Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 70 references

NRXR-ID: Two-Factor Authentication (2FA) in VR Using Near-Range Extended Reality and Smartphones

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that VR users can complete two-factor authentication with a smartphone visible inside the virtual scene, and that a checkers-style tile-matching challenge is the most suitable and best-liked option among those tested.

desk verdict Solid empirical comparison of 2FA methods in VR, but the checkers challenge's security claim in Sec 6.1 is miscalculated and should be corrected before the 'most suitable' ranking stands. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.05447 v1 pith:SWCBVWAK submitted 2025-07-07 cs.HC cs.CVcs.GR

Aiur Nanzatov , Lourdes Peña-Castillo , Oscar Meruvia-Pastor This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HCcs.CVcs.GR
keywords two-factorauthenticationvirtualrealitynear-rangeextendedsmartphoneinteractiongaze-basedselectioncheckers-stylechallengeuserstudyhuman-computer
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 argues that two-factor authentication (2FA) can be completed inside virtual reality without lifting the headset, by using a depth-sensing camera to blend nearby real objects—specifically a smartphone—into the virtual scene. It reports a 30-participant study comparing four authentication challenges (a CAPTCHA, a six-digit numeric PIN, a checkers-style tile-matching puzzle, and a six-character alphanumeric password) across three device configurations. The central empirical claim is that the checkers-style matching challenge is the most suitable and best-liked option, closely followed by the numeric PIN, while alphanumeric password entry is the least suitable and least liked. The authors also claim that showing the challenge on the smartphone and answering inside VR with gaze-based selection, using the phone as a clicker, is preferred over presenting the challenge on the HMD or answering with a VR controller. If these results hold, VR applications can offer secure second-factor confirmation without breaking immersion.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is Near-Range Extended Reality (NRXR), a rendering pipeline that takes an RGBD camera stream and uses a fragment shader to render only pixels closer than about 120 cm as opaque, allowing the user's phone and hands to appear inside the virtual world while distant real-world content stays invisible. The argument is carried by a 4×3 within-subjects experiment crossing four challenges (CAPTCHA, six-digit PIN, checkers-style tile matching on a 4×4 grid, and six-character password) with three device configurations (HMD presents challenge and phone answers; phone presents challenge and VR answers via smartphone-supported gaze selection; phone presents challenge and VR answers via controller). The checkers challenge's tile flips are encoded as a compact bit sequence, and the gaze-selection condition uses the smartphone as a clicker to confirm selections in VR.

What would settle it

Conduct the same four challenges under the same three conditions on a current consumer headset with built-in passthrough, with a larger and more diverse sample, and compare against users simply lifting the HMD; if most users complete authentication faster by lifting the headset, or if the numeric PIN consistently outscores the checkers challenge on both time and preference, the paper's central recommendation would be overturned.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

NRXR-ID is a technique for two-factor authentication in VR: an RGBD camera mounted on the headset captures the user's near surroundings, and a fragment shader makes pixels beyond roughly 120 cm transparent while keeping nearby objects opaque, so the smartphone appears inside the virtual environment and its screen can be read without removing the HMD. In a 4×3 within-subjects study with 30 participants, every participant completed every challenge under every condition, with overall success rates between 90% and 93%. Completion times and subjective ratings place the checkers-style visual matching challenge first and the six-digit numeric PIN second; the alphanumeric password is a distant last. Participants preferred configurations in which the smartphone displays the challenge and the VR environment is used to answer it, and within those, the gaze-based selection technique using the phone as a clicker was received more positively than the VR controller baseline. The authors conclude that NRXR can support 2FA in VR and that developers should focus on checkers-style or numeric-PIN challenges.

