DP-LENS: A Density-Aware Polyfocal Lens with Topology-Driven Auto-Routing for Occlusion Management in Immersive 3D Analytics

Lik-Hang Lee; Nieyu Cao; Xian Wang

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 60 references

DP-LENS: A Density-Aware Polyfocal Lens with Topology-Driven Auto-Routing for Occlusion Management in Immersive 3D Analytics

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A density-aware polyfocal fisheye lens that softens occluders into ghosted context can expose deeply hidden 3D targets faster and with less cognitive load than standard minimap or slicing techniques.

desk verdict A genuinely new combination of density-aware lens and LLM voice routing, with a solid Study 1; the Study 2 benefits are plausible but rest on an unmeasured voice-grounding success rate, and the abstract overstates preference evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.27697 v1 pith:K6IYE4ID submitted 2026-07-30 cs.HC

Nieyu Cao , Xian Wang , Lik-Hang Lee This is my paper

classification cs.HC

keywords ImmersiveAnalyticsVirtualRealityOcclusionManagementFocus+ContextFisheyeLensDensityFieldLLM-basedNavigationUserStudy

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 a single interaction technique can manage severe 3D occlusion without forcing users to choose between seeing the detail and staying oriented. It introduces DP-LENS, a density-aware polyfocal fisheye lens that deforms space around a data skeleton and softens occluders into a ghost-like state, preserving topological context while exposing targets. In a user study with 18 participants, DP-LENS led to significantly faster task completion and lower reported mental demand than World-in-Miniature and volumetric slicing, and was the only technique in which all participants succeeded on the most heavily occluded vessel dataset. A second study with 16 participants adds an LLM-based voice selector that starts automatic lens routing; this version kept completion times flat as the dataset grew from desktop to room scale and lowered physical demand. The paper's central claim is that context-preserving, density-driven deformation plus automated macro-routing makes immersive 3D analytics less cognitively and physically expensive.

What carries the argument

The central object is a continuous, GPU-computed density field rho(r) built with kernel density estimation over the raw point cloud. From it the system extracts a topological skeleton of centerlines; a gradient-driven flow repair algorithm bridges gaps in noisy skeletons by minimizing a combination of distance and tangent-angle mismatch. The lens itself is a polyfocal 'visual tube' that follows the skeleton and applies a Sarkar-Brown fisheye distortion perpendicular to the tube, governed by a density-aware safe radius R_safe that stops expansion at iso-threshold boundaries. The 'X-ray' rendering uses a smooth-step alpha attenuation on occluders inside the view frustum, so foreground structur

What would settle it

Measure the semantic-grounding accuracy of the voice selector over a large set of commands (e.g., 100 trials per target region) and correlate failures with task completion time. If grounding accuracy is low, or the completion-time advantage over manual control vanishes when only correctly grounded trials are counted, the central auto-routing claim is weakened. A second check: count how often participants manually corrected the lens after a voice command; the paper quotes one such mismatch but does not log the rate.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

DP-LENS works by computing a continuous density field over raw volumetric points, extracting a topological skeleton of centerlines, and repairing gaps with a gradient-driven flow repair heuristic. The lens forms a polyfocal tube along that skeleton; a Sarkar-Brown fisheye magnification expands nearby points, while a density-aware auto-scaling mechanism stops the expansion at structural walls so the lens does not collide with the data. Occluders in the view frustum are dimmed by a smooth alpha fade rather than clipped away, so peripheral structure stays visible. On top of the manual lens, a voice-initiated auto-router uses an LLM to interpret commands like 'focus on the top-left vessel' by ma

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the LLM voice selector resolves natural-language commands to the correct target region most of the time; the paper logs latency but never reports grounding accuracy, so if the model often picks the wrong region the auto-routing speed and fatigue advantages could disappear or reverse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

