pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.08008 · v3 · pith:NTN6MMQWnew · submitted 2026-05-08 · 💻 cs.HC

Hot Wire 5D+: Evaluating Cognitive and Motor Trade-offs of Visual Feedback for 5D Augmented Reality Trajectories

Christian Masuhr , Julian Koch , Arne Wendt , Thorsten Sch\"uppstuhl This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 10:13 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC
keywords augmented realitytrajectory guidancevisual feedbackuser studycognitive-motor trade-offs5D tasksAR interfacesdesign guidelines
0
0 comments X

The pith

A study reveals that specific visual feedback in AR lessens cognitive-motor trade-offs when following 5D trajectories with orientation demands.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper runs a controlled experiment with 30 novice users to test three AR interface designs for guiding complex spatial paths that combine 3D position, 2D orientation, and speed. The work measures how well users stay on target when orientation rules are added or removed, splitting results into starting movements and ongoing steady motion. It finds clear trade-offs in mental effort and physical accuracy caused by the orientation rules, plus some interface pairings that reduce those costs. The authors supply basic performance numbers for beginners and turn those numbers into practical rules for building AR guidance tools. These results matter for fields that already use AR to steer precise hand movements, because better interfaces could cut errors without extra training.

Core claim

Imposing orientation constraints on 5D AR trajectory tasks produces measurable cognitive-motor trade-offs in position, orientation, and speed compliance, yet certain combinations of visual feedback create synergies that offset the added demands. The study validates its internal tracking against an external optical system, segments execution into transient and steady-state phases, and applies Aligned Rank Transform ANOVA to detect design-by-complexity interactions, yielding conservative novice baselines together with actionable design guidelines for AR systems in manufacturing, non-destructive testing, and surgery.

What carries the argument

The within-subjects comparison of three AR UI concepts for 5D trajectory guidance, run both with and without explicit orientation constraints and analyzed through phase-segmented compliance metrics.

If this is right

  • Novice users reach measurable levels of position, orientation, and speed compliance during freehand 5D following under the tested conditions.
  • Some UI pairings reduce the drop in performance that appears when orientation constraints are added.
  • The measured baselines and observed synergies translate into concrete rules for designing future AR guidance systems.
  • These rules apply directly to manufacturing, non-destructive testing, and surgical settings that already rely on 5D path adherence.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same interface patterns could be tried in training sequences for professionals who already perform precision tasks.
  • Repeating the experiment with actual practitioners inside real workspaces would test whether the lab trade-offs persist outside controlled conditions.
  • Combining the visual approaches with non-visual cues such as vibration or audio tones might amplify the observed mitigation effects.
  • Similar orientation trade-offs and interface solutions are likely to appear in other virtual or mixed-reality control tasks that involve multiple simultaneous dimensions.

Load-bearing premise

The lab tasks that use rotation-symmetric tools and the selected visual designs stand in for the real sensory and movement requirements of manufacturing, testing, and surgery work.