Load-bearing premise

The study assumes that its 30 participants, mostly university students, and its single prototype setup (one headset, one external depth camera, one low-end phone) are representative enough that the measured preferences and completion times will generalize to real VR deployments.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • VR applications can include a second authentication factor that users complete with their own phone, without the interruption of removing the headset.
  • A checkers-style tile-matching task is a viable, user-preferred challenge for in-VR 2FA, and its bit-sequence encoding makes it straightforward to generate and verify.
  • Six-digit numeric PINs, the format most users already know from SMS 2FA, remain a strong second option and produced the fastest completion times.
  • Alphanumeric password entry should be avoided for the second authentication step; at most it belongs to initial login rather than identity confirmation.
  • Phone-first configurations with gaze-based selection were rated more positively than HMD-first or controller-based configurations, so interface designers can prioritize that modality.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implication the authors leave implicit is that the same NRXR layer could be implemented on newer headsets with built-in passthrough and depth access, which would remove the external camera and cable and likely change the usability ranking; the paper identifies this as future work, not a demonstrated result.
  • The checkers grid's compact bit encoding suggests extensions the paper does not test, such as authentication challenges delivered through a smartwatch, a printed card, or a low-bandwidth channel.
  • If headset manufacturers expose depth or segmentation data and hand tracking, the phone-as-clicker condition could be replaced by mid-air gestures; whether that preserves the preference for the gaze-pointer condition is an open empirical question.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents NRXR-ID, a technique that uses a depth-sensing camera mounted on an HMD to let VR users see and operate their smartphones within the virtual environment for two-factor authentication. A 4×3 within-subjects user study with 30 participants compares four challenge types (CAPTCHA, numeric PIN, a novel checkers-style visual matching challenge, and a six-character alphanumeric password) across three conditions (HMD presents the challenge and smartphone collects the answer; smartphone presents the challenge and the answer is given via head-gaze selection with a smartphone clicker; smartphone presents the challenge and the answer is given via a VR controller). The authors report completion times, click counts, success rates, and Likert-scale and open-ended feedback. They conclude that the checkers challenge is the most suitable option, closely followed by the numeric PIN, that the gaze-based condition is preferred, and that the password challenge is the least suitable.

Significance. The paper is a useful empirical contribution to the design space of VR authentication: it is one of the first studies to compare multiple 2FA challenge types under different device configurations while keeping users inside the HMD. The statistical workflow is mostly appropriate (per-challenge ANOVA with order and round factors, Tukey post-hoc, FDR-corrected Wilcoxon), the within-subjects design is well explained, and the authors are transparent about hardware limitations and potential novelty effects. The results, if they survive the concerns below, give concrete guidance to VR developers about which challenge formats and input modalities are worth pursuing. The main value is in the comparative user experience data rather than in a new security mechanism.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 6.1, with Section 3.3] The brute-force resistance claim for the checkers challenge is incorrect. Section 3.3 specifies that every checkers challenge has exactly six differing tiles between the two grids, and Section 6.1 states that a 4×4 grid provides 2^16 (65,536) combinations and that a 5×4 grid would provide 2^20 (~1,048,576) combinations, 'as hard to crack by brute force as the six digit numerical code.' These numbers are not the size of the response space an attacker must guess. For a fixed starting grid, the number of possible target grids at Hamming distance exactly 6 is C(16,6)=8,008 (~2^13), and for a 5×4 grid it is C(20,6)=38,760 (~2^15.2). Even if both grids are considered secret, the user's response is the set of six flipped positions, so the effective entropy for an attacker who observes one grid is at most log2(8008)≈13 bits, not 16 bits. The numeric PIN, with 1,000,000 possibilities, is materially stronger in this respect. This security comparison currently underpins the 'most suitable' ranking in the Discussion and Conclusions; it needs to be either corrected with a clearly stated adversarial model or removed/softened.
  2. [Section 5.2 and Table 2, Section 5.3] The significantly reported order effects are not accounted for in the analyses that drive the main conclusions. Table 2 shows that 'order' is a significant factor for the CAPTCHA (F=15.28, p=3.83×10^-7) and Checkers (F=7.14, p=0.0009) completion times, and 'round' is significant for CAPTCHA, Numeric, and Checkers. The Likert-scale preference analyses in Section 5.3 use FDR-corrected pairwise Wilcoxon tests without order or round as covariates, and the conclusions in Sections 6.4 and 7 do not condition on these factors. Since the headline claim is that the checkers challenge is the most suitable, and its performance data are affected by order, the results could be confounded by learning or novelty effects. The paper acknowledges this possibility only qualitatively ('These results might be explained in part by a novelty effect'). The authors should re-analyze the preference data with mixed-effects models that include order and round as fixed or random effects, or present order-stratified results, and temper the conclusions if the effect persists.
  3. [Section 6.1] The security comparison across challenge types is incomplete and uses an unspecified adversarial model. For example, the CAPTCHA challenge is described as 'the most vulnerable' because tiles share information and machine learning could identify themes, but no quantitative estimate of the CAPTCHA response space is given, whereas such estimates are given for the numeric and checkers challenges. Without an explicit threat model (what the attacker sees, what is secret, how many guesses are allowed), statements like 'as hard to crack by brute force as the six digit numerical code' cannot be substantiated. The authors should either define a consistent security model for all four challenges or clearly label these considerations as preliminary and non-quantitative.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 6.1] The numbers '216' and '220' should be typeset as 2^16 and 2^20; the missing superscripts make the text read as two hundred sixteen and two hundred twenty.
  2. [Table 3 and Section 5.2] The success rates are presented without any measure of uncertainty. Please add binomial confidence intervals (or equivalent) so that the differences among conditions and challenges can be assessed; a difference between 85% and 96% may not be meaningful with 30 participants.
  3. [Section 4] The sentence 'On the seventh round, we collected participants feedback' is ambiguous; clarify that the user experience questionnaire was administered after each challenge in the seventh round, not once for the entire condition.
  4. [Throughout] There are several typos and duplicated words that should be corrected, including 'sophisticaded' (Introduction), 'are are' (Introduction), 'alhpanumeric' (Section 3.5.2), 'laso' (Section 5.4), 'the the' (Introduction), and 'targetted' (Section 7).
  5. [Figures 9 and 10] The confidence-interval plots are hard to read because the labels for the three condition-pair comparisons are small and cramped. Please increase the font size or use a faceted layout per challenge.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the study's conclusions are empirically measured, and the self-citation to SmartVR Pointer is not load-bearing.

