Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 65 references

Investigating the Influence of Playback Interactivity during Guided Tours for Asynchronous Collaboration in Virtual Reality

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Adding required interactions to a recorded VR tour—pausing playback until the observer mimics the guide's navigation and pointing—improves what the observer remembers and how engaged they feel, relative to passive playback.

desk verdict A competent VR user study whose headline claim about interactivity improving recall overreaches: the only significant recall gains are against a confounded passive-video baseline, not against the viewpoint-control condition. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.00880 v1 pith:CICC3UF4 submitted 2025-02-02 cs.HC

Alexander Giovannelli , Leonardo Pavanatto , Shakiba Davari , Haichao Miao , Vuthea Chheang , Brian Giera , Peer-Timo Bremer , Doug Bowman This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords virtualrealityasynchronouscollaborationguidedtoursplaybackinteractivityinformationrecalluserexperienceadditivemanufacturingcollaborativeenvironments
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 adding required interactions to a recorded VR guided tour—pausing playback until the observer mimics the guide's navigation and gaze—improves what the observer remembers and how engaged they feel, relative to passive playback. The evidence comes from a between-subjects study of 40 participants in four conditions: fully passive video, free viewpoint with no interactions, viewpoint plus navigation interactions, and full interactivity. Interactive viewing significantly improved auditory recall over passive viewing, and both full interactivity and mere free viewpoint improved spatial recall over passive viewing. Passive viewing was also rated significantly worse on engagement, usability, and reward, and produced more simulator sickness. If right, the work gives concrete guidance for designing asynchronous VR collaboration systems: build in playback interactions and let observers control their own viewpoint.

What carries the argument

The central object is the 'guide mimicry' playback system: the tour pauses at key moments (scale changes, pointing, viewpoint sharing, and plane placement) and resumes only when the observer reproduces the guide's action—navigating down or up, pointing at the guide's controller, aligning their head in the guide's head (WYSIWIS), or docking the cutting plane. This mechanism forces the observer's motor and attentional system to re-enact the guide's exploration, which the paper links to embodied cognition accounts of perception. It also gives the experiment its independent variable: the amount of mimicry required.

What would settle it

Run a follow-up experiment with a fifth condition: the same first-person guide video played in the 3D environment with full head-tracked viewpoint control but no movement and no required interactions. If that condition's spatial and auditory recall match the RAILS (free-viewpoint, no-interaction) condition, then the benefits come from viewpoint control rather than from the playback interactions; if it matches PASSIVE, the benefits come from being physically inside the environment rather than watching a flat screen.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the extent of interactivity in guided tour playback matters measurably for recall and experience. Participants who could see the tour from their own viewpoint in the environment (RAILS) and those who additionally had to perform the guide's actions (INTERACTIVE) both located defects significantly more accurately than participants who watched a first-person video on a flat virtual display (PASSIVE). Those who performed the full set of mimicking interactions also recalled significantly more of the guide's spoken content than the passive group. The paper interprets this as evidence that embodied, active exploration—not just viewing—supports information retention in asynchronous VR collaboration, and it concludes that independent viewpoint control is the main driver of user experience, with additional interactivity adding recall benefits.