In datasets with containment-level occlusion, WIM-style overview maps can fail outright (0% completion), while DP-LENS keeps 100% completion; so context-preserving deformation is a more reliable default for dense internal structures.
Adding voice-initiated auto-routing makes task completion time statistically insensitive to physical scale within a 2m tracking area, which means spatial scalability can be improved without more locomotion hardware.
The physical-demand reductions observed (Borg arm and neck fatigue) suggest the technique can support longer VR analytics sessions before fatigue sets in.
The system sustains above 90 FPS on datasets up to 1.5 million points with lens overhead below 1 ms per frame, so the interaction is practical for real-time use.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper leaves implicit that the voice auto-router's benefit depends on the granularity of the discretized scene tags; coarser tags may improve latency but hurt grounding, and sweeping that parameter is a natural next experiment.
A hybrid policy, where voice routing handles macro traversal and manual control handles within-arm's-reach micro-adjustments, is hinted at by the user comments but not tested; a dual-task study could quantify when each mode wins.
The same density-skeleton lens could plausibly transfer to other dense abstract 3D domains, such as particle physics or point-cloud clustering, though the paper only evaluates vascular and flow datasets.
Replacing the LLM grounding step with eye-tracking or gesture pointing might preserve the cognitive-load benefit while cutting the 2.88s voice latency; that comparison is not in the paper but follows from its own design logic.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Good paper to know if you work on immersive analytics or multimodal interaction. The authors combine a density-aware polyfocal fisheye lens, topology extraction, and an LLM-based voice selector into one system, and evaluate it in two within-subject studies. That combination is new; nobody else has put these pieces together in a 3D lens framework. Study 1 is the strongest part: 18 participants, three occlusion levels, and DP-LENS beats WIM-NAV and V-SLICE on completion time, workload, and preference. The fact that WIM-NAV got 0% on the Vessel task is dramatic—so dramatic that I'd want to confirm the baseline was implemented fairly, but it's consistent with the literature on overview+detail failing in dense internal structures.

The soft spots are mostly in Study 2 and in how the abstract characterizes it. The abstract says auto-routing 'garnered higher user preference,' but no preference data are reported in Study 2. That's a factual overclaim and should be fixed. More substantively, the entire Study 2 result depends on the LLM reliably grounding voice commands to the correct target region. The paper reports average pipeline latency and one mismatch quote, but never a grounding success rate, per-trial corrections, or how often users had to manually adjust. The one quote suggests failures do happen. If they were frequent, the completion-time and fatigue benefits could shrink or reverse. This is the main thing I'd ask for in a revision: report grounding accuracy, error cases, and how much correction time they added.

Also minor: the lens parameters (d, gamma, tau, alpha/beta) are never given, so the system isn't fully reproducible; the promised open-source toolkit has no link. Those are addressable.

Overall, this is a serious paper by people who know the literature. The central design idea holds up; the gaps are concrete and fixable, not fatal. I'd want a referee to see it before acceptance, but it deserves the referee time.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces DP-LENS, a density-aware polyfocal fisheye lens for immersive 3D analytics, with a context-preserving X-ray rendering pipeline and an LLM-based voice selector that initiates topology-driven auto-routing. Two within-subject user studies are reported: Study 1 (N=18) compares manual DP-LENS against WIM-NAV and V-SLICE over three occlusion levels; Study 2 (N=16) compares hybrid voice-initiated auto-routing against manual DP-LENS at desktop and room scales. The authors claim that DP-LENS reduces completion time, cognitive load, and physical fatigue, and that auto-routing improves efficiency and partially decouples exploration time from dataset scale. Design implications for spatially scalable, low-fatigue immersive analytics are proposed.

Significance. If the results hold, the work is a useful contribution to immersive analytics: it combines a non-destructive, density-aware lens with an LLM-assisted navigation loop and releases an open-source toolkit. The frame-time table, the use of established measures (NASA-TLX, Borg RPE, FMS), and the grounding of hypotheses in the occlusion taxonomy are strengths. However, the strongest claims—auto-routing efficiency and scale insensitivity—depend on an unmeasured voice-grounding reliability, and the abstract asserts a Study 2 preference result that is not reported in the results section. The manuscript is substantial but requires additional evidence and reporting before the headline claims are fully supported.

major comments (4)