full rationale

This paper is an empirical user study, not a derivation from first principles or a fitted model. The central claims—that NRXR-ID can support 2FA without removing the HMD, and that the checkers challenge is the most suitable option—are grounded in measured completion times, success rates, Likert responses, and unstructured feedback reported in Sections 5.2 through 5.4 and discussed in Section 6. No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then renamed as a prediction, and no mathematical identity is used to define the outcome into existence. The self-citation to the authors' SmartVR Pointer [65] supplies one of the three interaction conditions (Phone1_SVRP2), but the users' preference for that condition is measured, not assumed, so the citation does not carry the conclusion. The possible entropy inconsistency in Section 6.1 regarding the checkers grid (2^16 combinations versus exactly six differing tiles) is a correctness or security-analysis concern, not a circularity concern, because the 'most suitable' ranking is based on user performance and preference data rather than on that entropy calculation. Accordingly, no circular step can be exhibited, and the analysis is self-contained as an empirical evaluation.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper's conclusions rest on the NRXR prototype's depth-blending setup (120 cm threshold), the selected 4x3 challenge and condition grid, the 6-difference checkers difficulty, and the representativeness of the 30-person sample. None of these are derived from prior theory; they are design choices and domain assumptions.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The 120 cm depth threshold for near-range blending is sufficient for users to see the smartphone while wearing the HMD.
    Invoked in Section 3.7.1; the prototype relies on this threshold, and the user study results may not transfer to other thresholds or hardware without the same depth feed.
  • ad hoc to paper Four challenge types and three conditions are a representative sample of the 2FA design space in VR.
    Section 3.6 selects these 4x3 options without a theoretical or empirical basis that they cover the space; conclusions are framed only about these options.
  • ad hoc to paper Six flip-differences in the checkers grid are a reasonable difficulty level.
    Section 3.3 chooses 6 differences; no pilot data or difficulty model justifies it.
  • domain assumption The N=30 sample (mostly students, one-third female, nearly half no HMD experience) represents the target VR 2FA population.
    Section 5.1; this is standard for HCI but limits generalization.
invented entities (1)
  • Checkers-style visual matching challenge
    purpose: A 4x4 grid of black and white tiles shown on two devices; the user flips tiles until both grids match, intended as a 2FA challenge.
    The paper measures user preference for this challenge in its own study, but provides no external security evaluation (for example resistance to shoulder surfing or screen capture) or replication by an independent group.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of NRXR-ID: Two-Factor Authentication (2FA) in VR Using Near-Range Extended Reality and Smartphones." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SWCBVWAK