Load-bearing premise

The study treats the four conditions as differing only in how much interaction they allow, but the PASSIVE condition also removes the observer's own embodied viewpoint in the environment, so the recall and engagement gains attributed to interactivity could instead come from that difference in viewpoint control.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Asynchronous expert tours in VR—such as inspection walkthroughs—should let the later observer control their own viewpoint, not just play back a first-person video.
  • Adding required mimicry interactions to playback, pausing until the user performs the guide's navigation or pointing, can measurably raise recall of the tour's spoken content.
  • Spatial recall benefits from at least free viewpoint in the environment; the strongest spatial recall in this study came with full interactivity, though not significantly better than free viewpoint alone.
  • Passive video-in-VR playback risks lower engagement, higher frustration, and more simulator sickness; designers should avoid it as a baseline.
  • Recall benefits appeared both immediately and after a buffer activity, suggesting the improvements are not merely short-lived.
  • No significant differences were found between conditions on simulator sickness increases overall, though the passive group showed significant pre-post increases on all subscales.
  • The interactive condition produced the highest average verbal and spatial recall scores, even though only the comparison with passive viewing reached significance.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The study's own null result—viewpoint plus navigation interactions did not beat passive viewing on spatial recall—suggests the spatial benefit may come from viewpoint control rather than from the interactions themselves; a follow-up that adds head-tracked viewpoint to passive video playback would separate these factors.
  • If the mimicry mechanism works through embodied attention, then the number and timing of pauses likely matter: too many required actions could interrupt narrative flow, and the paper notes some participants navigated ahead of the guide, so adaptive or time-limited interaction prompts are worth testing.
  • The results may generalize beyond manufacturing to any narrated spatial task—medical anatomy tours, safety walkthroughs, or historical reconstructions—where later observers must remember both what was said and where things are located.
  • Because the same tour content was used across all conditions, the measured differences are attributable to delivery mode; applying the same interaction design to user-generated recordings rather than confederate recordings could test whether real experts' tours benefit the same way.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a VR guided-tour system for asynchronous collaboration in additive manufacturing inspection, in which a recorded guiding avatar narrates an inspection and pauses playback for the observer to perform mimicry interactions. A between-subjects study (N=40, n=10 per condition) compared four conditions: PASSIVE (first-person video on a virtual display), RAILS (embodied viewpoint without playback interactions), NAVIGATION (multiscale navigation interactions), and INTERACTIVE (navigation plus perspective-sharing interactions). Dependent measures were custom verbal and spatial recall tests, SSQ, UES-SF, NASA-TLX, a 1-10 revisit rating, and an interview. The authors report that INTERACTIVE significantly outperformed PASSIVE on verbal recall, that INTERACTIVE and RAILS significantly outperformed PASSIVE on spatial recall, and that PASSIVE was rated lower on several experience dimensions. They conclude that viewpoint control improves experience and that additional interactivity can improve recall.

Significance. The work addresses a genuinely under-studied area: asynchronous collaboration in CVEs via guided tours, and it contributes a concrete interaction design with four incremental levels plus a mixed-method evaluation. The statistical reporting is generally careful: nonparametric tests, Holm-Bonferroni correction for questionnaires, ART ANOVA with Tukey-corrected contrasts for recall data, and explicit hypotheses stated before the experiment. If the recall findings were supported, they would justify design guidance for interactive playback in asynchronous VR tours. However, the strongest claimed result, that extra interactivity beyond viewpoint control improves recall, is not supported by the reported pairwise contrasts, because the only significant recall differences are against PASSIVE, a condition that lacks both interactivity and embodied viewpoint control. The study still provides useful exploratory evidence and qualitative insight, but the conclusions must be substantially reframed.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.5, §5.6, §6.1] The abstract and conclusion claim that 'additional interactivity can improve auditory and spatial recall,' but no significant difference between INTERACTIVE and RAILS or between INTERACTIVE and NAVIGATION was found on either recall measure. RAILS has no playback interactions but does have embodied viewpoint control; therefore the only comparison that isolates added interactivity from viewpoint control, INTERACTIVE vs. RAILS, is non-significant. The sentence in §6.1 ('The evidence, therefore, suggests that additional interactivity beyond simple viewpoint control can help increase observers' recall') is not statistically supported by the reported contrasts. Please reframe the central claim as 'embodied viewpoint control improves recall relative to passive video playback' and present any benefit of additional playback interactions as exploratory.
  2. [§4.3] The PASSIVE condition is confounded: it is a first-person video displayed on a virtual screen one meter away in an empty VE, whereas all other conditions place the participant inside the environment with head-tracked viewpoint control. Consequently, every PASSIVE-versus-other comparison in §§5.2, 5.4, 5.5, and 5.6 conflates playback interactivity with immersion and embodiment. This is not merely a wording issue; it undermines the attribution of recall and experience differences to interactivity. The correct no-interactivity control is RAILS, which provides embodied viewpoint control without playback interactions. The manuscript should present RAILS as the primary baseline for isolating interactivity and explicitly state that PASSIVE differences cannot be attributed to interactivity alone.
  3. [§4.2, Table 1, §5.5] The recall instruments are short (three verbal and three spatial items per test), the verbal items are binary-scored with no partial credit, and no pilot validation or reliability evidence is reported. With n=10 per condition, the null comparisons (e.g., INTERACTIVE vs. RAILS) have low power and cannot be interpreted as evidence of no difference. The paper should either report sensitivity or power analyses with confidence intervals for the key contrasts, or explicitly label the recall-related conclusions as preliminary and hypothesis-generating.
  4. [§6.2] The discussion describes the PASSIVE condition as a 'third-person perspective,' but §4.3 defines it as a first-person video shown on a virtual display one meter away. This inconsistency reflects the same confound and should be reconciled. In addition, the abstract's phrase 'fully passive playback' should be qualified: the PASSIVE condition is not only passive in interaction but also lacks embodied viewpoint control and physical immersion, so the phrase overstates what the comparison can show.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§2.1] The name 'Gaylean' should be 'Galyean' when referring to the guided-navigation author.
  2. [Table 1 and §4.5] The tests are called 'Test A' and 'Test B' in Table 1 but 'Test 1' and 'Test 2' in the procedure section; please use consistent labels.
  3. [§6.2] The phrase 'a significant pairing with the I NTERACTION condition' should read 'the INTERACTIVE condition.'
  4. [Figures 3 and 4] The figures use asterisks for significance but do not report effect sizes or confidence intervals; adding these, or at least reporting the mean and standard error in the text for each significant pair, would strengthen the presentation.
  5. [§4.3] The name 'RAILS' is never explained; a one-sentence definition of the term would help readers understand the condition name.
  6. [References] Some references contain encoding artifacts (e.g., 'Fr´econ & N¨ou'); please clean the LaTeX source so author names render correctly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular reasoning: hypotheses, conditions, and measures are defined independently; all recall and experience conclusions are measured outcomes from a between-subjects user study.