What would settle it

A field test in an actual factory or operating room that measures whether the recommended visual designs produce higher path compliance and lower reported effort than standard guidance when used by the same workers or clinicians.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.08008 by Arne Wendt, Christian Masuhr, Julian Koch, Thorsten Sch\"uppstuhl.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of the experimental setup for the 5D+ trajectory task. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: UI Concept V1 (Tracer). Rows show positional feedback via the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: UI Concept V2 (Gestalt). Rows illustrate the separated target [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: UI Concept V3 (Reduced). Rows depict the minimalist TCP [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Overview of the target trajectory and its distinct spatial segments [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Example of a recorded trajectory path from a user and the tilt axis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distribution plots of the main error metrics: Speed Error (A), Position Error (B), and Orientation Error (C) with orientation guidelines (+ On) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Temporal dynamics and speed error distribution along the evalu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Subjective and objective results of the user study. (Left) System Usability Scale (SUS) scores across the three UI concepts. (Middle) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Subjective and objective results of the user study. (Left) System Usability Scale (SUS) scores across the three UI concepts. (Middle) Overall [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_9.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Augmented Reality (AR) is increasingly utilized to guide users through complex spatial tasks in domains such as manufacturing, non-destructive testing, and surgery. These applications often require strict compliance with 5D+ trajectories using rotation-symmetric tools (3D position, 2D orientation, and movement speed). However, the sensori-motor baselines of untrained users during these multidimensional tracing tasks, along with the cognitive-motor trade-offs induced by varying visual feedback paradigms, remain underexplored. We present a controlled within-subjects user study (N=30) evaluating three distinct AR UI concepts for trajectory guidance, both with and without explicit orientation constraints. We analyzed spatial, orientational, and speed compliance based on the internal AR tracking, which was validated against a high-precision external optical tracking system to rule out hardware drift. By segmenting the execution into transient and steady-state phases and applying Aligned Rank Transform (ART) ANOVA, we isolated the interaction effects between visual design and task complexity. Alongside subjective metrics (NASA-TLX, SUS), our results establish conservative performance baselines for novice users performing freehand 5D trajectory following. We reveal orientation-induced cognitive-motor trade-offs and identify mitigating UI synergies. Ultimately, we provide empirical baselines and actionable design guidelines for developing effective AR guidance systems.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper reports a within-subjects user study (N=30) that evaluates three AR visual feedback paradigms for guiding 5D trajectories (3D position + 2D orientation + speed) with rotation-symmetric tools, both with and without explicit orientation constraints. Internal AR tracking is validated against external optical tracking; performance is segmented into transient and steady-state phases and analyzed with ART ANOVA plus NASA-TLX and SUS metrics. The authors identify orientation-induced cognitive-motor trade-offs, UI synergies that mitigate them, and derive empirical baselines plus design guidelines for AR guidance in manufacturing, NDT, and surgery.

Significance. If the reported trade-offs and UI synergies hold, the work supplies useful conservative baselines for novice 5D freehand tracing under controlled conditions and demonstrates the value of phase segmentation plus validated tracking. The within-subjects design, external validation, and ART ANOVA are appropriate for isolating interaction effects. However, the prescriptive force of the design guidelines is limited by the exclusive use of rotation-symmetric tools and the absence of real-world constraints such as asymmetric geometries, variable grip forces, or tissue compliance.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract and §1] Abstract and §1 (Introduction): the central claim that the results deliver 'actionable design guidelines' for manufacturing, NDT, and surgery rests on the assumption that performance patterns observed with rotation-symmetric tools will generalize. The study protocol does not include asymmetric tool geometries or environmental constraints typical of those domains; if the reported trade-offs or mitigating synergies change under realistic tool shapes, the guidelines lose prescriptive value for the stated target applications.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: effect sizes, exact compliance percentages, and power analysis are not reported, making it harder for readers to gauge the practical magnitude of the statistical results.
  2. [Results] Results section: the manuscript would benefit from explicit reporting of the exact compliance metrics (position, orientation, speed) for each condition rather than relying solely on ANOVA p-values.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for their detailed and constructive review. We address the major comment regarding the scope and generalizability of our design guidelines below, proposing targeted revisions to qualify our claims appropriately while preserving the core contributions of the empirical baselines and UI evaluations.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and §1] Abstract and §1 (Introduction): the central claim that the results deliver 'actionable design guidelines' for manufacturing, NDT, and surgery rests on the assumption that performance patterns observed with rotation-symmetric tools will generalize. The study protocol does not include asymmetric tool geometries or environmental constraints typical of those domains; if the reported trade-offs or mitigating synergies change under realistic tool shapes, the guidelines lose prescriptive value for the stated target applications.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee's observation on this point. The study was deliberately scoped to rotation-symmetric tools, which are representative of many tasks in the cited domains (e.g., drills and welding torches in manufacturing, ultrasound probes in NDT, and symmetric-handled instruments in surgery). The cognitive-motor trade-offs we report arise from the fundamental demands of 5D compliance under visual feedback and are expected to be broadly relevant, even if their precise magnitudes may shift with asymmetry. We cannot, however, claim empirical invariance without testing asymmetric geometries. To address the concern directly, we will revise the abstract and §1 to describe the guidelines as 'preliminary design considerations for rotation-symmetric tools' and will insert an explicit limitations paragraph in the discussion that notes the absence of asymmetric tool shapes, variable grip forces, and tissue compliance. These changes will temper prescriptive language while retaining the value of the validated tracking, phase segmentation, and UI synergy findings. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • We cannot supply new empirical data on asymmetric tool geometries or tissue compliance without conducting additional experiments outside the current study scope.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in empirical user study