[§5.2 (H4–H6, Fig. 8)] The central Study 2 effects (mode main effect F(1,15)=22.17; scale×mode interaction F(1,15)=6.68) are interpretable only if the LLM voice selector resolves target regions reliably. The paper reports only average pipeline latency (~2.88 s) and one quoted mismatch ('bottom-left' vs. 'left vessel'). There is no grounding success rate, no per-trial command count, and no manual-correction frequency. If a non-trivial fraction of voice commands were misgrounded, users would incur extra commands or manual movements, which directly affects completion time and fatigue; the measured benefits could weaken or reverse. This is load-bearing for H4–H6. Please provide system-log-based grounding statistics and, ideally, re-analyze with error trials excluded or correction time as a covariate.
[Abstract vs. §5.2] The abstract states that the auto-routing system in Study 2 'garnered higher user preference,' but no preference-ranking data are reported in §5.2 or in Table 3. Either the preference results and their statistical test should be reported, or the abstract (and the corresponding sentence in the introduction/conclusion) should be revised to reflect only the measures actually collected.
[§5.2 (Fig. 8a, Table 3)] Completion-time results for Study 2 are reported only as F and p values; no per-condition means, standard deviations, or confidence intervals are given. This makes the practical magnitude of the effect impossible to assess. In addition, the claim that auto-routing makes completion time insensitive to scale rests on a non-significant pairwise difference (p=.54); a null p-value does not establish equivalence. Report descriptive statistics and effect sizes, and if scale decoupling (H6) is a claim, use an equivalence test or a Bayes factor.
[§4.5, Table 2 (Vessel condition)] WIM-NAV's 0% completion rate in the Vessel condition (all 18 participants timed out) creates a floor effect: completion-time comparisons exclude WIM-NAV, and the subjective/preference comparisons are made against a condition in which the baseline never succeeded. Please justify the WIM-NAV implementation (e.g., what scaling/rotation of the mini-map was available, how training was handled) and discuss this floor effect explicitly as a limitation. As it stands, the Vessel comparison overstates the advantage over overview+detail methods.

minor comments (5)

[§4.5 (statistical reporting)] Several test statistics are incomplete or inconsistent. For the Vortex completion time, the paper reports F(2,34)=5.26, p=.026 after Greenhouse–Geisser correction; with a sphericity violation the corrected degrees of freedom should be reported. The overall workload main effect (p<.001) and the FMS main effect (p=.0001) are reported without test statistics. Please add F/chi-square values and, where relevant, corrected df.
[§5.2 (Wilcoxon values)] Some Wilcoxon statistics appear internally inconsistent (e.g., temporal demand V=15.5, Z=-0.14, p=.719; effort V=40.5, Z=0.08, p=.905; frustration V=17.0, Z=-1.21, p=.265). The reported V, Z, and p values should be cross-checked against the raw data.
[§3.1, Eqs. (1)–(3)] The free parameters d, γ, τ, α, and β appear in the lens equations, but no values or tuning procedure are given. For reproducibility and to allow readers to judge the method's generality, please state the chosen values (or how they were set) for the experiments.
[§3.3 vs. Table 1] The text says the system loads 'up to 2 million points' while Table 1 reports performance only up to 1.5M points. Please align these numbers or clarify the discrepancy.
[Fig. 8 and Table 3] Fig. 8 shows bar charts without error bars/symbols in the text description, and Table 3 lacks confidence intervals for the subjective measures. Adding CIs or SDs to figures/tables would make the results easier to interpret.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: lens equations are design formulas, not fitted predictions; the only self-citations are contextual and non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical evaluations, not derivations from its equations. Equations (1)–(3) define the polyfocal deformation, density-aware safe radius, and alpha attenuation with fixed design parameters (d, γ, τ; α, β in the flow-repair energy); no parameter is fitted to Study 1/2 completion times, NASA-TLX, Borg RPE, or FMS outcomes, nor is any fitted quantity renamed as a prediction. Hypotheses H1–H6 are tested against WIM-NAV and V-SLICE baselines with standard repeated-measures statistics, and the Study 2 scale×mode interaction is a measured result, not a consequence of the lens equations. The unmeasured LLM voice-grounding success rate is a real validity limitation of Study 2, but it is a missing measurement, not an equivalence-by-construction. Self-citations [3], [44], and [54] appear only in related-work context for WIM and mid-air interaction; none is load-bearing for DP-LENS's effectiveness, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. The result therefore stands as an independent empirical contribution with only minor, non-circular self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical or mathematical entities; it is a systems paper. Its load-bearing assumptions are domain-specific: that KDE, skeleton extraction, and flow repair produce a valid structural centerline, that the transparency rendering preserves orientation, and that the LLM/ASR pipeline resolves targets accurately. The six free parameters listed above are design choices made by the authors and, being unreported, they constitute the main unearned inputs to the presented results.

free parameters (6)