full rationale

The paper is an empirical user study rather than a derivation. The research questions (RQ1, RQ2) and hypotheses (H1.1, H1.2, H2.1–H2.3) are stated before data collection in Section 4.4, the four conditions are explicitly defined in Section 4.3, and the dependent measures (SSQ, UES-SF, NASA-TLX, custom verbal and spatial recall tests) are standard or custom instruments described in Section 4.2. The reported conclusions are statistical comparisons of measured outcomes, e.g., Section 5.5 reports 'the difference in audio recall scores between the INTERACTIVE and PASSIVE conditions were statistically significant (p = 0.04)', and Section 5.6 reports significant spatial recall differences for INTERACTIVE versus PASSIVE and RAILS versus PASSIVE. No parameter is fitted and then renamed as a prediction, no outcome is defined in terms of an input variable, and no central claim is justified solely by a self-citation. The self-citations that appear (e.g., references [5], [17], and [28]) are contextual background or prior system work and are not load-bearing for the reported findings. The reviewer's concern that the PASSIVE condition confounds interactivity with lack of embodied viewpoint control is a threat to construct validity and causal interpretation, not a form of circularity under the stated criteria. The paper also acknowledges the viewpoint-control interpretation in Section 6.1 by citing a prior viewpoint-control comparison and in Section 6.2 by attributing PASSIVE's worse experience to 'the distinct design of the PASSIVE condition, in which participants did not control the tour's viewpoint.' Therefore, no self-definitional, fitted-input, self-citation, uniqueness-importation, ansatz-smuggling, or renaming pattern is present, and the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The study is empirical and introduces no fitted parameters or invented theoretical entities. The main assumptions are about the measurement instruments, the isolation of the independent variable, and the statistical power of the design.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The custom recall tests (two verbal and two spatial questions per test) are valid measures of the information conveyed in the tour.
    Recall is measured only through these six questions, and no reliability or validity evidence is provided for them.
  • domain assumption The PASSIVE condition differs from the other conditions only in interactivity and not in immersion or viewpoint control.
    PASSIVE shows the tour as a video on a virtual display in an empty VE, while other conditions place the user inside the environment with head-based viewpoint control, creating a confound.
  • domain assumption A sample of ten participants per condition is adequate to detect meaningful effects on recall and user experience.
    The authors themselves list the small sample size as a limitation and note nonsignificant trends in the NASA-TLX dimensions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Investigating the Influence of Playback Interactivity during Guided Tours for Asynchronous Collaboration in Virtual Reality." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CICC3UF4