full rationale

The paper reports a controlled within-subjects user study (N=30) that collects performance data on spatial, orientational, and speed compliance during AR trajectory tasks, then applies standard statistical methods (Aligned Rank Transform ANOVA) and subjective questionnaires (NASA-TLX, SUS) to compare visual feedback paradigms. No derivations, fitted predictive models, or self-referential predictions appear; all results are direct empirical measurements and comparisons. The work is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks with no load-bearing steps that reduce to inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Empirical user-study paper with no mathematical derivations or new theoretical entities; relies on standard HCI assumptions about task representativeness and statistical validity.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The selected 5D tasks and rotation-symmetric tools adequately represent real-world demands in manufacturing, testing, and surgery
    Invoked to allow generalization from lab results to the application domains listed in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5776 in / 1131 out tokens · 35094 ms · 2026-05-22T10:13:12.866062+00:00 · methodology

Review history (3 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aug- mented reality: A comprehensive review,

    S. Dargan, S. Bansal, M. Kumar, A. Mittal, and K. Kumar, “Aug- mented reality: A comprehensive review,”Archives of Computa- tional Methods in Engineering, 2023, 10.1007/s11831-022-09831-7

    work page doi:10.1007/s11831-022-09831-7 2023

  2. [2]

    Use of projector based augmented reality to improve manual spot- welding precision and accuracy for automotive manufacturing,

    A. Doshi, R. T. Smith, B. H. Thomas, and C. Bouras, “Use of projector based augmented reality to improve manual spot- welding precision and accuracy for automotive manufacturing,” The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Mar. 2017, 10.1007/s00170-016-9164-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s00170-016-9164-5 2017

  3. [3]

    Drill sergeant,

    E. Schoop, M. Nguyen, D. Lim, V . Savage, S. Follmer, and B. Hart- mann, “Drill sergeant,” inProceedings of ACM CHI, May 2016, 10.1145/2851581.2892429

    work page doi:10.1145/2851581.2892429 2016

  4. [4]

    Fast and accurate online calibration of optical see-through head-mounted display for ar-based surgical navigation using microsoft hololens,

    Q. Sun, Y. Mai, R. Yang, T. Ji, X. Jiang, and X. Chen, “Fast and accurate online calibration of optical see-through head-mounted display for ar-based surgical navigation using microsoft hololens,” International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery, Nov. 2020, 10.1007/s11548-020-02246-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s11548-020-02246-4 2020

  5. [5]

    Anisotropic human perfor- mance in six degree-of-freedom tracking: An evaluation of three- dimensional display and control interfaces,

    S. Zhai, P . Milgram, and A. Rastogi, “Anisotropic human perfor- mance in six degree-of-freedom tracking: An evaluation of three- dimensional display and control interfaces,”IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans, 1997, 10.1109/3468.594917

    work page doi:10.1109/3468.594917 1997

  6. [6]

    Mixed reality-enhanced intuitive teleoperation with hybrid virtual fix- tures for intelligent robotic welding,

    Y.-P . Su, X.-Q. Chen, T. Zhou, C. Pretty, and G. Chase, “Mixed reality-enhanced intuitive teleoperation with hybrid virtual fix- tures for intelligent robotic welding,”Applied Sciences, 2021, 10.3390/app112311280

    work page doi:10.3390/app112311280 2021

  7. [8]

    Usability of visualizing position and orientation devi- ations for manual precise manipulation of objects in augmented reality,

    X. Zhang, W. He, M. Billinghurst, Y. Qin, L. Yang, D. Liu, and Z. Wang, “Usability of visualizing position and orientation devi- ations for manual precise manipulation of objects in augmented reality,”Virtual Reality, 2024, 10.1007/s10055-024-01030-y

    work page doi:10.1007/s10055-024-01030-y 2024

  8. [9]

