Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Towards Enhanced Learning through Presence: A Systematic Review of Presence in Virtual Reality Across Tasks and Disciplines

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This systematic review of 78 studies claims that combinations of VR presence types—spatial, social, co-presence, self-presence, cognitive—map onto distinct learning tasks, with spatial-social presence supporting collaboration and…

desk verdict Useful qualitative taxonomy undermined by internally inconsistent counts; needs a full data audit before the headline statistics can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.13845 v1 pith:HNZGGXNN submitted 2025-02-08 cs.HC

Zheng Wei , Junxiang Liao , Lik-Hang Lee , Huamin Qu , Xian Xu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords virtualrealitypresencesystematicreviewlearningoutcomesspatialsocialcognitiveself-presence
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

The paper tries to establish that presence in virtual reality is not a single feeling but a family of distinct experiences—spatial, social, co-presence, self-presence, and cognitive presence—whose combinations map onto specific learning tasks. Reviewing 78 studies selected by a systematic screening of 2,793 records, it argues that design choices can be matched to presence types to improve learning outcomes. The headline statistics (spatial presence in 57% of studies, cognitive presence in 46%, social presence in 45%) are offered as evidence that different tasks demand different presence configurations. A sympathetic reader would care because the review supplies a practical taxonomy: if the mapping holds, VR learning designers can choose which presence to cultivate based on the task, rather than treating presence as one undifferentiated variable.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a systematic-review coding protocol with data items DE1 through DE12, classifying each of the 78 studies by presence type, task type, presence combination, evaluation method, VR environment design, collaboration type, learning outcome, participant number, and domain. The screening pipeline (2,793 records screened, 78 retained) and the stacked-column and Sankey analyses convert that coding into percentage distributions that reveal which presence types and combinations co-occur with which tasks. The presence taxonomy itself—spatial, social, co-presence, self-presence, cognitive presence—is the conceptual lens through which all 78 studies are read.

What would settle it

Re-read each of the 78 studies with the paper's own coding rubric and count the presence-type entries per study; the headline percentages (57% spatial, 46% cognitive, etc.) are reproducible only if the per-study coding table matches the aggregate counts, and the paper's appendix currently shows fewer entries (33 spatial, 8 cognitive) than the text reports (45 and 36).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that VR presence is multidimensional and task-dependent: spatial presence grounds navigation, simulation, and training; cognitive presence supports deep engagement and problem-solving; social presence and co-presence drive collaboration; and self-presence supports embodiment and motor tasks. It further claims that combinations are synergistic—for instance, spatial plus social presence appears most often in social interaction and communication tasks, and spatial plus cognitive presence appears in simulations and training. If the claimed mappings are reliable, they give an evidence-based answer to the design question: which presence should I optimize for which learning task?

Load-bearing premise

The review assumes that the 78 included studies can be reliably classified into its presence and task categories, and that the self-report instruments used across studies (such as IPQ, NASA-TLX, SSQ, and VEQ) measure comparable enough constructs to be aggregated into the reported percentages.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the mapping holds, a VR learning system can be designed backwards from task type: navigation and simulation tasks should cultivate spatial presence, collaborative tasks should cultivate social and co-presence, and deep-learning tasks should cultivate cognitive presence.
  • The prevalence statistics tell a field-level story: spatial presence appears in the majority of studies, while self-presence is rare, identifying a relative research gap.
  • The design-practice section gives concrete levers—multi-sensory feedback, avatar emotional expression, body-perception design, and adaptive feedback—that are claimed to moderate the presence-learning relationship.
  • The evaluation statistics suggest that the evidence base increasingly combines self-report, performance, and physiological measures, which is what would be needed to validate presence-learning links.
  • The review provides a starting map for future studies to test specific presence combinations in specific task contexts rather than treating presence as a single score.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Pending a reconciliation of the paper's aggregate numbers with its own appendix table, the percentage claims (57% spatial, 46% cognitive) should be treated with caution: the appendix lists 33 spatial-presence and 8 cognitive-presence entries, while the text reports 45 and 36.
  • A testable extension would be to code each of the 78 studies with the paper's rubric and run a contingency analysis to see whether the claimed spatial-social/collaboration and spatial-cognitive/training associations are statistically significant rather than descriptive.
  • The review suggests a design heuristic—cultivate social presence for collaboration and spatial presence for simulation—that could be tested head-to-head by building two VR versions of a single training task that differ in presence emphasis and measuring learning outcomes.
  • If the taxonomy is valid, presence questionnaires need to be reported per subscale (spatial versus social versus self) rather than as a single score, so that the field's evidence can accumulate in the way the review envisions.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports a systematic review of 78 studies on presence in virtual reality learning environments, following a PRISMA workflow. It classifies the included studies along twelve data-extraction dimensions (presence type, task type, presence combination, evaluation method, VR environment design, collaboration type, learning outcome, participant numbers, and domain) and uses the resulting statistics to argue that different presence types and their combinations are differentially suited to particular task types and disciplines, with implications for VR learning design. The central claim is that combinations of presence types 'synergistically enhance' learning outcomes, e.g., spatial+social presence for collaborative tasks and spatial+cognitive presence for simulation/training.

Significance. If the classification and statistics were reliable, the review would provide a practically useful evidence map for VR learning designers: which presence types to emphasize for which tasks, which design levers (environment, multimodal feedback, avatars, GUI, biometrics) are most frequently used, and which evaluation instruments dominate the field. The paper follows a recognizable systematic-review protocol (PRISMA), provides a reproducible selection narrative, and makes its coding rubric explicit as DE1–DE12. The appendix tables are a genuine attempt at transparency. However, the quantitative backbone of the paper—the counts and percentages of presence types and combinations—does not survive comparison with the paper's own appendix tables, so the headline mapping from presence types to task outcomes is currently unverifiable. The contribution is therefore better viewed as a provisional taxonomy and a set of narrative hypotheses than as an evidence-based mapping.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2, Fig. 2] The PRISMA arithmetic is internally inconsistent: 2492 − 2329 − 84 = 79, not 78. Since every subsequent percentage uses N=78 and the appendix is keyed to 78 studies, the screening numbers and the final retained count must be reconciled before any of the reported statistics can be trusted.
  2. [§3.2.1 vs. Table 2 (DE4)] The headline presence-type counts contradict the appendix coding. The text reports spatial presence in 45/78 (57%) and cognitive presence in 36/78 (46%), while Table 2 lists 33 spatial-presence and 8 cognitive-presence studies; social presence is reported as 35/78 but Table 2 lists 22, co-presence as 21/78 but Table 2 lists 8, and self-presence as 10/78 but Table 2 lists 7. Table 2 also lists reference [53] twice in the Spatial Presence row. These discrepancies are not cosmetic: every presence-type percentage in §3.2 and every presence-to-task mapping in §3.3 is computed from this coding.
  3. [§3.3.1 vs. Table 4 (DE6)] The presence-combination counts are irreconcilable. Section 3.3.1 first states that the social+co-presence intersection is 'the most extensive, with a total of 27 studies,' then later lists 'Social Presence & Co-presence' as having two studies; Table 4 (DE6) lists 23 entries for that pair. Spatial+cognitive is stated as 23 studies but Table 4 lists 28; spatial+social is stated as 17 but Table 4 lists 14; spatial+co-presence is stated as 3 but Table 4 lists 2. Because the claimed synergies in §1.2.2 and §3.3.2 rest directly on these combination counts, a corrected and internally consistent combo table must be supplied.
  4. [§3.3.2 and §3.4] The central claim that combinations 'synergistically enhance' learning outcomes is never pinned to a cross-tabulation of DE6 (presence combination) with DE10 (learning outcome). The text gives percentages such as 46.2% for spatial+social and 24.1% for spatial+cognitive without stating the denominator or showing the underlying 2-way table, so the reader cannot verify the claimed synergy. In addition, §3.4 and §1.2.8 group NASA-TLX (a workload measure) and SSQ (a simulator-sickness measure) with presence questionnaires such as IPQ and VEQ; this conflates distinct constructs and weakens the validity of any aggregation performed over 'evaluation types.' The authors should either present the full DE6×DE10 contingency table or soften the synergy claim to a descriptive observation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.5.3] The percentages for the two cognitive-load categories, 72% (26/36) and 25% (9/36), sum to 97%; the remaining 3% is unaccounted for. Please clarify whether rounding or an omitted third category is intended.
  2. [§3.3.2] The phrase 'spatial presence ... primarily associated with self-presence tasks (100.0%)' conflates presence types with task categories; self-presence is a presence type, not a task type. Please reword to avoid the category confusion.
  3. [§3.2.1] Minor wording issue: 'Self-presence had lower frequencies, appearing in 13% (10/78) of the studies, respectively' contains an unnecessary 'respectively' and the count 10/78 conflicts with Table 2's listing of 7 studies; this should be fixed when the counts are reconciled.
  4. [Table 3 (DE7)] The evaluation-type taxonomy includes an 'Others' category with no definition. For reproducibility, please list which instruments belong to 'Others' or remove the category and redistribute the entries.
  5. [§2.2 and §3.4] The inclusion criterion 2 requires at least one self-reported measure of user presence, yet §3.4 counts NASA-TLX and SSQ among the commonly used instruments. Please state explicitly which instruments are used for presence measurement, which for workload, and which for comfort, since the current presentation blurs these distinctions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the review's claims are descriptive syntheses of 78 external studies; self-citations are illustrative only and not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are classifications and aggregations of findings from 78 external studies, not derivations from its own assumptions or fitted parameters. Its presence-type percentages, task-type mappings, and design-factor summaries are presented as descriptive statistics of the coded literature, and no equation or constructed identity is recycled into a prediction. The self-citations to Wei et al. ([97], [98], [99], [104], [105]) appear only as illustrative examples in Sections 3.2, 3.6.1, 4.1.1, and 4.2.3; they are not premises from which any conclusion is forced, and no uniqueness theorem or prior author-derived ansatz is invoked to rule out alternatives. Although the appendix counts conflict with some headline percentages, that is an internal-consistency and reporting-accuracy concern, not a circularity of derivation. I therefore assign score 0.

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

The review introduces no new entities or fitted parameters. Its quantitative claims rest on a coding scheme and on the comparability of heterogeneous self-report measures, both of which the paper does not fully validate.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The five presence categories (spatial, social, co-presence, self-presence, cognitive) are sufficient and reliably codable from the included papers.
    Section 2.3 data extraction assigns DE4 categories to each study; the review's percentages depend on this coding.
  • domain assumption Self-report instruments used across studies (IPQ, SSQ, NASA-TLX, VEQ, etc.) are treated as comparable indicators of presence for aggregation.
    Section 3.4 groups these instruments under evaluation types and uses them to justify conclusions; however NASA-TLX measures workload, not presence, so the comparability assumption is strained.
  • domain assumption The PRISMA search and screening steps were executed exactly as described, and the 78-study corpus is representative of the literature.
    Section 2 describes the workflow; the arithmetic mismatch (79 vs 78) and incomplete search strings make this assumption unverifiable.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Towards Enhanced Learning through Presence: A Systematic Review of Presence in Virtual Reality Across Tasks and Disciplines." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HNZGGXNN

