Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 47 references

Actionable Guidance Outperforms Map and Compass Cues in Demanding Immersive VR Wayfinding

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In a demanding immersive VR maze task, a directional arrow beat both a minimap and a compass on navigation performance, speed, and workload—evidence that guidance cues which translate spatial information directly into movement decisions wor

desk verdict A clean empirical ordering (arrow > minimap > compass) in demanding VR wayfinding, but the paper overclaims the 'actionability' mechanism given a placement/format confound; worth publishing after revisions. read the letter →

arxiv 2603.17238 v2 pith:HKMDVTRA submitted 2026-03-18 cs.HC

Apurv Varshney , Lily M. Turkstra , Jiaxin Su , Mable Zhou , Scott T. Grafton , Barry Giesbrecht , Mary Hegarty , Michael Beyeler This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords virtualrealitywayfindingnavigationaidsarrowguidanceminimapcompasseyetrackingcognitiveworkload
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 tries to establish that in demanding immersive VR wayfinding, the most effective navigation aid is not the one with the most spatial information but the one whose information can be turned into a movement decision most directly. In a room-scale maze with time pressure, fog, and a wall that forces route replanning, 42 participants completed 1008 trials under arrow, minimap, and compass guidance. The arrow produced the strongest composite navigation performance, the minimap landed in between, and the compass was worst. The authors trace this ordering to 'actionability' and argue that XR interfaces should minimize the cognitive translation between spatial information and movement decisions.

What carries the argument

The central object is the composite navigation performance score (Nav Comp), which combines normalized excess distance (actual path length minus optimal BFS-computed path length, divided by optimal) with log-transformed completion time. The experimental machinery is a room-scale VR maze with three continuously visible guidance conditions—a view-fixed arrow, a north-up minimap, and a horizontal compass bar—presented under time pressure, fog, and a descending wall that forces route replanning. The mechanistic concept is 'actionability': the arrow encodes the target's egocentric direction and can be followed directly, the compass provides only a bearing that must be aligned with one's heading,

What would settle it

A study that holds display position and format constant while varying only the translation burden would settle the mechanism: for example, compare an arrow pointing straight at the goal with an arrow rotated by 45 degrees (forcing mental rotation), or a minimap in north-up versus heading-up orientation. If the arrow advantage disappears when display properties are equated, or when the cue is made less directly actionable, the paper's central mechanism is not the driver.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that actionability—how directly a navigation cue supports an immediate movement decision—drives the effectiveness of guidance during immersive locomotion. Participants using a view-fixed egocentric arrow reached targets faster and with less excess distance than those using a north-up minimap or a compass bearing bar; the compass performed worst. The arrow also required the least visual inspection (dwell time), produced the lowest workload and stress, and did not hurt detection of incidental objects. The authors conclude that under perceptual load, interfaces that translate spatial information into actionable cues outperform richer but more interpretive representations.