@misc{pith2026250200880,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Investigating the Influence of Playback Interactivity during Guided Tours for Asynchronous Collaboration in Virtual Reality},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CICC3UF4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.00880}
}
read the original abstract

Collaborative virtual environments allow workers to contribute to team projects across space and time. While much research has closely examined the problem of working in different spaces at the same time, few have investigated the best practices for collaborating in those spaces at different times aside from textual and auditory annotations. We designed a system that allows experts to record a tour inside a virtual inspection space, preserving knowledge and providing later observers with insights through a 3D playback of the expert's inspection. We also created several interactions to ensure that observers are tracking the tour and remaining engaged. We conducted a user study to evaluate the influence of these interactions on an observing user's information recall and user experience. Findings indicate that independent viewpoint control during a tour enhances the user experience compared to fully passive playback and that additional interactivity can improve auditory and spatial recall of key information conveyed during the tour.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.00880 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. View of the inspection environment from the participant’s field of view with corresponding yellow pause interaction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Exocentric views of the VEs used in the experiment. A: Setup VE showing the participant’s avatar in its empty skybox. B: Training [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Bar charts of questionnaire scores. Significantly different pairs are marked with * when [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Bar charts of collected test responses for verbal and spatial questions from Table [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Argyle et al

    M. Argyle et al. Social situations. Cambridge University Press, 1981. 4

    work page 1981

  2. [2]

    Bell et al

    B. Bell et al. View management for virtual and augmented reality. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual ACM Symposium on User Inter- face Software and Technology , UIST ’01, p. 101–110. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY , USA, 2001. doi: 10.1145/ 502348.502363 2

    arXiv

  3. [3]

    K. Best. Making museum tours better: understanding what a guided tour really is and what a tour guide really does. Museum Management and Curatorship, 27(1):35–52, 2012. doi: 10.1080/09647775.2012. 644695 2

    work page arXiv 2012

  4. [4]

    D. A. Bowman et al. Information-rich virtual environments: theory, tools, and research agenda. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology, VRST ’03, p. 81–90. As- sociation for Computing Machinery, New York, NY , USA, 2003. doi: 10.1145/1008653.1008669 2

    work page arXiv 2003

  5. [5]

    Chheang et al

    V . Chheang et al. A virtual environment for collaborative inspection in additive manufacturing. In Extended Abstracts of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , CHI EA ’24. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY , USA, 2024. doi: 10.1145/3613905.3650730 2

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Cho et al

    H. Cho et al. Realityreplay: Detecting and replaying temporal changes in situ using mixed reality. Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiq- uitous Technol., 7(3), Sept. 2023. doi: 10.1145/3610888 3

    doi:10.1145/3610888 2023

  7. [7]

    Chow et al

    K. Chow et al. Challenges and design considerations for multimodal asynchronous collaboration in vr.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., 3(CSCW), nov 2019. doi: 10.1145/3359142 3

    work page doi:10.1145/3359142 2019

  8. [8]

    E. F. Churchill et al. Collaborative virtual environments: an intro- ductory review of issues and systems. virtual reality, 3:3–15, 1998. 1

    work page 1998

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    Clergeaud et al

    D. Clergeaud et al. Design of an annotation system for taking notes in virtual reality. In 2017 3DTV Conference: The True Vision - Capture, Transmission and Display of 3D Video (3DTV-CON), pp. 1–4, 2017. doi: 10.1109/3DTV.2017.8280398 2

    2017

  2. [11]

    Ens et al

    B. Ens et al. Revisiting collaboration through mixed reality: The evolution of groupware. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 131:81–98, 2019. 50 years of the International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. Reflections on the past, present and future of human-cen...

    2019 doi

  3. [12]

    A. R. Fender et al. Causality-preserving asynchronous reality. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Com- puting Systems, CHI ’22. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY , USA, 2022. doi: 10.1145/3491102.3501836 3

    2022

  4. [13]

    Fr ´econ et al

    E. Fr ´econ et al. Building distributed virtual environments to support collaborative work. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology, VRST ’98, p. 105–113. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY , USA, 1998. doi: 10.1145/ 293701...