    TRACK: a new algorithm and open-source tool for the analysis of pursuit-tracking sensorimotor integration processes,

    A. B ¨ottcher, N. Adelh ¨ofer, S. Wilken, M. Raab, S. Hoffmann, and C. Beste, “TRACK: a new algorithm and open-source tool for the analysis of pursuit-tracking sensorimotor integration processes,” Behavior Research Methods, 2024, 10.3758/s13428-023-02065-w

    work page doi:10.3758/s13428-023-02065-w 2024

  9. [10]

    Parafrus- tum: visualization techniques for guiding a user to a constrained set of viewing positions and orientations,

    M. Sukan, C. Elvezio, O. Oda, S. Feiner, and B. Tversky, “Parafrus- tum: visualization techniques for guiding a user to a constrained set of viewing positions and orientations,” inProceedings of ACM UIST, 2014, 10.1145/2642918.2647417

    work page doi:10.1145/2642918.2647417 2014

  10. [11]

    Manual registration in ar-assisted surgical navigation: A comparative evaluation,

    J. Tang, A. Thabit, T. van Walsum, R. Marroquim, and M. Ben- mahdjoub, “Manual registration in ar-assisted surgical navigation: A comparative evaluation,”International Journal of Computer As- sisted Radiology and Surgery, 2025, 10.1007/s11548-025-03410-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s11548-025-03410-4 2025

  11. [12]

    Lightguide: Projected visu- alizations for hand movement guidance,

    R. Sodhi, H. Benko, and A. Wilson, “Lightguide: Projected visu- alizations for hand movement guidance,” inProceedings of ACM CHI, 2012, 10.1145/2207676.2207702

    work page doi:10.1145/2207676.2207702 2012

  12. [13]

    Ar hmd guidance for controlled hand-held 3d acquisition,

    D. Andersen, P . Villano, and V . Popescu, “Ar hmd guidance for controlled hand-held 3d acquisition,”IEEE Transactions on Visual- ization and Computer Graphics, 2019, 10.1109/TVCG.2019.2932172

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2019.2932172 2019

  13. [14]

    Ar- assisted surgical guidance system for ventriculostomy,

    S. Eom, S. Kim, S. Rahimpour, and M. Gorlatova, “Ar- assisted surgical guidance system for ventriculostomy,”IEEE Journal of Translational Engineering in Health and Medicine, 2022, 10.1109/VRW55335.2022.00087

    work page doi:10.1109/vrw55335.2022.00087 2022

  14. [15]

    Wearable augmented reality platform for aiding complex interventions,

    S. Condino, B. Fida, M. Carbone, L. Cercenelli, G. Badiali, V . Fer- rari, and F. Cutolo, “Wearable augmented reality platform for aiding complex interventions,”Annals of Biomedical Engineering, 2020, 10.3390/s20061612

    work page doi:10.3390/s20061612 2020

  15. [16]

    Accuracy and efficiency of drilling trajectories with augmented reality versus conventional navigation randomized crossover trial,

    Y. Li, S. Drobinsky, P . Becker, K. Xie, M. Lipprandt, C. A. Muelleret al., “Accuracy and efficiency of drilling trajectories with augmented reality versus conventional navigation randomized crossover trial,”npj Digital Medicine, Nov. 2024, 10.1038/s41746- 024-01314-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41746- 2024

  16. [17]

    Usability study of augmented reality visualization modalities on localization accuracy in the head and neck,

    Y. Li, G. Luijten, C. Gsaxner, K. Grunert, A. Bader, F. H ¨olzleet al., “Usability study of augmented reality visualization modalities on localization accuracy in the head and neck,”International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery, 2026, 10.2196/75962

    work page doi:10.2196/75962 2026

  17. [18]

    Comparison of projective augmented reality concepts to support medical needle insertion,

    F. Heinrich, F. Joeres, K. Lawonn, and C. Hansen, “Comparison of projective augmented reality concepts to support medical needle insertion,”IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 2019, 10.1109/TVCG.2019.2903942

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2019.2903942 2019

  18. [19]

    Computer-assisted trajectory plan- ning for percutaneous needle insertions,

    A. Seitel, M. Engel, C. M. Sommer, B. A. Radeleff, C. Essert- Villard, C. Baegertet al., “Computer-assisted trajectory plan- ning for percutaneous needle insertions,”Medical Physics, 2011, 10.1118/1.3590374

    work page doi:10.1118/1.3590374 2011

  19. [20]

    How different augmented reality visualizations for drilling affect trajectory deviation, visual attention, and user experience,

    J. Wolf, D. Luchmann, Q. Lohmeyer, M. Farshad, P . F ¨urnstahl, and M. Meboldt, “How different augmented reality visualizations for drilling affect trajectory deviation, visual attention, and user experience,”International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery, no. 8, Aug. 2023, 10.1007/s11548-022-02819-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s11548-022-02819-5 2023

  20. [21]

    Precise tool to target positioning widgets (totta) in spatial environments: A systematic review,

    M. Dastan, M. Fiorentino, and A. E. Uva, “Precise tool to target positioning widgets (totta) in spatial environments: A systematic review,”IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 2024, 10.1109/TVCG.2024.3456206

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2024.3456206 2024

  21. [22]

    Gestalt driven aug- mented collimator widget for precise 5 dof dental drill tool positioning in 3d space,

    M. Dastan, A. E. Uva, and M. Fiorentino, “Gestalt driven aug- mented collimator widget for precise 5 dof dental drill tool positioning in 3d space,” inProceedings of IEEE ISMAR, 2022, 10.1109/ISMAR55827.2022.00033

    work page doi:10.1109/ismar55827.2022.00033 2022

  22. [23]

    An open testbed for mixed reality precise rotation guid- ance: Comparative case study of arrow, gestalt and magni- fier cues,

    M. Dastan, F. Vangi, F. Musolino, G. Coviello, and M. Fiorentino, “An open testbed for mixed reality precise rotation guid- ance: Comparative case study of arrow, gestalt and magni- fier cues,” inProceedings of IEEE ISMAR, 2025, 10.1109/IS- MAR67309.2025.00037

    work page doi:10.1109/is- 2025

  23. [24]

    Calligraphy-stroke learning sup- port system using projector and motion sensor,

    T. Matsumaru and M. Narita, “Calligraphy-stroke learning sup- port system using projector and motion sensor,”Journal of Ad- vanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics, 2017, 10.20965/jaciii.2017.p0697

    work page doi:10.20965/jaciii.2017.p0697 2017

  24. [25]

    Ar surgical navigation with surface tracing: Comparing in-situ visualization with tool-tracking guidance for neurosurgical applications,

    M. J. Fischer and E. B. Strong, “Ar surgical navigation with surface tracing: Comparing in-situ visualization with tool-tracking guidance for neurosurgical applications,” inProceedings of IEEE ISMAR, 2025, 10.1109/ISMAR67309.2025.00123

    work page doi:10.1109/ismar67309.2025.00123 2025

  25. [26]

    Exploring trajectory data in augmented reality: A comparative study of interaction modalities,

    L. Joos, K. Klein, M. T. Fischer, F. L. Dennig, D. A. Keim, and M. Krone, “Exploring trajectory data in augmented reality: A comparative study of interaction modalities,” inProceedings of IEEE ISMAR, 2023, 10.1109/ISMAR59233.2023.00094

    work page doi:10.1109/ismar59233.2023.00094 2023

  26. [27]

    Exploring trajectory data in augmented reality: A comparative study of interaction modalities,

    J. Ceyssens, B. van Deurzen, G. R. Ruiz, K. Luyten, and F. Di Fiore, “Ar guidance design for line tracing speed control,” in2023 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR), 2023, 10.1109/ISMAR59233.2023.00122

    work page doi:10.1109/ismar59233.2023.00122 2023

  27. [28]

    Examining the fine motor control ability of linear hand movement in virtual reality,