Load-bearing premise

The weakest point is that the three aids differ in display placement, visual format, and information content all at once, so the key assumption is that the performance ordering comes specifically from 'actionability'—how directly the aid turns spatial information into a movement decision—rather than from a lower-level property such as screen position, size, or user familiarity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In demanding immersive wayfinding, a direct egocentric directional cue yields faster and more efficient navigation than aids that require translating bearing or allocentric layout into movement.
  • The advantage of actionable guidance does not necessarily come at the cost of situational awareness: incidental-object detection was not worse under arrow guidance.
  • Interface dwell time is a sensitive indicator of how interpretable a navigation aid is; longer inspection is associated with higher workload and stress.
  • The arrow's benefit held across individual differences in spatial ability, sense of direction, and multiple-object tracking performance.
  • Arrow guidance narrows the performance gap between high- and low-performing navigators, with the largest gap in the unaided condition.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If actionability is the driver, the same principle should extend beyond VR mazes to mobile and AR navigation: design the cue to specify the next action (e.g., 'turn left') rather than the goal bearing or a map that requires alignment.
  • The three aids are confounded with display location, visual format, and information content; a testable extension is to hold format and position fixed and vary only the translation burden—for example, a rotated arrow that forces mental rotation versus an arrow that points directly.
  • Because actionable cues may reduce spatial learning (the paper notes navigation aids can impair route knowledge), a longer-horizon prediction is that arrow guidance improves immediate performance but may weaken later recall of the environment—an implication the authors do not test.
  • The dwell-time signal could serve as an online difficulty detector for adaptive navigation interfaces, switching to more actionable guidance when users stare at the aid—a possibility the paper raises but does not implement.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reports a within-subject VR navigation study comparing three head-fixed navigation aids—an egocentric arrow, a north-up minimap, and a compass—plus an unaided baseline, in a time-pressured opaque maze with forced rerouting. The primary outcome is a composite score of path efficiency and completion time; secondary measures are incidental-object detection, NASA-TLX workload, stress, dwell time, and qualitative strategies. The authors report a consistent ordering Arrow > Minimap > Compass across performance and workload, and interpret it as evidence that 'actionable' guidance requiring less translation from spatial information to movement decisions is preferable. The paper is clearly written and the behavioral data appear carefully collected, but the central causal interpretation is underdetermined by the experimental design because the aid conditions differ in display placement, visual format, and information content simultaneously; the composite metric's weighting is unspecified; and the eye-tracking mechanism analysis is confounded by AOI geometry.

Significance. If the causal interpretation were supported, the paper would make a useful contribution to XR navigation design by showing that reducing the translation step improves performance under load. The empirical ordering itself—arrow better than minimap, minimap better than compass on a composite of time and distance—is a valuable controlled comparison with a large trial count (1008), within-subject counterbalancing of aid conditions, and component-level reporting. Strengths include the use of mixed-effects models with participant random intercepts, the inclusion of a practice/trial-order covariate, and the presentation of separate completion-time and excess-distance analyses rather than only a composite. However, the study does not isolate the mechanism named in the title and abstract; the design confounds actionability with lower-level interface properties. The contribution as currently framed therefore exceeds what the data can establish.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; §3.3; §5.1] The central claim that 'interfaces that translate spatial information directly into actionable movement cues' outperform richer but more interpretive representations is not identifiable from this design. The arrow is a view-fixed egocentric pointer at lower-center; the minimap is a north-up allocentric map at lower-left; the compass is a horizontal bearing bar at lower-center. Arrow-vs-Minimap changes placement, format, and information content; Arrow-vs-Compass changes format and information content while holding placement. No condition manipulates interpretation/translation burden while holding these features constant. A lower-level property—eccentricity, icon size, visual salience, or glance cost—could produce the same ordering. The Section 5.4 limitation acknowledges north-up orientation but not this confound. The causal wording should be softened, or the study should include conditio
  2. [§3.6, Figure 5] The Nav Comp composite is defined only as standardized excess distance and completion time 'combined' so that higher is better. The weights are not stated; equal weighting appears to be assumed. This matters because Arrow vs Minimap is significant on the composite (Δ=0.175, p=.003) and on completion time (p<.001), but not on excess distance (p=.282). A different weighting could change the primary pairwise inference. Please report the exact formula (e.g., z-transformed excess distance plus z-transformed log completion time, with signs), and provide a sensitivity analysis showing the Arrow-vs-Minimap contrast across a range of plausible weights.
  3. [§4.3, Figure 8] The dwell-time analysis is presented as evidence that the arrow was easier to interpret quickly, but AOI sizes and screen positions are not matched across aids. The minimap is at lower-left and the arrow/compass at lower-center; the compass bar is horizontal and likely spans a different visual angle. Longer dwell on the compass/minimap could reflect gaze shift distance or AOI size rather than interpretive burden. The aggregated heatmaps in Figure 8 are descriptive and not statistically compared. To support the mechanism claim, report AOI geometry, compute gaze-shift distances, and/or include an AOI-size/position-matched control.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Author block; §3.1] The author line contains a string of '/gid00021...' placeholders, and the first author surname 'T urkstra' has a stray space. These should be cleaned before publication.
  2. [§4.2] Detection sensitivity d′ is said to be computed at the block level, but the lure structure is not fully specified. Please state which non-encountered objects were used as false-alarm items and the exact formula, since block-level d′ can be undefined with perfect hit rates.
  3. [§3.5] The Unaided condition is always first; this is acknowledged and excluded from inferential comparisons, but the stated rationale ('to prevent participants from learning the environment using navigation aids') should be reconciled with the earlier guided learning phase. Since aid order is counterbalanced and Trial Order is a covariate, this is a minor concern.
  4. [§4.3, preference paragraph] There is a typo: '20 (47.6%) participants people selected control' should read 'participants selected the Unaided condition' for consistency with the figure and the rest of the text.
  5. [General] No data/code availability statement is provided. Sharing de-identified trial-level data and analysis scripts would strengthen reproducibility and allow independent verification of the mixed-effects analyses.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: measured behavioral outcomes are not derived from fitted parameters or self-cited premises.