@misc{pith2026250705447,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: NRXR-ID: Two-Factor Authentication (2FA) in VR Using Near-Range Extended Reality and Smartphones},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SWCBVWAK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.05447}
}
read the original abstract

Two-factor authentication (2FA) has become widely adopted as an efficient and secure way to validate someone's identity online. Two-factor authentication is difficult in virtual reality (VR) because users are usually wearing a head-mounted display (HMD) which does not allow them to see their real-world surroundings. We present NRXR-ID, a technique to implement two-factor authentication while using extended reality systems and smartphones. The proposed method allows users to complete an authentication challenge using their smartphones without removing their HMD. We performed a user study where we explored four types of challenges for users, including a novel checkers-style challenge. Users responded to these challenges under three different configurations, including a technique that uses the smartphone to support gaze-based selection without the use of VR controllers. A 4X3 within-subjects design allowed us to study all the variations proposed. We collected performance metrics and performed user experience questionnaires to collect subjective impressions from 30 participants. Results suggest that the checkers-style visual matching challenge was the most appropriate option, followed by entering a digital PIN challenge submitted via the smartphone and answered within the VR environment.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.05447 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Showcase of different conditions, left to right: with the smartphone [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the authentication methods of condition 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overview of challenges: A) CAPTCHA-style - selection of tiles cor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Overview of the authentication methods used for step 1 during con [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Virtual Keyboard in the VR environment. Utilized during Password [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Experimental Setup: a) Two interaction modalities - the code is re [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Adjusting exposure. A) Illustrates that pass-through video with au [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Distribution of Likert-scale scores given by participants to each con [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: 95% confidence intervals of the pairwise differences in mean comple [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: 95% confidence intervals of the pairwise differences in mean number [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Overview of the authentication methods of condition 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Overview of the authentication methods of condition 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Cybersecurity and artificial intelligence: From fixing the plumbing to smart water,

    C. E. Landwehr, “Cybersecurity and artificial intelligence: From fixing the plumbing to smart water,”IEEE Security & Privacy, vol. 6, no. 05, pp. 3– 4, Sep. 2008,issn: 1558-4046

    work page 2008

  2. [2]

    User-authentication approach for data security between smartphone and cloud,

    M. Al-Hasan, K. Deb, and M. O. Rahman, “User-authentication approach for data security between smartphone and cloud,” inIfost, vol. 2, IEEE, 2013, pp. 2–6

    work page 2013

  3. [3]

    Digital simulation in the virtual world: Its effect in the knowl- edge and attitude of students towards cybersecurity,

    P. Flores, “Digital simulation in the virtual world: Its effect in the knowl- edge and attitude of students towards cybersecurity,” in2019 Sixth HCT Information Technology Trends (ITT), 2019, pp. 1–5

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Smartphone security awareness: Time to act,

    M. Al-Hadadi and A. A. Shidhani, “Smartphone security awareness: Time to act,” in2013 International Conference on Current Trends in Informa- tion Technology (CTIT), IEEE, 2013, pp. 166–171

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    Augmented reality on smartphones,

    A. Henrysson and M. Ollila, “Augmented reality on smartphones,” in2003 IEEE International Augmented Reality Toolkit Workshop, 2003, pp. 27– 28

    work page 2003

  6. [7]

    Smartphone secu- rity evaluation the malware attack case,

    A. Mylonas, S. Dritsas, B. Tsoumas, and D. Gritzalis, “Smartphone secu- rity evaluation the malware attack case,” inProceedings of the Interna- tional Conference on Security and Cryptography, 2011, pp. 25–36

    work page 2011

  7. [8]

    “my smartphone is a safe!