@misc{pith2026250413845,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Towards Enhanced Learning through Presence: A Systematic Review of Presence in Virtual Reality Across Tasks and Disciplines},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HNZGGXNN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.13845}
}
read the original abstract

The rising interest in Virtual Reality (VR) technology has sparked a desire to create immersive learning platforms capable of handling various tasks across environments. Through immersive interfaces, users can engage deeply with virtual environments, enhancing both learning outcomes and task performance. In fields such as education, engineering, and collaboration, presence has emerged as a critical factor influencing user engagement, motivation, and skill mastery. This review provides a comprehensive examination of the role of presence across different tasks and disciplines, exploring how its design impacts learning outcomes. Using a systematic search strategy based on the PRISMA method, we screened 2,793 articles and included 78 studies that met our inclusion criteria. We conducted a detailed classification and analysis of different types of presence in VR environments, including spatial presence, social presence, co-presence, self-presence, and cognitive presence. This review emphasizes how these varied types of presence affect learning outcomes across tasks and fields, and examines how design elements and interaction techniques shape presence and subsequently impact learning outcomes. We also summarize trends and future directions, identifying research gaps and opportunities to improve learning outcomes by enhancing presence in VR environments, thus offering guidance and insight for future research on VR presence and learning effectiveness.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.13845 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Brief visual summary of key VR presence design elements, highlighting six main categories: VR [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Systematic review process using PRISMA 2.1 Search Strategy To conduct a comprehensive and systematic review of the literature on presence in VR learning environments, we developed a rigorous search strategy following the PRISMA guidelines. 1https://app.covidence.org/reviews/active , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: April 2018 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Articles per year (N=78) These articles primarily focus on the fields of virtual reality and remote interaction. Our research stands out by systematically investigating various types of “presence” in virtual reality (e.g., spatial presence, social presence, co-presence, self-presence, and cognitive presence), particularly how they influence remote collaboration and educational and collaborative tasks within virtual … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Frequency distribution of keywords in included articles. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Statistics on the types of presence used in the studies (some studies involve multiple types of presence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Statistics on the task types used in the studies. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: In terms of task types: (a) Social Interaction and Communication Tasks [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Stacked column chart of the percentages of different presence types and corresponding task types. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Five primary design methods: (a) Environment Design [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Five primary sensory dimensions of learner perception: (a) Visual Perception [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Four Types of Multi-User Training or Learning Studies Based on Social Presence: (a) remote expert + [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Sankey Diagram, a visualization showing the distribution of characteristics across all dimensions in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_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. EchoAid: Enhancing Livestream Shopping Accessibility for the DHH Community

    cs.HC 2025-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    EchoAid combines speech-to-text, LLM summarization, and rapid serial visual presentation to help deaf and hard of hearing users follow livestream shopping shows; user studies show lower cognitive load and modestly bet...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

114 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [53]

    Christos Lougiakis, Theodoros Mandilaras, Akrivi Katifori, Giorgos Ganias, Ioannis-Panagiotis Ioannidis, and Maria Roussou. 2024. Effects of Different Tracker-driven Direction Sources on Continuous Artificial Locomotion in VR. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology (Trier, Germany) (VRST ’24). Association for C...

    doi:10.1145/3641825 2024

  2. [1]

    Katarzyna Abramczuk, Zbigniew Bohdanowicz, Bartosz Muczyński, Kinga H Skorupska, and Daniel Cnotkowski

  3. [2]

    Sahar Aseeri and Victoria Interrante. 2021. The influence of avatar representation on interpersonal communication in virtual social environments. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 27, 5 (2021), 2608–2617

    2021

  4. [3]

    Sojung Bahng, Ryan M Kelly, and Jon McCormack. 2020. Reflexive VR storytelling design beyond immersion: facilitating self-reflection on death and loneliness. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–13

    2020

  5. [4]

    Andrea Bartl, Christian Merz, Daniel Roth, and Marc Erich Latoschik. 2022. The effects of avatar and environment design on embodiment, presence, activation, and task load in a virtual reality exercise application. In 2022 IEEE international symposium on mixed and augmented reality (ISMAR) . IEEE, 260–269

    2022

  6. [5]

    Elizabeth Behm-Morawitz. 2013. Mirrored selves: The influence of self-presence in a virtual world on health, appearance, and well-being. Computers in human Behavior 29, 1 (2013), 119–128

    2013

  7. [6]

    Martin Bellgardt, Sebastian Pape, David Gilbert, Marcel Prochnau, Georg König, and Torsten W Kuhlen. 2023. Virtual Optical Bench: Teaching Spherical Lens Layout in VR with Real-Time Ray Tracing. In2023 IEEE Conference Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR) . IEEE, 503–508

    2023

  8. [7]

    Ayush Bhargava, Roshan Venkatakrishnan, Rohith Venkatakrishnan, Hannah Solini, Kathryn Lucaites, Andrew C Robb, Christopher C Pagano, and Sabarish V Babu. 2023. Empirically evaluating the effects of eye height and self-avatars on dynamic passability affordances in virtual reality. In 2023 IEEE Conference Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR). IEEE, 308–317

    2023

Show all 114 references
  1. [8]

    Verena Biener, Snehanjali Kalamkar, Negar Nouri, Eyal Ofek, Michel Pahud, John J Dudley, Jinghui Hu, Per Ola Kristensson, Maheshya Weerasinghe, Klen Čopič Pucihar, et al. 2022. Quantifying the effects of working in vr for one week. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Comput...