full rationale

This paper is a controlled empirical comparison, not a derivation chain. The primary outcome (Nav Comp) is an external behavioral composite of excess distance and completion time, computed from participant paths and trial duration, and analyzed with linear mixed-effects models. No parameter is fitted to the outcome and then renamed as a prediction; the arrow/minimap/compass ordering is measured from participant behavior. The self-citations (e.g., refs. 37, 41) are background literature and prior datasets; they do not define the outcome measure, forbid alternatives, or supply a uniqueness theorem. The central interpretive claim about 'actionable guidance' is an inference about why the observed ordering occurred, not a premise that forces the result by definition. Although the three aids differ on multiple dimensions besides actionability, that is a potential confound/validity limitation, not a circularity, because the empirical comparison itself is independent of the interpretation. The paper's §5.4 limitations note acknowledges map orientation but does not claim to derive the mechanism from the data. No circular step can be exhibited from the paper's own equations or citations.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim assumes that the composite score is meaningful, that the constructed maze/stressors represent demanding navigation, and that performance differences reflect cognitive translation rather than visual/interface confounds. These are design/analytic assumptions rather than fitted parameters.

free parameters (3)
  • Nav Comp component weights = implicitly 0.5/0.5
    The primary composite outcome combines standardized excess distance and completion time; the equal weighting is not stated, justified, or subjected to sensitivity analysis (Section 3.6).
  • Eye-tracking validity threshold = 2 valid samples per second
    Trials with an average of two or fewer valid gaze samples per second were excluded from gaze analyses; this threshold is ad hoc and could affect dwell-time estimates (Section 3.6).
  • Task demand parameters = 20 s time limit; 2.5 m fog; wall descent
    These values define the 'demanding' scenario central to the claim's scope. They are chosen by the authors and not varied, so the generalizability to other demand levels is untested (Section 3.4).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The composite Nav Comp score is a valid unidimensional measure of navigation performance.
    Used as the primary outcome and for all pairwise comparisons; its equal weighting of time and excess distance is not externally validated (Section 3.6).
  • ad hoc to paper The maze with fog, time pressure, and a descending wall represents demanding immersive locomotion of general interest.
    The conclusion about 'demanding immersive locomotion' depends on this constructed scenario; no independent validation of task demand beyond self-report (Section 3.4).
  • domain assumption Differences in aid performance can be attributed to how directly the aid supports movement decisions (actionability) rather than to other interface properties.
    Arrow, minimap, and compass differ in placement, format, and information content simultaneously; the mechanistic interpretation is assumed, not manipulated (Sections 3.3, 5.1).
  • ad hoc to paper The unaided-first design does not bias comparisons among the three aid conditions.
    Unaided was always first; it was excluded from inferential tests, but order/practice effects across the remaining blocks are only partially controlled via a trial-order covariate (Sections 3.5, 3.7).
  • standard math Standard linear mixed-model assumptions (normality, random intercept per participant, Satterthwaite df) hold.
    All primary and secondary analyses rely on LMMs; no residual diagnostics or robustness checks are reported (Section 3.7).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Actionable Guidance Outperforms Map and Compass Cues in Demanding Immersive VR Wayfinding." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HKMDVTRA