    T. Dörflinger, A. Voth, J. Krämer, and R. Fromm, ““my smartphone is a safe!” the user’s point of view regarding novel authentication methods and gradual security levels on smartphones,” in2010 International Conference on Security and Cryptography (SECRYPT), 2010, pp. 1–10

    work page 2010

  8. [9]

    Best security practices for android, blackberry, and ios,

    T. Oh, B. Stackpole, E. Cummins, C. Gonzalez, R. Ramachandran, and S. Lim, “Best security practices for android, blackberry, and ios,” in2012 The First IEEE Workshop on Enabling Technologies for Smartphone and Internet of Things (ETSIoT), 2012, pp. 42–47

    work page 2012

Show all 70 references
  1. [10]

    Issues of information security control in virtualization segment of company information system,

    I. V. Mashkina, M. B. Guzairov, V. I. Vasilyev, L. R. Tuliganova, and A. S. Konovalov, “Issues of information security control in virtualization segment of company information system,” in 2016 XIX IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Soft Computing and Measurements (SCM), 2016, ...

    2016

  2. [11]

    Vrvul-discovery:Bilstm-basedvulnerabil- ity discovery for virtual reality devices in metaverse,

    L.Sha,X.Chen,F.Xiao, et al.,“Vrvul-discovery:Bilstm-basedvulnerabil- ity discovery for virtual reality devices in metaverse,”ACM Trans. Multi- media Comput. Commun. Appl., vol. 21, no. 2, Dec. 2025,issn: 1551-6857. [Online]. Available:https://doi.org/10.1145/3677609. [NRXR-ID:...

    2025 doi

  3. [12]

    Gazeploit: Remote keystroke inference attack by gaze estimation from avatar views in vr/mr devices,

    H. Wang, Z. Zhan, H. Shan, S. Dai, M. Panoff, and S. Wang, “Gazeploit: Remote keystroke inference attack by gaze estimation from avatar views in vr/mr devices,” inProceedings of the 2024 on ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, ser. CCS ’24, Salt Lake ...

    2024

  4. [13]

    Securing cross reality: Unravel- ingtherisksof3dobjectdisguiseonheadmountdisplay,

    M. Fujita, S. Kurasaki, and A. Kanaoka, “Securing cross reality: Unravel- ingtherisksof3dobjectdisguiseonheadmountdisplay,” in Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on the Internet of Things, ser. IoT ’23, Nagoya, Japan: Association for Computing Machinery, 2024, pp...

    2024

  5. [14]

    Securing augmented reality output,

    K. Lebeck, K. Ruth, T. Kohno, and F. Roesner, “Securing augmented reality output,” in2017 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP), 2017, pp. 320–337

    2017

  6. [15]

    De-anonymizing vr avatars using non-vr motion side-channels,

    M. Sabra, N. Vinayaga-Sureshkanth, A. Sharma, A. Maiti, and M. Jadli- wala, “De-anonymizing vr avatars using non-vr motion side-channels,” in Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Security and Privacy in Wire- less and Mobile Networks, ser. WiSec ’24, Seoul, Republic of Ko...

    2024

  7. [16]

    Security and privacy approaches in mixed reality: A literature survey,

    J. A. De Guzman, K. Thilakarathna, and A. Seneviratne, “Security and privacy approaches in mixed reality: A literature survey,”ACM Comput. Surv.,vol.52,no.6,Oct.2019, issn:0360-0300.[Online].Available: https: //doi.org/10.1145/3359626

    2019 doi

  8. [17]

    (visited on 04/05/2025)

    F.K.Peter, Ar/vr security risks: Protecting digital spaces and virtual iden- tities, https://www.presencesecure.com/ar- vr- security- risks- protecting- digital- spaces- and- virtual- identities/. (visited on 04/05/2025)

    2025

  9. [19]

    Dastgerdy, Virtual reality and augmented reality security: A reconnais- sance and vulnerability assessment approach, 2024

    S. Dastgerdy, Virtual reality and augmented reality security: A reconnais- sance and vulnerability assessment approach, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.15984

    2024 arXiv

  10. [20]

    An in-depth analysis of pass- wordmanagersandtwo-factorauthenticationtools,

    M. Jubur, P. Shrestha, and N. Saxena, “An in-depth analysis of pass- wordmanagersandtwo-factorauthenticationtools,” ACM Comput. Surv., vol. 57, no. 5, Jan. 2025, issn: 0360-0300. [Online]. Available: https : //doi.org/10.1145/3711117. [Nanzatov et al.]