    2022

  2. [9]

    Efe Bozkir, Philipp Stark, Hong Gao, Lisa Hasenbein, Jens-Uwe Hahn, Enkelejda Kasneci, and Richard Göllner. 2021. Exploiting object-of-interest information to understand attention in VR classrooms. In 2021 IEEE Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR) . IEEE, 597–605

    2021

  3. [10]

    Jhon Alexander Bueno-Vesga, Xinhao Xu, and Hao He. 2021. The effects of cognitive load on engagement in a virtual reality learning environment. In 2021 IEEE Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR) . IEEE, 645–652

    2021

  4. [11]

    Jiaxun Cao, Qingyang He, Zhuo Wang, RAY LC, and Xin Tong. 2023. DreamVR: curating an interactive exhibition in social VR through an autobiographical design study. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–18

    2023

  5. [12]

    Vinay Chamola, Siva Sai, Animesh Bhargava, Ashis Sahu, Wenchao Jiang, Zehui Xiong, Dusit Niyato, and Amir Hussain. 2024. A comprehensive survey on generative AI for metaverse: enabling immersive experience. Cognitive Computation 16, 6 (2024), 3286–3315. , Vol. 1, No. 1, Articl...

    2024

  6. [13]

    I’d rather drink in VRChat

    Qijia Chen, Andrea Bellucci, and Giulio Jacucci. 2024. “I’d rather drink in VRChat”: Understanding Drinking in Social Virtual Reality. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–16

    2024

  7. [14]

    Zubin Choudhary, Nahal Norouzi, Austin Erickson, Ryan Schubert, Gerd Bruder, and Gregory F Welch. 2023. Exploring the social influence of virtual humans unintentionally conveying conflicting emotions. In2023 IEEE Conference Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR) . IEEE, 571–580

    2023

  8. [15]

    Theo Combe, Rebecca Fribourg, Lucas Detto, and Jean-Marie Normand. 2024. Exploring the Influence of Virtual Avatar Heads in Mixed Reality on Social Presence, Performance and User Experience in Collaborative Tasks. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (2024)

    2024

  9. [16]

    Chris Creed, Maadh Al-Kalbani, Arthur Theil, Sayan Sarcar, and Ian Williams. 2024. Inclusive augmented and virtual reality: A research agenda. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 40, 20 (2024), 6200–6219

    2024

  10. [17]

    James J Cummings and Jeremy N Bailenson. 2016. How immersive is enough? A meta-analysis of the effect of immersive technology on user presence. Media psychology 19, 2 (2016), 272–309

    2016

  11. [18]

    Letizia Della Longa, Irene Valori, and Teresa Farroni. 2022. Interpersonal affective touch in a virtual world: feeling the social presence of others to overcome loneliness. Frontiers in Psychology 12 (2022), 795283

    2022

  12. [19]

    Patrick Dickinson, Andrew Cardwell, Adrian Parke, Kathrin Gerling, and John Murray. 2021. Diegetic tool management in a virtual reality training simulation. In 2021 IEEE Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR) . IEEE, 131–139

    2021

  13. [20]

    Jerome Dinet, Monik Favart, and Jean-Michel Passerault. 2004. Searching for information in an online public access catalogue (OPAC): the impacts of information search expertise on the use of Boolean operators. Journal of computer assisted learning 20, 5 (2004), 338–346

    2004

  14. [21]

    Florian Dufresne, Tommy Nilsson, Geoffrey Gorisse, Enrico Guerra, André Zenner, Olivier Christmann, Leonie Bensch, Nikolai Anton Callus, and Aidan Cowley. 2024. Touching the Moon: Leveraging Passive Haptics, Embodiment and Presence for Operational Assessments in Virtual Realit...

    2024

  15. [22]

    Federico Espositi and Andrea Bonarini. 2024. The Room: design and embodiment of spaces as social beings. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia . 2690–2699

    2024

  16. [23]

    Catarina G Fidalgo, Maurício Sousa, Daniel Mendes, Rafael Kuffner Dos Anjos, Daniel Medeiros, Karan Singh, and Joaquim Jorge. 2023. Magic: Manipulating avatars and gestures to improve remote collaboration. In 2023 IEEE Conference Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR) . I...

    2023

  17. [24]

    Ryota Gomi, Ryo Suzuki, Kazuki Takashima, Kazuyuki Fujita, and Yoshifumi Kitamura. 2024. InflatableBots: Inflatable Shape-Changing Mobile Robots for Large-Scale Encountered-Type Haptics in VR. InProceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–14

    2024

  18. [25]

    Matt Gottsacker, Nahal Norouzi, Kangsoo Kim, Gerd Bruder, and Greg Welch. 2021. Diegetic representations for seamless cross-reality interruptions. In 2021 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR) . IEEE, 310–319

    2021

  19. [26]

    Xiang Gu, Sheng Li, Kangrui Yi, Xiaojuan Yang, Huiling Liu, and Guoping Wang. 2022. Role-exchange playing: An exploration of role-playing effects for anti-bullying in immersive virtual environments. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 29, 10 (2022), 4215–4228

    2022

  20. [27]

    Negin Hamzeheinejad, Daniel Roth, Samantha Monty, Julian Breuer, Anuschka Rodenberg, and Marc Erich Latoschik

  21. [28]

    Dai-In Danny Han, Yoy Bergs, and Natasha Moorhouse. 2022. Virtual reality consumer experience escapes: preparing for the metaverse. Virtual Reality 26, 4 (2022), 1443–1458

    2022

  22. [29]

    Sandra G Hart. 2006. NASA-task load index (NASA-TLX); 20 years later. In Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting , Vol. 50. Sage publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, 904–908

    2006

  23. [30]

    Teresa Hirzle, Fabian Fischbach, Julian Karlbauer, Pascal Jansen, Jan Gugenheimer, Enrico Rukzio, and Andreas Bulling. 2022. Understanding, Addressing, and Analysing Digital Eye Strain in Virtual Reality Head-Mounted Displays. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 29, 4, Article 3...