@misc{pith2026260317238,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Actionable Guidance Outperforms Map and Compass Cues in Demanding Immersive VR Wayfinding},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HKMDVTRA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.17238}
}
read the original abstract

Navigation aids are central to immersive virtual reality (VR) experiences that involve physical locomotion. Their effectiveness depends not only on how much spatial information they provide, but also on how directly that information supports movement decisions. We compared three common guidance techniques for immersive VR wayfinding: a directional arrow, a minimap, and a compass. In a controlled room-scale VR study with 42 participants completing 1008 trials, participants navigated to target landmarks in a time-pressured maze with reduced visibility and forced route replanning. Across behavioral and eye-tracking measures, arrow guidance produced the strongest navigation performance, minimap guidance yielded intermediate performance, and compass cues performed worst, suggesting that during immersive locomotion users benefit from guidance that can be interpreted rapidly while moving. These results suggest that in demanding immersive locomotion tasks, interfaces that translate spatial information directly into actionable movement cues can outperform richer but more interpretive spatial representations. Our findings highlight the importance of designing XR navigation interfaces that minimize the cognitive translation between spatial information and movement decisions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.17238 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the immersive VR navigation task. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Top-down schematic of the VR maze. Landmarks (paint [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Representative first-person views during navigation trials. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Incidental objects used for the secondary selective at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Primary navigation performance across aids. (A) Composite navigation performance score (Nav Comp), combining completion time and excess distance (higher values indicate better performance). Arrow outperformed both Minimap and Compass. (B) Trial completion time (s). Arr…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Secondary outcome measures across navigation aids. (A) Detection sensitivity ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Impact of interface dwell time on workload and stress. (A) Average interface dwell time (s) per navigation aid. Arrow guidance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Aggregated gaze heatmaps across navigation aids. Kernel density estimates of fixation locations during navigation trials, aggregated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Navigation performance by performer group and naviga [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    U. A. Abdurrahman, L. Zheng, and S.-C. Yeh. Cognitive work- load evaluation of landmarks and routes using virtual reality. 17(5):e0268399. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0268399 1, 2

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0268399

  2. [2]

    Alghofaili, Y

    R. Alghofaili, Y . Sawahata, H. Huang, H.-C. Wang, T. Shiratori, and L.-F. Yu. Lost in Style: Gaze-driven Adaptive Aid for VR Navigation. InProceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’19, pp. 1–12. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY , USA, May 2019. doi: 10.1145/3290605. 3300578 9

    doi:10.1145/3290605 2019

  3. [3]

    Bowman, D

    D. Bowman, D. Koller, and L. Hodges. Travel in immersive virtual environments: an evaluation of viewpoint motion control techniques. InProceedings of IEEE 1997 Annual International Symposium on Vir- tual Reality, pp. 45–52, Mar. 1997. ISSN: 1087-8270. doi: 10.1109/ VRAIS.1997.583043 1

    arXiv 1997

  4. [4]

    D. A. Bowman, E. T. Davis, L. F. Hodges, and A. N. Badre. Main- taining spatial orientation during travel in an immersive virtual envi- ronment. 8(6):618–631. doi: 10.1162/105474699566521 1, 2

    work page doi:10.1162/105474699566521

  5. [5]

    T. T. Bruny ´e, S. B. Martis, B. Hawes, and H. A. Taylor. Risk-taking during wayfinding is modulated by external stressors and personality traits.Spatial Cognition & Computation, 19(4):283–308, Oct. 2019. doi: 10.1080/13875868.2019.1633540 2 9

    arXiv 2019

  6. [6]