    2025 doi

  11. [21]

    Impact of two-factor authentication on user convenience and security,

    D. Bhanderi, M. Kavathiya, T. Bhut, H. Kaur, and M. Mehta, “Impact of two-factor authentication on user convenience and security,” in2023 10th International Conference on Computing for Sustainable Global Develop- ment (INDIACom), 2023, pp. 617–622

    2023

  12. [22]

    A dose of reality: Overcoming usability challenges in vr head-mounted displays,

    M. McGill, D. Boland, R. Murray-Smith, and S. Brewster, “A dose of reality: Overcoming usability challenges in vr head-mounted displays,” in Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ser. CHI ’15, Seoul, Republic of Korea: Associa- ti...

    2015

  13. [23]

    Where’s my drink? enabling peripheral real world interactions while using hmds,

    P. Budhiraja, R. Sodhi, B. R. Jones, K. Karsch, B. P. Bailey, and D. A. Forsyth, “Where’s my drink? enabling peripheral real world interactions while using hmds,”ArXiv, vol. abs/1502.04744, 2015. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1502.04744

    2015 doi arXiv

  14. [24]

    Spare- eye: Enhancing the safety of inattentionally blind smartphone users,

    K.-T. Foerster, A. Gross, N. Hail, J. Uitto, and R. Wattenhofer, “Spare- eye: Enhancing the safety of inattentionally blind smartphone users,” in Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiqui- tous Multimedia, ser. MUM ’14, Melbourne, Victoria, Australi...

    2014

  15. [25]

    “never blind vr

    D. Nahon, G. Subileau, and B. Capel, ““never blind vr” enhancing the vir- tual reality headset experience with augmented virtuality,” in2015 IEEE Virtual Reality (VR), 2015, pp. 347–348

    2015

  16. [26]

    Realitycheck: Blending virtual environments with situated physical reality,

    J. Hartmann, C. Holz, E. Ofek, and A. D. Wilson, “Realitycheck: Blending virtual environments with situated physical reality,” inProceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ser. CHI ’19, Glasgow, Scotland Uk: Association for Computing Machiner...

    2019

  17. [27]

    Obstacle avoidance method in real space for virtual reality immersion,

    K. Kanamori, N. Sakata, T. Tominaga, Y. Hijikata, K. Harada, and K. Kiyokawa, “Obstacle avoidance method in real space for virtual reality immersion,” in 2018 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Aug- mented Reality (ISMAR), 2018, pp. 80–89. [Online]. Available: https : /...

    2018

  18. [28]

    Tabletinvr: Exploring the design space for using a multi-touch tablet in virtual reality,

    H. B. Surale, A. Gupta, M. Hancock, and D. Vogel, “Tabletinvr: Exploring the design space for using a multi-touch tablet in virtual reality,” inPro- ceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ser. CHI ’19, Glasgow, Scotland Uk: Association for C...

    2019

  19. [29]

    Bishare: Exploring bidirectional interactions between smartphones and head-mounted augmented reality,

    F. Zhu and T. Grossman, “Bishare: Exploring bidirectional interactions between smartphones and head-mounted augmented reality,” inProceed- ings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Sys- tems, ser. CHI ’20, Honolulu, HI, USA: Association for Computing Ma- ch...

    2020

  20. [30]

    Arwand: Phone-based 3d object manipulation in aug- mented reality environment,

    T. Ha and W. Woo, “Arwand: Phone-based 3d object manipulation in aug- mented reality environment,” in2011 International Symposium on Ubiq- uitous Virtual Reality, 2011, pp. 44–47

    2011

  21. [31]

    Pointing at a dis- tance with everyday smart devices,

    S. Siddhpuria, S. Malacria, M. Nancel, and E. Lank, “Pointing at a dis- tance with everyday smart devices,” inProc. CHI, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, Inc, 2018, pp. 1–11

    2018

  22. [32]

    Switchspace: Understanding context-aware peeking between vr and desk- top interfaces,

    J. Wentzel, F. Anderson, G. Fitzmaurice, T. Grossman, and D. Vogel, “Switchspace: Understanding context-aware peeking between vr and desk- top interfaces,” inProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Fac- tors in Computing Systems, ser. CHI ’24, Honolulu, HI, USA: Associ...

    2024

  23. [33]

    Enhancing reality in the operating room,

    W. