocols. InProceedings of the 2000 symposium on Eye tracking research & applications, 2000. 5

    2000

  60. [68]

    S. P. Sargunam and E. D. Ragan. Evaluating joystick control for view rotation in virtual reality with continuous turning, discrete turning, and field-of-view reduction. InProceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Interactive and Spatial Computing, 2018. 2

    2018

  61. [69]

    Savitzky and M

    A. Savitzky and M. J. Golay. Smoothing and differentiation of data by simplified least squares procedures.Analytical chemistry, 36(8),

  62. [70]

    B. L. Schroeder, S. K. Bailey, C. I. Johnson, and E. Gonzalez-Holland. Presence and usability do not directly predict procedural recall in vir- tual reality training. InInternational conference on human-computer interaction. Springer, 2017. 2

    2017

  63. [71]

    Schubert, F

    T. Schubert, F. Friedmann, and H. Regenbrecht. The experience of presence: Factor analytic insights.Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 10(3), 2001. 2, 5

    2001

  64. [72]

    Schubert, F

    T. Schubert, F. Friedmann, and H. Regenbrecht. Igroup presence ques- tionnaire (ipq).https://www.igroup.org/pq/ipq/index.php,

  65. [73]

    Shmyrev and V

    N. Shmyrev and V . C. Team. V osk speech recognition toolkit: offline speech recognition api for android, ios, raspberry pi and servers with python, java, c# and node, 2020. 3, 4

    2020

  66. [74]

    M. Sra, X. Xu, and P. Maes. Breathvr: Leveraging breathing as a directly controlled interface for virtual reality games. InProceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems,

    2018

  67. [75]

    C. T. Tan, L. C. Foo, A. Yeo, J. S. A. Lee, E. Wan, X.-F. K. Kok, and M. Rajendran. Understanding user experiences across vr walking-in- place locomotion methods. InProceedings of the 2022 CHI Confer- ence on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2022. 2

    2022

  68. [76]

    Varjo XR-3: Mixed reality headset, 2024

    Varjo Technologies. Varjo XR-3: Mixed reality headset, 2024. Ac- cessed: 2024-09-12. 4

    2024

  69. [77]

    Wehden, F

    L.-O. Wehden, F. Reer, R. Janzik, W. Y . Tang, and T. Quandt. The slippery path to total presence: How omnidirectional virtual reality treadmills influence the gaming experience.Media and Communica- tion, 9(1), 2021. 2

    2021

  70. [78]

    P. T. Wilson, W. Kalescky, A. MacLaughlin, and B. Williams. Vr lo- comotion: walking¿ walking in place¿ arm swinging. InProceedings of the 15th ACM SIGGRAPH conference on virtual-reality continuum and its applications in industry-volume 1, 2016. 2

    2016

  71. [79]

    B. Xie, H. Liu, R. Alghofaili, Y . Zhang, Y . Jiang, F. D. Lobo, C. Li, W. Li, H. Huang, M. Akdere, et al. A review on virtual reality skill training applications.Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 2, 2021. 1

    2021

  72. [80]

    Zagermann, U

    J. Zagermann, U. Pfeil, and H. Reiterer. Measuring cognitive load using eye tracking technology in visual computing. InProceedings of the sixth workshop on beyond time and errors on novel evaluation methods for visualization, 2016. 5

    2016

  73. [2001]

    Accessed: 2025-03-21. 5

    2025

  74. [2022]

    doi: 10.1109/ISMAR55827.2022.00021 2

    2022

  75. [2024]

    doi: 10.1145/3613904.3642579 3

  76. [2025]

    doi: 10.1101/2025.03.09.25323618 3

    2025 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.