    1998

  5. [14]

    T. A. Galyean. Guided navigation of virtual environments. InProceed- ings of the 1995 Symposium on Interactive 3D Graphics , I3D ’95, p. 103–ff. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY , USA,

    1995

  6. [15]

    Garc ´ıa-Pereira et al

    I. Garc ´ıa-Pereira et al. Cross-device augmented reality annotations method for asynchronous collaboration in unprepared environments. Information, 12(12), 2021. doi: 10.3390/info12120519 3

    2021 doi

  7. [16]

    R. K. Ghamandi et al. What and how together: A taxonomy on 30 years of collaborative human-centered xr tasks. In 2023 IEEE Inter- national Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR) , pp. 322–335, 2023. doi: 10.1109/ISMAR59233.2023.00047 1

    2023

  8. [17]

    Giovannelli et al

    A. Giovannelli et al. Gestures vs. emojis: Comparing non-verbal reac- tion visualizations for immersive collaboration.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 29(11):4772–4781, 2023. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2023.3320254 1

    2023

  9. [18]

    T. J. Guerreiro et al. Beyond post-it: Structured multimedia annota- tions for collaborative ves. In ICAT-EGVE, pp. 55–62, 2014. 2

    2014

  10. [19]

    F. A. Hansen. Ubiquitous annotation systems: technologies and chal- lenges. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth Conference on Hyper- text and Hypermedia, HYPERTEXT ’06, p. 121–132. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY , USA, 2006. doi: 10.1145/ 1149941.1149967 2

    2006

  11. [20]

    Harmon et al

    R. Harmon et al. The virtual annotation system. In Proceedings of the IEEE 1996 Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium , pp. 239–245, 1996. doi: 10.1109/VRAIS.1996.490533 2

    1996

  12. [21]

    S. G. Hart. Nasa-task load index (nasa-tlx); 20 years later. Proceed- ings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting , 50(9):904–908, 2006. doi: 10.1177/154193120605000909 4

    2006 doi

  13. [22]

    Hong et al

    L. Hong et al. Virtual voyage: interactive navigation in the human colon. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques , SIGGRAPH ’97, p. 27–34. ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., USA, 1997. doi: 10. 1145/258734.258750 2

    1997

  14. [23]

    Irlitti et al

    A. Irlitti et al. Tangible interaction techniques to support asynchronous collaboration. In 2013 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR) , pp. 1–6, 2013. doi: 10.1109/ISMAR. 2013.6671840 2

    2013

  15. [24]

    Irlitti et al

    A. Irlitti et al. Challenges for asynchronous collaboration in aug- mented reality. In 2016 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR-Adjunct), pp. 31–35, 2016. doi: 10.1109/ ISMAR-Adjunct.2016.0032 1, 2

    2016

  16. [25]

    Johansen

    R. Johansen. Groupwise and collaborative systems-a big picture view. In 1989 IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference and Exhibition ’Communications Technology for the 1990s and Beyond’ , pp. 1217– 1220, 1989. doi: 10.1109/GLOCOM.1989.64148 2

    1989

  17. [26]

    Jonides et al

    J. Jonides et al. The mind and brain of short-term memory. Annu. Rev. Psychol., 59:193–224, 2008. 6, 8

    2008

  18. [27]

    R. S. Kennedy et al. Simulator sickness questionnaire: An en- hanced method for quantifying simulator sickness. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology , 3(3):203–220, 1993. doi: 10.1207/ s15327108ijap0303 3 4

    1993

  19. [28]

    Klacansky et al

    P. Klacansky et al. Virtual inspection of additively manufactured parts. In 2022 IEEE 15th Pacific Visualization Symposium (PacificVis), pp. 81–90, 2022. doi: 10.1109/PacificVis53943.2022.00017 3

    2022

  20. [29]

    G. A. Lee et al. Enhancing first-person view task instruction videos with augmented reality cues. In 2020 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR) , pp. 498–508, 2020. doi: 10.1109/ISMAR50242.2020.00078 3

    2020

  21. [30]

    Letellier et al

    J. Letellier et al. Visualization and interaction techniques in virtual reality for guided tours. In 2019 10th IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Data Acquisition and Advanced Computing Systems: Technology and Applications (IDAACS), vol. 2, pp. 1041–1045, 2019. doi: ...