Distortion factor d = not reported
Appears in Eq. (1), the Sarkar-Brown polyfocal deformation. The choice controls how strongly the lens magnifies. No value or sensitivity analysis is given in the paper.
Context suppression power γ = not reported
Appears in Eq. (3); controls the strength of the X-ray ghosting effect. Authors do not report the value used in the user studies.
Density iso-threshold τ = not reported
Eq. (2) uses τ to detect structural walls and set the safe lens radius. The value is user-defined but not reported, affecting auto-scaling behavior and thus task performance.
Flow-repair weights α and β = not reported
In the gradient-driven flow repair energy E(v)=α/||p-v|| + β(1-θ/π), these weights balance distance vs. angular momentum. No values supplied.
Semantic tagging thresholds (0.4/0.6 and 0.5 depth) = 0.4, 0.6, 0.5
The scene graph in Sec. 3.2 uses fixed viewport thresholds to tag 'Top Left', 'Center', etc., and a 0.5 depth split for Near/Far. These are arbitrary ad hoc choices that shape what the LLM can ground.
Density tag threshold 0.5 * mean density = 0.5 * ρ̄
Eq. (4) labels a region 'Dense' if ρ(r) ≥ 0.5 ρ̄. This threshold affects which regions the LLM describes and may influence target selection, but no sensitivity analysis is provided.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Kernel Density Estimation (KDE) of the raw point cloud yields a continuous density field ρ(r) that faithfully represents the underlying structure for skeleton extraction.
Invoked in Sec. 3.1 as the basis for both topological skeleton extraction and density-aware auto-scaling. The paper cites [57] for KDE, but the accuracy of the density estimate on the evaluation datasets is not validated.
domain assumption The topological skeleton extracted from ρ(r), after Gradient-Driven Flow Repair, is a connected centerline that guides the lens without missing relevant branches.
Sec. 3.1 states the flow repair 'bridges topological gaps to generate a fully connected structural centerline.' No formal guarantee or quantitative check is given; if the skeleton is disconnected or incorrect, the polyfocal tube and auto-routing path could misbehave.
domain assumption The context-preserving X-ray alpha suppression (Eq. 3) preserves enough peripheral spatial reference to maintain user orientation.
The design assumes the smooth-step ghosting keeps global structure visible. Subjective results support this indirectly, but no objective spatial-orientation measure is used.
domain assumption The LLM (GPT-4o) and ASR (Qwen3-1.7B) services reliably interpret voice commands and the textual scene graph to resolve the correct target region.
Secs. 3.2 and 5.2 treat the grounding as functional; only latency is reported. The one quoted mismatch indicates non-perfect grounding is possible, and no accuracy statistics are provided.
standard math Sarkar-Brown fisheye magnification model (Eq. 1) is appropriate for 3D volumetric deformation.
The classic 2D fisheye model is extended to a 3D focal tube; the paper uses the standard formula without proof, which is acceptable as a standard technique.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of DP-LENS: A Density-Aware Polyfocal Lens with Topology-Driven Auto-Routing for Occlusion Management in Immersive 3D Analytics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/K6IYE4ID

@misc{pith2026260727697,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: DP-LENS: A Density-Aware Polyfocal Lens with Topology-Driven Auto-Routing for Occlusion Management in Immersive 3D Analytics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/K6IYE4ID}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.27697}
}