    X. Yi, X. Wang, J. Li, and H. Li, “Examining the fine motor control ability of linear hand movement in virtual reality,” in2023 IEEE Conference Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR), 2023, 10.1109/VR55154.2023.00058

    work page doi:10.1109/vr55154.2023.00058 2023

  28. [29]

    Static is not enough: A comparative study of vr and spacemouse in static and dy- namic teleoperation tasks,

    Y. Zhou, M. Hou, and K. Baraka, “Static is not enough: A comparative study of vr and spacemouse in static and dy- namic teleoperation tasks,” 2026, preprint, arXiv:2601.13042. 10.48550/arXiv.2601.13042

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.13042 2026

  29. [30]

    Design space of visual feedfor- ward and corrective feedback in xr-based motion guidance sys- tems,

    X. Yu, B. Lee, and M. Sedlmair, “Design space of visual feedfor- ward and corrective feedback in xr-based motion guidance sys- tems,” inProceedings of ACM CHI, 2024, 10.1145/3613904.3642143

    work page doi:10.1145/3613904.3642143 2024

  30. [31]

    A tutorial on quantitative trajec- tory evaluation for visual(-inertial) odometry,

    Z. Zhang and D. Scaramuzza, “A tutorial on quantitative trajec- tory evaluation for visual(-inertial) odometry,” inProceedings of IEEE/RSJ IROS, Oct. 2018, 10.1109/IROS.2018.8593941

    work page doi:10.1109/iros.2018.8593941 2018

  31. [32]

    Seesys: Online pose error estimation system for visual slam,

    T. Hu, T. Scargill, F. Yang, Y. Chen, G. Lan, and M. Gorlatova, “Seesys: Online pose error estimation system for visual slam,” in Proceedings of ACM SenSys, 2024, 10.1145/3666025.3699341

    work page doi:10.1145/3666025.3699341 2024

  32. [33]

    Evaluating magic leap 2 controller tracking for sensor tool guidance in ar-based indus- trial inspections,

    C. Masuhr, J. Koch, and T. Sch ¨uppstuhl, “Evaluating magic leap 2 controller tracking for sensor tool guidance in ar-based indus- trial inspections,” inProceedings of IEEE ISMAR-Adjunct, 2025, 10.1109/ISMAR-Adjunct68609.2025.00089

    work page doi:10.1109/ismar-adjunct68609.2025.00089 2025

  33. [34]

    Robustness in human manipu- lation of dynamically complex objects through control con- traction metrics,

    S. Bazzi and D. Sternad, “Robustness in human manipu- lation of dynamically complex objects through control con- traction metrics,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2020, 10.1109/LRA.2020.2972863

    work page doi:10.1109/lra.2020.2972863 2020

  34. [35]

    Co-designing dynamic mixed reality drill positioning widgets: A collaborative approach with dentists in a realistic setup,

    M. Dastan, M. Fiorentino, E. D. Walter, C. Diegritz, A. E. Uva, U. Eck, and N. Navab, “Co-designing dynamic mixed reality drill positioning widgets: A collaborative approach with dentists in a realistic setup,”IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 2024, 10.1109/TVCG.2024.3456149

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2024.3456149 2024

  35. [36]

    Multimodal Feedback for Handheld Tool Guidance: Combining Wrist-Based Haptics with Augmented Reality ,

    Y. Yang, C. Leuze, B. Hargreaves, B. Daniel, and F. Baik, “ Multimodal Feedback for Handheld Tool Guidance: Combining Wrist-Based Haptics with Augmented Reality ,”IEEE Trans- actions on Visualization & Computer Graphics, 2026, to appear 10.1109/TVCG.2026.3680745

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2026.3680745 2026

  36. [37]

    The aligned rank transform for nonparametric factorial analyses us- ing only anova procedures,

    J. O. Wobbrock, L. Findlater, D. Gergle, and J. J. Higgins, “The aligned rank transform for nonparametric factorial analyses us- ing only anova procedures,” inProceedings of ACM CHI, 2011, 10.1145/1978942.1978963. PREPRINT VERSION 13 SUPPLEMENTALMATERIALS This supplemental document provides abbreviated and highlighted statistical outputs of our analyses. ...

    work page doi:10.1145/1978942.1978963 2011