    2022 doi

  24. [31]

    Ting-Wei Hsu, Ming-Han Tsai, Sabarish V Babu, Pei-Hsien Hsu, Hsuan-Ming Chang, Wen-Chieh Lin, and Jung-Hong Chuang. 2020. Design and initial evaluation of a VR based immersive and interactive architectural design discussion system. In 2020 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality an...

    2020

  25. [32]

    You-Yang Hu, Yao-Fu Jan, Kuan-Wei Tseng, You-Shin Tsai, Hung-Ming Sung, Jin-Yao Lin, and Yi-Ping Hung. 2021. abio: Active bi-olfactory display using subwoofers for virtual reality. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Multimedia. 2065–2073

    2021

  26. [33]

    in vr, everything is possible!

    Hans-Christian Jetter, Roman Rädle, Tiare Feuchtner, Christoph Anthes, Judith Friedl, and Clemens Nylandsted Klokmose. 2020. " in vr, everything is possible!": Sketching and simulating spatially-aware interactive spaces in virtual reality. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI confer...

    2020

  27. [34]

    Crescent Jicol, Christopher Clarke, Emilia Tor, Rebecca M Dakin, Tom Charlie Lancaster, Sze Tung Chang, Karin Petrini, Eamonn O’Neill, Michael J Proulx, and Christof Lutteroth. 2023. Realism and field of view affect presence in vr but not the way you think. In Proceedings of t...

    2023

  28. [35]

    Crescent Jicol, Chun Hin Wan, Benjamin Doling, Caitlin H Illingworth, Jinha Yoon, Charlotte Headey, Christof Lutteroth, Michael J Proulx, Karin Petrini, and Eamonn O’Neill. 2021. Effects of emotion and agency on presence in virtual reality. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI confe...

    2021

  29. [36]

    Qiao Jin, Yu Liu, Ruixuan Sun, Chen Chen, Puqi Zhou, Bo Han, Feng Qian, and Svetlana Yarosh. 2023. Collaborative online learning with vr video: Roles of collaborative tools and shared video control. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–18

    2023

  30. [37]

    Yili Jin, Xize Duan, Fangxin Wang, and Xue Liu. 2024. HeadsetOff: Enabling Photorealistic Video Conferencing on Economical VR Headsets. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia . 7928–7936

    2024

  31. [38]

    Dorota Kamińska, Tomasz Sapiński, Sławomir Wiak, Toomas Tikk, Rain Eric Haamer, Egils Avots, Ahmed Helmi, Cagri Ozcinar, and Gholamreza Anbarjafari. 2019. Virtual reality and its applications in education: Survey.Information 10, 10 (2019), 318

    2019

  32. [39]

    Alexandra D Kaplan, Jessica Cruit, Mica Endsley, Suzanne M Beers, Ben D Sawyer, and Peter A Hancock. 2021. The effects of virtual reality, augmented reality, and mixed reality as training enhancement methods: A meta-analysis. Human factors 63, 4 (2021), 706–726

    2021

  33. [40]

    Kim Kargut, Carl Gutwin, and Andy Cockburn. 2024. Effects of Device Environment and Information Layout on Spatial Memory and Performance in VR Selection Tasks. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–17

    2024

  34. [41]

    Hayeon Kim, Jinhyung Park, and In-Kwon Lee. 2023. ” To Be or Not to Be Me?”: Exploration of Self-Similar Effects ofAvatars on Social Virtual Reality Experiences. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (2023)

    2023

  35. [43]

    Minju Kim, Yuhyun Lee, and Jungjin Lee. 2022. Multi-view layout design for VR concert experience. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Multimedia . 818–826

    2022

  36. [44]

    Simon Kimmel, Frederike Jung, Andrii Matviienko, Wilko Heuten, and Susanne Boll. 2023. Let’s face it: Influence of facial expressions on social presence in collaborative virtual reality. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–16

    2023

  37. [45]

    Simon Kimmel, Eric Landwehr, and Wilko Heuten. 2024. Kinetic Connections: Exploring the Impact of Realistic Body Movements on Social Presence in Collaborative Virtual Reality. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 8, CSCW2, Article 371 (Nov. 2024), 30 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3686910

    2024 doi

  38. [46]

    Renée E Klein Schaarsberg, Levi van Dam, Guy AM Widdershoven, Ramón JL Lindauer, and Arne Popma. 2024. Ethnic representation within virtual reality: a co-design study in a forensic youth care setting. BMC Digital Health 2, 1 (2024), 25

    2024

  39. [47]

    Jordan Koulouris, Zoe Jeffery, James Best, Eamonn O’neill, and Christof Lutteroth. 2020. Me vs. Super (wo) man: Effects of Customization and Identification in a VR Exergame. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 1–17

    2020

  40. [48]

    May I Speak?

    Geonsun Lee, Dae Yeol Lee, Guan-Ming Su, and Dinesh Manocha. 2024. “May I Speak?”: Multi-modal Attention Guidance in Social VR Group Conversations. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (2024)

    2024

  41. [49]

    We Cried on Each Other’s Shoulders

    Lingyuan Li, Guo Freeman, Kelsea Schulenberg, and Dane Acena. 2023. " We Cried on Each Other’s Shoulders": How LGBTQ+ Individuals Experience Social Support in Social Virtual Reality. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–16

    2023

  42. [50]

    Meng Li, Sandeep Ganni, Jeroen Ponten, Armagan Albayrak, Anne-F Rutkowski, and Jack Jakimowicz. 2020. Analysing usability and presence of a virtual reality operating room (VOR) simulator during laparoscopic surgery training. In 2020 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D Us...

    2020

  43. [51]

    Wanwan Li, Haikun Huang, Tomay Solomon, Behzad Esmaeili, and Lap-Fai Yu. 2022. Synthesizing personalized construction safety training scenarios for VR training. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 28, 5 (2022), 1993–2002

    2022

  44. [52]

    Chuan-en Lin, Ta Ying Cheng, and Xiaojuan Ma. 2020. Architect: Building interactive virtual experiences from physical affordances by bringing human-in-the-loop. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–13. , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Pu...

    2020

  45. [54]

    Tianren Luo, Fenglin Lu, Jiafu Lv, Xiaohui Tan, Chang Liu, Fangzhi Yan, Jin Huang, Chun Yu, Teng Han, and Feng Tian. 2024. Exploring Experience Gaps Between Active and Passive Users During Multi-user Locomotion in VR. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Co...

    2024

  46. [55]

    Henna Mäkinen, Elina Haavisto, Sara Havola, and Jaana-Maija Koivisto. 2022. User experiences of virtual reality technologies for healthcare in learning: an integrative review. Behaviour & Information Technology 41, 1 (2022), 1–17

    2022

  47. [56]

    David Mal, Erik Wolf, Nina Döllinger, Carolin Wienrich, and Marc Erich Latoschik. 2023. The impact of avatar and environment congruence on plausibility, embodiment, presence, and the proteus effect in virtual reality. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 29...

    2023

  48. [57]

    Yanni Mei, Jie Li, Huib De Ridder, and Pablo Cesar. 2021. Cakevr: A social virtual reality (vr) tool for co-designing cakes. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 1–14

    2021

  49. [58]

    Miguel Melo, Guilherme Gonçalves, Maximino Bessa, et al. 2023. How much presence is enough? Qualitative scales for interpreting the igroup presence questionnaire score. IEEE Access 11 (2023), 24675–24685

    2023

  50. [59]

    Alexander Michael and Christof Lutteroth. 2020. Race yourselves: A longitudinal exploration of self-competition between past, present, and future performances in a vr exergame. InProceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–17

    2020

  51. [60]

    Wyatt Moss-Wellington, Xiaolin Sun, and Eugene Ch’ng. 2024. Going to the movies in VR: Virtual reality cinemas as alternatives to in-person co-viewing. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 181 (2024), 103150

    2024

  52. [61]

    Diederick C Niehorster, Li Li, and Markus Lappe. 2017. The accuracy and precision of position and orientation tracking in the HTC vive virtual reality system for scientific research. i-Perception 8, 3 (2017), 2041669517708205

    2017

  53. [62]

    Hyun Jung Oh, Junghwan Kim, Jeongheon JC Chang, Nohil Park, and Sangrock Lee. 2023. Social benefits of living in the metaverse: The relationships among social presence, supportive interaction, social self-efficacy, and feelings of loneliness. Computers in Human Behavior 139 (2...

    2023

  54. [63]

    Joseph O’Hagan, Julie R Williamson, Florian Mathis, Mohamed Khamis, and Mark McGill. 2023. Re-evaluating vr user awareness needs during bystander interactions. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–17

    2023

  55. [64]

    Xueni Pan and Antonia F de C Hamilton. 2018. Why and how to use virtual reality to study human social interaction: The challenges of exploring a new research landscape. British Journal of Psychology 109, 3 (2018), 395–417

    2018

  56. [65]

    Tabitha C Peck, Jessica J Good, and Katharina Seitz. 2021. Evidence of racial bias using immersive virtual reality: Analysis of head and hand motions during shooting decisions. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 27, 5 (2021), 2502–2512

    2021

  57. [66]

    Gustav Bøg Petersen, Aske Mottelson, and Guido Makransky. 2021. Pedagogical agents in educational vr: An in the wild study. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–12

    2021

  58. [67]

    Rosalind W Picard. 2000. Affective computing. MIT press

    2000

  59. [68]

    Katharina Margareta Theresa Pöhlmann, Gang Li, Mark Mcgill, Reuben Markoff, and Stephen Anthony Brewster

  60. [69]

    Michal Ponder, George Papagiannakis, Tom Molet, Nadia Magnenat-Thalmann, and Daniel Thalmann. 2003. VHD++ development framework: Towards extendible, component based VR/AR simulation engine featuring advanced virtual character technologies. In Proceedings Computer Graphics Inte...

    2003

  61. [70]

    Carolin Reichherzer, Andrew Cunningham, Jason Barr, Tracey Coleman, Kurt McManus, Dion Sheppard, Scott Coussens, Mark Kohler, Mark Billinghurst, and Bruce H Thomas. 2022. Supporting Jury Understanding of Expert Evidence in a Virtual Environment. In 2022 IEEE Conference on Virt...

    2022

  62. [71]

    In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    You spin me right round, baby, right round: Examining the impact of multi-sensory self-motion cues on motion sickness during a VR reading task. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–16

    2023

  63. [72]

    Prasanth Sasikumar, Ryo Hajika, Kunal Gupta, Tamil Selvan Gunasekaran, Yun Suen Pai, Huidong Bai, Suranga Nanayakkara, and Mark Billinghurst. 2024. A User Study on Sharing Physiological Cues in VR Assembly Tasks. In 2024 IEEE Conference Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (...

    2024

  64. [73]

    Danny Schott, Florian Heinrich, Lara Stallmeister, Julia Moritz, Bennet Hensen, and Christian Hansen. 2023. Is this the vReal Life? Manipulating Visual Fidelity of Immersive Environments for Medical Task Simulation. In 2023 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented R...

    2023

  65. [74]

    Rafael Sarkis-Onofre, Ferrán Catalá-López, Edoardo Aromataris, and Craig Lockwood. 2021. How to properly use the PRISMA Statement. Systematic Reviews 10 (2021), 1–3

    2021

  66. [75]

    Danny Schott, Patrick Saalfeld, Gerd Schmidt, Fabian Joeres, Christian Boedecker, Florentine Huettl, Hauke Lang, Tobias Huber, Bernhard Preim, and Christian Hansen. 2021. A vr/ar environment for multi-user liver anatomy education. In 2021 IEEE Virtual Reality and 3D User Inter...

    2021

  67. [76]

    Ephraim Schott, Tony Jan Zoeppig, Anton Benjamin Lammert, and Bernd Froehlich. 2024. Excuse Me: Large Groups in Small Rooms. In 2024 IEEE Conference Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR) . IEEE, 72–82

    2024

  68. [77]

    Danny Schott, Matthias Kunz, Tom Wunderling, Florian Heinrich, Rüdiger Braun-Dullaeus, and Christian Hansen

  69. [78]

    IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 29, 5 (2023), 2615–2625

    Cardiogenesis4d: Interactive morphological transitions of embryonic heart development in a virtual learning environment. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 29, 5 (2023), 2615–2625

    2023

  70. [79]

    Chenxinran Shen, Joanna Mcgrenere, and Dongwook Yoon. 2024. LegacySphere: Facilitating Intergenerational Communication Through Perspective-Taking and Storytelling in Embodied VR. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–16

    2024

  71. [80]

    Kento Shigyo, Yi-Fan Cao, Kentaro Takahira, Mingming Fan, and Huamin Qu. 2024. VR-Mediated Cognitive Defusion: A Comparative Study for Managing Negative Thoughts. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia. 117–126

    2024

  72. [81]

    These are not my hands!

    Valentin Schwind, Pascal Knierim, Cagri Tasci, Patrick Franczak, Nico Haas, and Niels Henze. 2017. " These are not my hands!" Effect of Gender on the Perception of Avatar Hands in Virtual Reality. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems ...

    2017

  73. [82]

    Rustam Shadiev, Xueying Wang, and Yueh-Min Huang. 2021. Cross-cultural learning in virtual reality environment: facilitating cross-cultural understanding, trait emotional intelligence, and sense of presence. Educational Technology Research and Development 69, 5 (2021), 2917–2936

    2021

  74. [83]

    Philipp Sykownik, Divine Maloney, Guo Freeman, and Maic Masuch. 2022. Something personal from the metaverse: goals, topics, and contextual factors of self-disclosure in commercial social VR. InProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–17

    2022

  75. [84]

    Valerie Jones Taylor, Juan José Valladares, Claire Siepser, and Caitlyn Yantis. 2020. Interracial contact in virtual reality: Best practices. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences 7, 2 (2020), 132–140

    2020

  76. [85]

    Richard Skarbez, Frederick P Brooks, Jr, and Mary C Whitton. 2017. A survey of presence and related concepts. ACM computing surveys (CSUR) 50, 6 (2017), 1–39

    2017

  77. [86]

    Alexis D Souchet, Domitile Lourdeaux, Alain Pagani, and Lisa Rebenitsch. 2023. A narrative review of immersive virtual reality’s ergonomics and risks at the workplace: cybersickness, visual fatigue, muscular fatigue, acute stress, and mental overload. Virtual Reality 27, 1 (20...

    2023

  78. [87]

    Huayuan Tian, Gun A Lee, Huidong Bai, and Mark Billinghurst. 2023. Using virtual replicas to improve mixed reality remote collaboration. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 29, 5 (2023), 2785–2795

    2023

  79. [88]

    Wen-Jie Tseng, Elise Bonnail, Mark McGill, Mohamed Khamis, Eric Lecolinet, Samuel Huron, and Jan Gugenheimer

  80. [89]

    Santawat Thanyadit, Matthias Heintz, and Effie LC Law. 2023. Tutor In-sight: Guiding and Visualizing Students’ Attention with Mixed Reality Avatar Presentation Tools. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–20

    2023

  81. [90]

    Balasaravanan Thoravi Kumaravel and Andrew D Wilson. 2022. Dreamstream: Immersive and interactive spectating in vr. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–17

    2022

  82. [91]

    Matias Volonte, Chang-Chun Wang, Elham Ebrahimi, Yu-Chun Hsu, Kuan-Yu Liu, Sai-Keung Wong, and Sabarish V Babu. 2021. Effects of language familiarity in simulated natural dialogue with a virtual crowd of digital humans on emotion contagion in virtual reality. In 2021 IEEE Virt...

    2021

  83. [92]

    Jorge Wagner, Wolfgang Stuerzlinger, and Luciana Nedel. 2021. The effect of exploration mode and frame of reference in immersive analytics. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 28, 9 (2021), 3252–3264

    2021

  84. [93]

    Chiu-Hsuan Wang, Bing-Yu Chen, and Liwei Chan. 2022. Realitylens: A user interface for blending customized physical world view into virtual reality. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. 1–11

    2022

  85. [94]

    Fabian Unruh, David Vogel, Maximilian Landeck, Jean-Luc Lugrin, and Marc Erich Latoschik. 2023. Body and time: virtual embodiment and its effect on time perception. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 29, 5 (2023), 2626–2636

    2023

  86. [95]

    Jan-Niklas Voigt-Antons, Robert Spang, Tanja Kojić, Luis Meier, Maurizio Vergari, and Sebastian Möller. 2021. Don’t worry be happy-using virtual environments to induce emotional states measured by subjective scales and heart rate parameters. In 2021 IEEE Virtual Reality and 3D...

    2021

  87. [96]

    Xiaoying Wei, Yizheng Gu, Emily Kuang, Xian Wang, Beiyan Cao, Xiaofu Jin, and Mingming Fan. 2023. Bridging the generational gap: exploring how virtual reality supports remote communication between grandparents and grandchildren. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Hum...

    2023

  88. [97]

    Zheng Wei, Yuzheng Chen, Wai Tong, Xuan Zong, Huamin Qu, Xian Xu, and Lik-Hang Lee. 2024. Hearing the Moment with MetaEcho! From Physical to Virtual in Synchronized Sound Recording. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia . 6520–6529

    2024

  89. [98]

    Zheng Wei, Shan Jin, Wai Tong, David Kei Man Yip, Pan Hui, and Xian Xu. 2024. Multi-Role VR Training System for Film Production: Enhancing Collaboration with MetaCrew. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2024 Posters. 1–2

    2024

  90. [99]

    Portia Wang, Mark R Miller, Anna CM Queiroz, and Jeremy N Bailenson. 2024. Socially Late, Virtually Present: The Effects of Transforming Asynchronous Social Interactions in Virtual Reality. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–19. , Vo...

    2024

  91. [100]

    Xian Wang, Xiaoyu Mo, Lik-Hang Lee, Xiaoying Wei, Xiaofu Jin, Mingming Fan, and Pan Hui. 2023. Designing Loving-Kindness Meditation in Virtual Reality for Long-Distance Romantic Relationships. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Multimedia . 7608–7617

    2023

  92. [101]

    Erik Wolf, Nathalie Merdan, Nina Dölinger, David Mal, Carolin Wienrich, Mario Botsch, and Marc Erich Latoschik

  93. [102]

    Sai-Keung Wong, Matias Volonte, Kuan-Yu Liu, Elham Ebrahimi, and Sabarish V Babu. 2023. Comparing Visual Attention with Leading and Following Virtual Agents in a Collaborative Perception-Action Task in VR. In 2023 IEEE Conference Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR) . I...

    2023

  94. [103]

    Dapeng Wu, Zhigang Yang, Puning Zhang, Ruyan Wang, Boran Yang, and Xinqiang Ma. 2023. Virtual-reality interpromotion technology for metaverse: A survey. IEEE Internet of Things Journal 10, 18 (2023), 15788–15809

    2023

  95. [104]

    Zheng Wei, Xian Xu, Lik-Hang Lee, Wai Tong, Huamin Qu, and Pan Hui. 2023. Feeling Present! From Physical to Virtual Cinematography Lighting Education with Metashadow. InProceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Multimedia. 1127–1136

    2023

  96. [105]

    Ignatius Alex Wijayanto, Sabarish V Babu, Christopher C Pagano, and Jung Hong Chuang. 2023. Comparing the effects of visual realism on size perception in vr versus real world viewing through physical and verbal judgments. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphic...

    2023

  97. [106]

    Hiromu Yakura and Masataka Goto. 2020. Enhancing participation experience in vr live concerts by improving motions of virtual audience avatars. In 2020 IEEE international symposium on mixed and augmented reality (ISMAR) . IEEE, 555–565

    2020

  98. [107]

    In 2021 IEEE Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR)

    The embodiment of photorealistic avatars influences female body weight perception in virtual reality. In 2021 IEEE Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR) . IEEE, 65–74

    2021

  99. [108]

    Boram Yoon, Hyung-il Kim, Seo Young Oh, and Woontack Woo. 2020. Evaluating remote virtual hands models on social presence in hand-based 3d remote collaboration. In2020 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR). IEEE, 520–532

    2020

  100. [109]

    Haoran Yun, Jose Luis Ponton, Alejandro Beacco, Carlos Andujar, and Nuria Pelechano. 2024. Exploring the Role of Expected Collision Feedback in Crowded Virtual Environments. In 2024 IEEE Conference Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR). IEEE, 472–481. , Vol. 1, No. 1, Ar...

    2024

  101. [110]

    Xian Xu, Wai Tong, Zheng Wei, Meng Xia, Lik-Hang Lee, and Huamin Qu. 2023. Cinematography in the metaverse: Exploring the lighting education on a soundstage. In 2023 IEEE conference on virtual reality and 3d user interfaces abstracts and workshops (VRW) . IEEE, 571–572

    2023

  102. [111]

    Xian Xu, Wai Tong, Zheng Wei, Meng Xia, Lik-Hang Lee, and Huamin Qu. 2024. Transforming cinematography lighting education in the metaverse. Visual Informatics (2024)

    2024

  103. [113]

    Jackie Yang, Tuochao Chen, Fang Qin, Monica S Lam, and James A Landay. 2022. Hybridtrak: Adding full-body tracking to vr using an off-the-shelf webcam. InProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–13

    2022

  104. [2021]

    In 2021 IEEE Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR)

    The impact of implicit and explicit feedback on performance and experience during VR-supported motor rehabilitation. In 2021 IEEE Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR) . IEEE, 382–391

    2021

  105. [2022]

    In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    The dark side of perceptual manipulations in virtual reality. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–15

    2022

  106. [2023]

    International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 179 (2023), 103104

    Meet me in VR! Can VR space help remote teams connect: a seven-week study with horizon workrooms. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 179 (2023), 103104

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.