    Br ¨ugger, K.-F

    A. Br ¨ugger, K.-F. Richter, and S. I. Fabrikant. How does navigation system behavior influence human behavior? 4(1):5. doi: 10.1186/ s41235-019-0156-5 2

  7. [7]

    Chittaro and S

    L. Chittaro and S. Burigat. 3d location-pointing as a navigation aid in virtual environments. InProceedings of the Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces (AVI ’04), pp. 267–274. ACM, 2004. doi: 10.1145/989863.989910 1, 2, 3

    arXiv 2004

  8. [8]

    R. P. Darken and H. Cevik. Map usage in virtual environments: Orien- tation issues. InProceedings IEEE Virtual Reality (VR), pp. 133–140. IEEE, 1999. doi: 10.1109/VR.1999.756944 1, 2, 3, 9

    arXiv 1999

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    Davari and D

    S. Davari and D. A. Bowman. Towards Context-Aware Adaptation in Extended Reality: A Design Space for XR Interfaces and an Adap- tive Placement Strategy, Nov. 2024. arXiv:2411.02607 [cs]. doi: 10. 48550/arXiv.2411.02607 9

    2024 doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    de Oliveira Faria, J

    N. de Oliveira Faria, J. L. Gabbard, and M. Smith. Place in the world or place on the screen? investigating the effects of augmented reality head-up display user interfaces on drivers’ spatial knowledge acquisi- tion and glance behavior. In2020 IEEE conference on virtual reali...

    2020

  3. [11]

    A. L. Gardony, T. T. Bruny ´e, C. R. Mahoney, and H. A. Taylor. How navigational aids impair spatial memory: Evidence for divided atten- tion. 13(4):319–350. doi: 10.1080/13875868.2013.792821 1, 2, 9

    2013

  4. [12]

    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, pp. 139–183. North-Holland. doi: 10.1016/ S0166-4115(08)62386-9 4

  5. [13]

    Hegarty, A

    M. Hegarty, A. E. Richardson, D. R. Montello, K. Lovelace, and I. Subbiah. Development of a self-report measure of environmental spatial ability.Intelligence, 30(5):425–447, Sept. 2002. doi: 10.1016/ S0160-2896(02)00116-2 4

    2002

  6. [14]

    Huang, D

    J.-Y . Huang, D. Memmert, O. A. Onur, and O. Bock. The ef- fect of time pressure and self-correction on successful wayfinding decisions.Spatial Cognition & Computation, 26(1):19–37, Jan

  7. [15]

    Hulleman

    J. Hulleman. The mathematics of multiple object tracking: From pro- portions correct to number of objects tracked. 45(17):2298–2309. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2005.02.016 4

    2005 doi

  8. [16]

    Ishikawa

    T. Ishikawa. Maps in the head and tools in the hand: Wayfinding and navigation in a spatially enabled society. In R. H. Hunter, L. A. Anderson, and B. L. Belza, eds.,Community Wayfinding: Pathways to Understanding, pp. 115–136. Springer International Publishing. doi: 10.1007/9...

    doi

  9. [17]

    Ishikawa and K

    T. Ishikawa and K. Takahashi. Relationships between methods for presenting information on navigation tools and users’ wayfinding be- havior. (75):17–28. doi: 10.14714/CP75.82 2

    doi

  10. [18]

    Kelley, R

    B. Kelley, R. P. McMahan, C. D. Wickens, B. A. Clegg, and F. R. Ortega. The importance of cueing while visually searching a 360 de- gree environment for multiple targets in the presence of distractors. InProceedings of the 2025 31st ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software an...

    2025

  11. [19]

    Kelley, C

    B. Kelley, C. Wickens, B. Clegg, A. C. Warden, and F. R. Ortega. Guiding gaze: Comparing cues for visual search. In2024 IEEE Con- ference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces Abstracts and Work- shops (VRW), pp. 1053–1054. doi: 10.1109/VRW62533.2024.00323 2

    2024

  12. [20]

    Y .-J. Kim, R. Kumaran, J. Luo, T. Bullock, B. Giesbrecht, and T. H¨ollerer. On the Go with AR: Attention to Virtual and Physical Targets while Varying Augmentation Density. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’25, pp. 1–16. Asso...

    2025

  13. [21]

    Y .-J. Kim, R. Kumaran, E. Sayyad, A. Milner, T. Bullock, B. Gies- brecht, and T. Hollerer. Investigating Search Among Physical and Virtual Objects Under Different Lighting Conditions.IEEE Trans- actions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 28(11):3788–3798, Nov. 2022. doi:...

    2022

  14. [22]

    Kotlarek, I

    J. Kotlarek, I. Lin, and K. Ma. Improving spatial orientation in im- mersive environments. InProceedings of the 2018 ACM Symposium on Spatial User Interaction (SUI ’18), pp. 79–88. ACM, 2018. doi: 10 .1145/3267782.3267792 1, 2, 3

    2018

  15. [23]

    Kraus, H

    M. Kraus, H. Sch ¨afer, P. Meschenmoser, D. Schweitzer, D. A. Keim, M. Sedlmair, and J. Fuchs. A comparative study of orientation support tools in virtual reality environments with virtual teleportation. In2020 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (IS- M...

    2020

  16. [24]

    Kumaran, Y .-J

    R. Kumaran, Y .-J. Kim, E. Machniak, S. Dirksen, J. Yoon, T. Bullock, B. Giesbrecht, and T. H¨ollerer. Scene awareness while using multiple navigation aids in AR search. In2025 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality Adjunct (ISMAR-Adjunct), pp. 652–

  17. [25]

    Kumaran, Y .-J

    R. Kumaran, Y .-J. Kim, A. E. Milner, T. Bullock, B. Giesbrecht, and T. H¨ollerer. The impact of navigation aids on search performance and object recall in wide-area augmented reality. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’23). AC...

    2023

  18. [26]

    J. J. LaViola, E. Kruijff, R. P. McMahan, D. A. Bowman, and I. P. Poupyrev.3D User Interfaces: Theory and Practice. Addison-Wesley Professional, 2 ed., 2017. 1, 3

    2017

  19. [27]

    C. A. Lawton. Gender differences in way-finding strategies: Relation- ship to spatial ability and spatial anxiety. 30(11):765–779. doi: 10. 1007/BF01544230 4

  20. [28]

    J. Lee, F. Jin, Y . Kim, and D. Lindlbauer. User preference for naviga- tion instructions in mixed reality. In2022 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR), pp. 802–811. IEEE, 2022. doi: 10.1109/VR51125.2022.00102 1, 2, 3

    2022

  21. [29]

    Lu and D

    F. Lu and D. A. Bowman. Evaluating the potential of glanceable AR interfaces for authentic everyday uses. In2021 IEEE Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR), pp. 768–777. ISSN: 2642-5254. doi: 10 .1109/VR50410.2021.00104 9

    2021

  22. [30]

    W. E. Marsh, J. W. Kelly, V . J. Dark, and J. H. Oliver. Cognitive demands of semi-natural virtual locomotion. 22(3):216–234. doi: 10. 1162/PRES a 00152 1

  23. [31]

    H. S. Meyerhoff and F. Papenmeier. Individual differences in visual attention: A short, reliable, open-source, and multilingual test of mul- tiple object tracking in PsychoPy. 52(6):2556–2566. doi: 10.3758/ s13428-020-01413-4 4

  24. [32]

    Mulloni, H

    A. Mulloni, H. Seichter, and D. Schmalstieg. User experiences with augmented reality aided navigation on phones. In2011 10th IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality, pp. 229–

  25. [33]

    Peereboom, W

    J. Peereboom, W. Tabone, D. Dodou, and J. de Winter. Head-locked, world-locked, or conformal diminished-reality? an examination of different ar solutions for pedestrian safety in occluded scenarios.Vir- tual Reality, 28(119), 2024. doi: 10.1007/s10055-024-01017-9 1, 2

    2024 doi

  26. [34]

    Z. W. Pylyshyn and R. W. Storm. Tracking multiple independent tar- gets: Evidence for a parallel tracking mechanism. 3(3):179–197. doi: 10.1163/156856888X00122 4

    doi

  27. [35]

    Quinn and J

    K. Quinn and J. L. Gabbard. Augmented Reality Visualization Tech- niques for Attention Guidance to Out-of-View Objects: A Systematic Review. In2024 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Aug- mented Reality (ISMAR), pp. 826–835, Oct. 2024. ISSN: 2473-0726. doi: 10.1109/ISMA...