    2019

  22. [31]

    Lin et al

    T. Lin et al. Towards an understanding of situated ar visualization for basketball free-throw training. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , CHI ’21. As- sociation for Computing Machinery, New York, NY , USA, 2021. doi: 10.1145/3411...

    2021

  23. [32]

    Lisle et al

    L. Lisle et al. Sensemaking strategies with immersive space to think. In 2021 IEEE Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR) , pp. 529– 537, 2021. doi: 10.1109/VR50410.2021.00077 2

    2021

  24. [33]

    Lovreglio et al

    R. Lovreglio et al. Comparing the effectiveness of fire extinguisher virtual reality and video training. Virtual Reality, 25(1):133–145,

  25. [34]

    Marques et al

    B. Marques et al. Remote asynchronous collaboration in mainte- nance scenarios using augmented reality and annotations. In 2021 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces Abstracts and Workshops (VRW), pp. 567–568, 2021. doi: 10.1109/VRW52623 .2021.00166 1, 3

    2021

  26. [35]

    Marques et al

    B. Marques et al. Which notification is better? comparing visual, audio and tactile cues for asynchronous mixed reality (mr) remote collaboration: A user study. In Proceedings of the 21st Interna- tional Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia, MUM ’22, p. 276–278. Asso...

    2022

  27. [36]

    Mayer et al

    A. Mayer et al. Asynchronous manual work in mixed reality re- mote collaboration. In Extended Reality, pp. 17–33. Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 2022. 3

    2022

  28. [37]

    Mayer et al

    A. Mayer et al. Collaborative Work Enabled by Immersive Environ- ments, pp. 87–117. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2023. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-26490-0 6 1, 2, 3

    2023 doi

  29. [38]

    Milgram et al

    P. Milgram et al. Augmented reality: a class of displays on the reality- virtuality continuum. In H. Das, ed., Telemanipulator and Telepres- ence Technologies, vol. 2351, pp. 282 – 292. International Society for Optics and Photonics, SPIE, 1995. doi: 10.1117/12.197321 3

    1995 doi

  30. [39]

    H. L. O’Brien et al. A practical approach to measuring user engage- ment with the refined user engagement scale (ues) and new ues short form. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 112:28–39,

  31. [40]

    Pausch et al

    R. Pausch et al. Disney’s aladdin: first steps toward storytelling in virtual reality. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, SIGGRAPH ’96, p. 193–203. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY , USA, 1996. doi: 10...

    1996

  32. [41]

    P. L. Pearce. Tourist-guide interaction. Annals of Tourism Research, 11(1):129–146, 1984. 4

    1984

  33. [42]

    Pick et al

    S. Pick et al. Automated positioning of annotations in immersive vir- tual environments. In Proceedings of the 16th Eurographics Confer- ence on Virtual Environments & Second Joint Virtual Reality, EGVE - JVRC’10, p. 1–8. Eurographics Association, Goslar, DEU, 2010. 2

    2010

  34. [43]

    Pidel et al

    C. Pidel et al. Collaboration in virtual and augmented reality: A systematic overview. In L. T. De Paolis and P. Bourdot, eds., Aug- mented Reality, Virtual Reality, and Computer Graphics, pp. 141–156. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2020. 1, 2

    2020

  35. [44]

    Ribarsky et al

    W. Ribarsky et al. Visualization and analysis using virtual reality. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications , 14(1):10–12, 1994. doi: 10.1109/38.250911 2

    1994 doi

  36. [45]

    M. Roussou. Learning by doing and learning through play: an explo- ration of interactivity in virtual environments for children. Comput. Entertain., 2(1):10, Jan. 2004. doi: 10.1145/973801.973818 9

    2004

  37. [46]

    Shapiro et al

    L. Shapiro et al. Embodied Cognition. In E. N. Zalta and U. Nodel- man, eds., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Re- search Lab, Stanford University, Summer 2024 ed., 2024. 8

    2024

  38. [47]

    Steed et al

    A. Steed et al. Collaboration in immersive and non-immersive virtual environments. In Immersed in Media, pp. 263–282. Springer, 2015. 1