read the original abstract

Immersive environments, e.g., virtual reality (VR), offer a unique approach to exploring complex 3D datasets, where data is often heavily occluded and exploration incurs a high cognitive load. We propose DP-LENS, a density-aware polyfocal fisheye lens equipped with topology-driven auto-routing. While preserving peripheral context through geometric deformation and 3D perspective techniques, it enables users to explore 3D data with a lower cognitive load. To facilitate hands-free macro-navigation, we integrate a Large Language Model (LLM) to serve as a supplementary voice-based target selection tool that initiates the auto-routing algorithm. Two user studies with 34 participants investigate the potential benefits of this system. Our first study (N=18) compared the manual DP-LENS against two industry-standard baselines (i.e., World-in-Miniature and volumetric slicing) in heavily occluded 3D datasets. The results show that DP-LENS significantly reduced cognitive load, decreased completion time, and improved user preference. The second study (N=16) compared the topology-driven auto-routing system (initiated via voice commands) with a fully manual DP-LENS. The results show that the auto-routing system improved task efficiency, further reduced cognitive load, and garnered higher user preference. Furthermore, the auto-routing partially decoupled exploration efficiency from the physical dimensions of the data and mitigated physical fatigue to some extent. Based on the findings, we proposed design implications to inform the development of more spatially scalable and low-fatigue interactions for future 3D visual analytics systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.27697 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Abstract— Immersive environments, e.g., virtual reality (VR), offer a unique approach to exploring complex 3D datasets, where data is often heavily occluded and exploration incurs a high cognitive load. We propose DP-LENS, a density-aware polyfocal fisheye lens equipped with topology-driven auto-routing. While preserving peripheral context through geometric deformation and 3D perspective techniques, it enables users… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** The Hybrid Voice-Initiated Auto-Routing pipeline. (a) ASR tran [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** 3D interaction techniques for occlusion management on the Ves [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (5 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: 3D occlusion taxonomy [12] mapped to datasets: (a, d) PointCloud, Level 2; (b, e, f) Vortex, Level 3; (c, g) Vessel, Level 5. Levels 1, 4 excluded (trivial/redundant). isovalue of 4.5. The task was to trace intertwined vortex structures and distinguish a broken juncti…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Results of User Study 1 – Task Performance and Efficiency. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Results of User Study 1 – user workload measured by the NASA [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Results of User Study 1 – Borg RPE and FMS Sickness (** [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Results of User Study 2 (*p < .05, ***p < .001). To address this scalability challenge, we introduced the Hybrid Voice-Initiated Auto-Routing framework (Sec. 3.2), which supplements manual control with LLM-assisted long-range routing. User Study 2 evaluates whether th…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 6 linked inside Pith

[1]

Ahn et al

M. Ahn et al. Do as i can, not as i say: Grounding language in robotic affordances. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.01691, 2022. 2

arXiv 2022
[2]

Bauer, C

D. Bauer, C. Zheng, O.-H. Kwon, and K.-L. Ma. A multi-layout design for immersive visualization of network data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.10272, 2021. 2

arXiv 2021
[3]

Bermejo, L

C. Bermejo, L. H. Lee, P . Chojecki, D. Przewozny, and P . Hui. Exploring button designs for mid-air interaction in virtual reality: A hexa-metric evaluation of key representations and multi-modal cues. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction , 5(EICS):1–26, 2021. 2

2021
[4]

Besançon, A

L. Besançon, A. Ynnerman, D. F. Keefe, L. Y u, and T. Isenberg. The state of the art of spatial interfaces for 3d visualization. In Computer Graphics F orum, vol. 40, pp. 293–326. Wiley Online Library, 2021. 2, 5, 7, 8, 9

2021
[5]

G. Borg. Borg’s perceived exertion and pain scales. Human kinetics,
[6]

M. S. T. Carpendale et al. Distortion viewing techniques for 3- dimensional data. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization, pp. 46–53, 1997. 2

1997
[7]

Cautun, R

M. Cautun, R. van de Weygaert, and B. J. T. Jones. Nexus: tracing the cos- mic web connection. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , 429(2):1286–1308, 2013. 1

2013
[8]

Chen and I

L. Chen and I. Fujishiro. Optimizing parallel performance of streamline visualization for large distributed ﬂow datasets. In 2008 IEEE Paciﬁc Visualization Symposium, pp. 87–94. IEEE, 2008. 1, 2

2008

Show all 60 references

[9]

Y . Chu, J. Xu, Q. Y ang, H. Wei, X. Wei, Z. Guo, et al. Qwen2-Audio Technical Report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.10759, 2024. 4

2024 arXiv
[10]

Cockburn, A

A. Cockburn, A. Karlson, and B. B. Bederson. A review of overview+detail, zooming, and focus+context interfaces. ACM Comput- ing Surveys, 41(1):1–31, 2008. 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9

2008
[11]

Cordeil, A

M. Cordeil, A. Cunningham, B. Bach, C. Hurter, B. H. Thomas, K. Mar- riott, and T. Dwyer. Iatk: An immersive analytics toolkit. In 2019 IEEE conference on virtual reality and 3D user interfaces (VR) , pp. 200–209. IEEE, 2019. 1

2019
[12]

Elmqvist and P

N. Elmqvist and P . Tsigas. A taxonomy of 3D occlusion management for visualization. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graph- ics, 14(5):1095–1109, 2008. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7

2008
[13]

S. Fan, R. Liu, W. Wang, and Y . Y ang. Scene map-based prompt tuning for navigation instruction generation. In Proceedings of the CVPR , pp. 6898–6908, 2025. 2

2025
[14]

Garth, G.-S

C. Garth, G.-S. Li, X. Tricoche, C. D. Hansen, and H. Hagen. Visual- ization of coherent structures in transient 2d ﬂows. In Topology-Based Methods in Visualization II, pp. 1–13. Springer, 2009. 1, 2

2009
[15]

Gruenefeld, I

U. Gruenefeld, I. Koethe, D. Lange, S. Weiß, and W. Heuten. Comparing techniques for visualizing moving out-of-view objects in head-mounted virtual reality. In 2019 IEEE conference on virtual reality and 3D user interfaces (VR), pp. 742–746. IEEE, 2019. 1

2019
[16]

S. G. Hart and L. E. Staveland. Development of nasa-tlx (task load index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In Advances in psychology, vol. 52, pp. 139–183. Elsevier, 1988. 5

1988
[17]

Hurst, A

A. Hurst, A. Lerer, A. P . Goucher, A. Perelman, A. Ramesh, A. Clark, et al. GPT-4o System Card. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.21276, 2024. 4

2024 arXiv
[18]

Issartel, L

P . Issartel, L. Besançon, T. Isenberg, and M. Ammi. A tangible volume for portable 3d interaction. In 2016 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR-Adjunct) , pp. 215–220. IEEE, 2016. 2

2016
[19]

Julier et al

S. Julier et al. Information ﬁltering for mobile augmented reality. In Proceedings of the ISAR , 2000. 1, 8

2000
[20]

Keshavarz and H

B. Keshavarz and H. Hecht. V alidating an efﬁcient method to quantify motion sickness. Human factors, 53(4):415–426, 2011. 5

2011
[21]

Klacansky

P . Klacansky. Open scivis datasets, 2017. Accessed: 2026-03. 4, 5

2017
[22]

Kraus et al

M. Kraus et al. The value of immersive visualization. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 42(4):18–28, 2022. 2

2022
[23]

Langner et al

R. Langner et al. MARVIS: Combining mobile devices and augmented reality for visual data analysis. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 27(2):833–843, 2021. 2

2021
[24]

R. S. Laramee et al. The state of the art in ﬂow visualization: Dense and texture-based techniques. Computer Graphics F orum, 23(2):203– 221, 2004. 1, 2

2004
[25]

Lazar, J

J. Lazar, J. H. Feng, and H. Hochheiser. Research methods in human- computer interaction. Morgan Kaufmann, 2017. 7

2017
[26]

J. Li, L. Zhao, H.-N. Liang, and L. Y u. Immerview: Adaptive multi-view layout for immersive situated visualizations. In 2023 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality Adjunct (ISMAR-Adjunct) , pp. 108–112. IEEE, 2023. 2

2023
[27]

N. Li, Z. He, L. Shen, T. Wu, B. Gao, Y . Zhang, L. Zhang, F. Tian, T. Luo, T. Han, and Q. Wang. A dual-stick controller for enhancing raycasting interactions with virtual objects. In 2025 IEEE Conference Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR) . IEEE, 2025. 5

2025
[28]

Li et al

Z. Li et al. NeRF-Editing: Geometry editing of neural radiance ﬁelds. In Proceedings of the CVPR , 2023. 2

2023
[29]

Y . Liu, X. Zhang, Q. Geng, and Z. Zhou. Dgdiff: Immersive 3d indoor scene synthesis via dialog-graph conditioned diffusion. In 2025 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR) , pp. 444–453. IEEE, 2025. 2

2025
[30]

B. C. Meyer, T. Werncke, W. Hopfenmüller, H. J. Raatschen, K. J. Wolf, and T. Albrecht. Dual energy ct of peripheral arteries: effect of auto- matic bone and plaque removal on image quality and grading of stenoses. European Journal of Radiology, 68(3):414–422, 2008. 1, 2

2008
[31]

R. C. Mota, A. Rocha, J. D. Silva, U. Alim, and E. Sharlin. 3de interactive lenses for visualization in virtual environments. In 2018 IEEE Scientiﬁc Visualization Conference (SciVis), pp. 21–25. IEEE, 2018. 1

2018
[32]

Oeltze et al

S. Oeltze et al. Integrated visualization of morphologic and perfusion data for the analysis of coronary artery disease. In EuroVis, 2006. 1, 2

2006
[33]

OKeeffe, B

S. OKeeffe, B. H. Thomas, J. OHehir, J. Rombouts, M. Balasso, and A. Cunningham. Immersive focus+ context techniques to assist in in- terpretation of high density forest point clouds. In 2024 IEEE Interna- tional Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR) , pp. 961–

2024
[34]

Parasuraman and V

R. Parasuraman and V . Riley. Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human factors, 39(2):230–253, 1997. 8

1997
[35]

Preim and C

B. Preim and C. P . Botha. Visual Computing for Medicine: Theory, Algo- rithms, and Applications. Morgan Kaufmann, 2013. 1, 2, 3, 4

2013
[36]

Qiao et al

Y . Qiao et al. Open-nav: Exploring zero-shot vision-and-language nav- igation in continuous environment with open-source llms. In ICRA, pp. 6710–6717, 2025. 2

2025
[37]

Rocha, J

A. Rocha, J. D. Silva, U. R. Alim, S. Carpendale, and M. C. Sousa. Decal- lenses: Interactive lenses on surfaces for multivariate visualization. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 25(8):2568–2582,
[38]

Sarkar and M

M. Sarkar and M. H. Brown. Graphical ﬁsheye views. Communications of the ACM, 37(12):73–83, 1994. 3

1994
[39]

C. H. Song et al. LLM-planner: Few-shot grounded planning for embod- ied agents with large language models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 2998–3009, 2023. 2

2023
[40]

Song et al

X. Song et al. Towards long-horizon vision-language navigation: Plat- form, benchmark and method. In Proceedings of the CVPR , pp. 12078– 12088, 2025. 2

2025
[41]

Stoakley, M

R. Stoakley, M. J. Conway, and R. Pausch. Virtual reality on a WIM: Interactive worlds in miniature. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference , pp. 265–272, 1995. 1

1995
[42]

Taibo and J

J. Taibo and J. A. Iglesias-Guitian. Immersive 3d medical visualization in virtual reality using stereoscopic volumetric path tracing. In 2024 IEEE Conference Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR) , pp. 1044–1053. IEEE, 2024. 2

2024
[43]

Tominski, S

C. Tominski, S. Gladisch, U. Kister, R. Dachselt, and H. Schumann. Inter- active lenses for visualization: An extended survey. In Computer Graph- ics F orum, vol. 36, pp. 173–200. Wiley Online Library, 2017. 2

2017
[44]

X. Wang, L. Shen, L. Chen, M. Fan, and L.-H. Lee. Teamportal: Explor- ing virtual reality collaboration through shared and manipulating paral- lel views. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics , 31(5):3314–3324, 2025. 2

2025
[45]

Weiskopf, R

N. Weiskopf, R. V eit, M. Erb, K. Mathiak, W. Grodd, R. Goebel, and N. Birbaumer. Physiological self-regulation of regional brain activity us- ing real-time functional magnetic resonance imaging (fmri): methodol- ogy and exemplary data. NeuroImage, 19(3):577–586, 2003. 3, 4

2003
[46]

W. Xu, Y . Wei, X. Hu, W. Stuerzlinger, Y . Wang, and H.-N. Liang. Pre- dicting ray pointer landing poses in vr using multimodal lstm-based neu- ral networks. In 2025 IEEE Conference Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR) , pp. 93–103. IEEE, 2025. doi: 10.1109/VR59515.202...

2025
[47]

Y ang, Y

S. Y ang, Y . H. Tsui, X. Wang, A. Alhilal, R. H. Mogavi, X. Wang, and P . Hui. From prompt to metaverse: User perceptions of personalized spaces crafted by generative ai. In Companion Publication of the 2024 Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work and Social Com- pu...

2024
[48]

L. Y u, K. Efstathiou, P . Isenberg, and T. Isenberg. Efﬁcient structure- aware selection techniques for 3D point cloud visualizations with 2DOF input. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics , 18(12):2245–2254, 2012. 2

2012
[49]

L. Y u, P . Svetachov, P . Isenberg, M. H. Everts, and T. Isenberg. Fi3d: Direct-touch interaction for the exploration of 3d scientiﬁc visualiza- tion spaces. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics , 16(6):1613–1622, 2010. 2, 5, 7, 8

2010
[50]

Y uan, S

Z. Y uan, S. He, Y . Liu, and L. Y u. Meinvr: Multimodal interaction tech- niques in immersive exploration. Visual Informatics, 7(3):37–48, 2023. 2

2023
[51]

Zhang, C

C. Zhang, C. Zhang, S. Zheng, Y . Qiao, C. Li, M. Zhang, S. K. Dam, C. M. Thwal, Y . L. Tun, L. L. Huy, et al. A complete survey on generative ai (aigc): Is chatgpt from gpt-4 to gpt-5 all you need? arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.11717, 2023. 2

2023 arXiv
[52]

Zhang, M

J. Zhang, M. Huang, L. Zhao, R. Y ang, H.-N. Liang, J. Han, and W. Sun. Inﬂuence of hand representation design on presence and embodiment in virtual environment. In 2020 13th International Symposium on Computa- tional Intelligence and Design (ISCID) , pp. 364–367. IEEE, 2020. 2

2020
[53]

Zhang, Z

Y . Zhang, Z. Wang, J. Zhang, G. Shan, and D. Tian. A survey of immer- sive visualization: Focus on perception and interaction. Visual Informat- ics, 7(4):22–35, 2023. 2

2023
[54]

L. Zhao, N. Cao, S. He, H. N. Liang, and L. Y u. L-wim: Collaborative exploration in immersive environments. 2022 IEEE International Sym- posium on Mixed and Augmented Reality Adjunct (ISMAR-Adjunct) , pp. 118–123, 2022. 1, 2

2022
[55]

Zhao et al

L. Zhao et al. MeTACAST: Target- and context-aware spatial selection in VR. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics , 30(1):480–494, 2024. 1, 2, 4

2024
[56]

L. Zhao, T. Isenberg, F. Xie, H.-N. Liang, and L. Y u. Spatialtouch: ex- ploring spatial data visualizations in cross-reality. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 31(1):897–907, 2024. 2

2024
[57]

L. Zhao, F. Xie, T. Isenberg, H.-N. Liang, and L. Y u. Scalefree: Dy- namic kde for multiscale point cloud exploration in vr. arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.20758, 2026. 2, 3

2026 arXiv
[58]

G. Zhou, Y . Hong, and Q. Wu. NavGPT: Explicit reasoning in vision- and-language navigation with large language models. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artiﬁcial Intelligence , vol. 38, pp. 7641–7649,
[59]

Zimmermann and S

E. Zimmermann and S. Bruckner. Multi-focus probes for context- preserving network exploration and interaction in immersive analytics. In 2025 IEEE Visualization and Visual Analytics (VIS) , pp. 346–350. IEEE,

2025
[60]

G. K. Zipf. Human behavior and the principle of least effort: An intro- duction to human ecology . Ravenio books, 2016. 8

2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Ahn et al

M. Ahn et al. Do as i can, not as i say: Grounding language in robotic affordances. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.01691, 2022. 2

arXiv 2022

[2] [2]

Bauer, C

D. Bauer, C. Zheng, O.-H. Kwon, and K.-L. Ma. A multi-layout design for immersive visualization of network data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.10272, 2021. 2

arXiv 2021

[3] [3]

Bermejo, L

C. Bermejo, L. H. Lee, P . Chojecki, D. Przewozny, and P . Hui. Exploring button designs for mid-air interaction in virtual reality: A hexa-metric evaluation of key representations and multi-modal cues. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction , 5(EICS):1–26, 2021. 2

2021

[4] [4]

Besançon, A

L. Besançon, A. Ynnerman, D. F. Keefe, L. Y u, and T. Isenberg. The state of the art of spatial interfaces for 3d visualization. In Computer Graphics F orum, vol. 40, pp. 293–326. Wiley Online Library, 2021. 2, 5, 7, 8, 9

2021

[5] [5]

G. Borg. Borg’s perceived exertion and pain scales. Human kinetics,

[6] [6]

M. S. T. Carpendale et al. Distortion viewing techniques for 3- dimensional data. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization, pp. 46–53, 1997. 2

1997

[7] [7]

Cautun, R

M. Cautun, R. van de Weygaert, and B. J. T. Jones. Nexus: tracing the cos- mic web connection. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , 429(2):1286–1308, 2013. 1

2013

[8] [8]

Chen and I

L. Chen and I. Fujishiro. Optimizing parallel performance of streamline visualization for large distributed ﬂow datasets. In 2008 IEEE Paciﬁc Visualization Symposium, pp. 87–94. IEEE, 2008. 1, 2

2008