    2024

  28. [36]

    I. T. Ruginski, S. H. Creem-Regehr, J. K. Stefanucci, and E. Cash- dan. GPS use negatively affects environmental learning through spa- tial transformation abilities. 64:12–20. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.05. 001 2

    2019 doi

  29. [37]

    J. N. Setu, J. M. Le, R. K. Kundu, B. Giesbrecht, T. H ¨ollerer, K. A. Hoque, K. Desai, and J. Quarles. Mazed and confused: A dataset of cybersickness, working memory, mental load, physical load, and at- tention during a real walking task in vr. In2024 IEEE International Sympo...

  30. [38]

    J. N. Setu, J. M. Le, R. K. Kundu, B. Giesbrecht, T. H ¨ollerer, K. A. Hoque, K. Desai, and J. Quarles. Predicting and explaining cog- nitive load, attention, and working memory in virtual multitasking. 10 31(5):3014–3024. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2025.3549850 2

    2025

  31. [39]

    Sheik-Nainar, D

    M. Sheik-Nainar, D. Kaber, S. Hsiang, C. Pankok Jr., and M. Zahabi. Influence of cognitive and perceptual process- ing on multitask performance with locomotion. 16(3):273–298. eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/1463922X.2014.1001005. doi: 10. 1080/1463922X.2014.1001005 1, 2

    2014

  32. [40]

    H. L. Tubbs-Cooley, C. A. Mara, A. C. Carle, and A. P. Gurses. The NASA task load index as a measure of overall workload among neona- tal, paediatric and adult intensive care nurses. 46:64–69. doi: 10.1016/ j.iccn.2018.01.004 4

    2018

  33. [41]

    Varshney, M

    A. Varshney, M. E. Munns, J. Kasowski, M. Zhou, C. He, S. T. Grafton, B. Giesbrecht, M. Hegarty, and M. Beyeler. Stress affects navigation strategies in immersive virtual reality.Scientific Reports, 14(1):5949, Mar. 2024. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-56048-8 2, 4

    2024 doi

  34. [42]

    S. Wang, Q. Xu, and K. Schoeffmann. Exploring the effects of aug- mented reality guidance position within a body-fixed coordinate sys- tem on pedestrian navigation.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 31(11):9921–9931, 2025. doi: 10.1109/TVCG. 2025.3616773 1, 2

    2025

  35. [43]

    Yavuz and H

    E. Yavuz and H. J. Spiers. Determinants of individual navigation abil- ity.Nature Reviews Psychology, pp. 1–17, Mar. 2026. doi: 10.1038/ s44159-026-00544-3 2

    2026

  36. [44]

    Yi and Y .-C

    C. Yi and Y .-C. Lee. Exploring the Effect of Navigation Tool Design on Virtual Environment’s Navigation and Revisiting Experience. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM SIGGRAPH International Conference on Virtual-Reality Continuum and its Applications in Industry, VR- CAI ’22, pp. ...

    2023

  37. [230]

    doi: 10.1109/ISMAR.2011.6092390 2

    2011

  38. [653]

    doi: 10.1109/ISMAR-Adjunct68609.2025

    ISSN: 2771-1110. doi: 10.1109/ISMAR-Adjunct68609.2025. 00135 1, 2

    2025

  39. [2026]

    doi: 10.1080/13875868.2025.2531085 2

    eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/13875868.2025.2531085. doi: 10.1080/13875868.2025.2531085 2

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.