    2015

  39. [48]

    Stefik et al

    M. Stefik et al. Wysiwis revised: early experiences with multiuser interfaces. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. , 5(2):147–167, apr 1987. doi: 10. 1145/27636.28056 3

    1987

  40. [49]

    I. A. Tahmid et al. Evaluating the benefits of explicit and semi- automated clusters for immersive sensemaking. In 2022 IEEE Inter- national Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR) , pp. 479–488, 2022. doi: 10.1109/ISMAR55827.2022.00064 2

    2022

  41. [50]

    I. A. Tahmid et al. Colt: Enhancing collaborative literature re- view tasks with synchronous and asynchronous awareness across the reality-virtuality continuum. In 2023 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality Adjunct (ISMAR-Adjunct), pp. 831– 836, 2023. doi...

    2023

  42. [51]

    Tam et al

    J. Tam et al. A framework for asynchronous change awareness in collaborative documents and workspaces. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64(7):583–598, 2006. Theoretical and em- pirical advances in groupware research. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.02. 004 1

    2006 doi

  43. [52]

    P. Thagard. Cognitive Science. In E. N. Zalta and U. Nodelman, eds., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, Winter 2023 ed., 2023. 4

    2023

  44. [53]

    Thomas et al

    J. Thomas et al. A communication-focused framework for understand- ing immersive collaboration experiences. In 2023 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces Abstracts and Workshops (VRW), pp. 301–304, 2023. doi: 10.1109/VRW58643.2023.00070 1

    2023

  45. [54]

    R. J. W. Tijssen et al. Research collaboration and the expanding sci- ence grid: Measuring globalization processes worldwide, 2012. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.1203.4194 1

    2012 doi arXiv

  46. [55]

    E. E. Tsiropoulou et al. Quality of experience-based museum touring: a human in the loop approach. Social Network Analysis and Mining , 7(1):33, Jul 2017. doi: 10.1007/s13278-017-0453-2 2

    2017 doi

  47. [56]

    J. C. Verlinden et al. Virtual annotation: Verbal communication in virtual reality. Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Technical Mathematics and Informatics, 1993. 2

    1993

  48. [57]

    C. Y . Wang et al. Vr-replay: Capturing and replaying avatars in vr for asynchronous 3d collaborative design. In 2019 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR) , pp. 1215–1216, 2019. doi: 10.1109/VR.2019.8797789 3

    2019

  49. [58]

    Wang et al

    T. Wang et al. Capturar: An augmented reality tool for authoring human-involved context-aware applications. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Tech- nology, UIST ’20, p. 328–341. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY , US...

    2020

  50. [59]

    Wang et al

    T. Wang et al. Gesturar: An authoring system for creating freehand interactive augmented reality applications. In The 34th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology , UIST ’21, p. 552–567. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY , USA, 2021. doi:...

    2021

  51. [60]

    Wither et al

    J. Wither et al. Annotation in outdoor augmented reality. Computers & Graphics, 33(6):679–689, 2009. doi: 10.1016/j.cag.2009.06.001 2

    2009 doi

  52. [61]

    J. O. Wobbrock et al. The aligned rank transform for nonparametric factorial analyses using only anova procedures. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , CHI ’11, p. 143–146. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY , USA, 2011...

    2011

  53. [62]

    Zhang et al

    L. Zhang et al. Exploring effects of interactivity on learning with interactive storytelling in immersive virtual reality. In 2019 11th In- ternational Conference on Virtual Worlds and Games for Serious Ap- plications (VS-Games), pp. 1–8, 2019. doi: 10.1109/VS-Games.2019 .8864531 9

    2019 doi

  54. [63]

    Zhang et al

    L. Zhang et al. Vrgit: A version control system for collaborative con- tent creation in virtual reality. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Confer- ence on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’23. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY , USA, 2023. doi: 10.1145/ 3544...

    2023

  55. [64]

    Zhao et al

    J. Zhao et al. The effectiveness of virtual reality-based technology on anatomy teaching: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. BMC medical education, 20:1–10, 2020. 9 11

    2020

  56. [1995]

    doi: 10.1145/199404.199421 2

  57. [2018]

    doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2018.01.004 4

    2018 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.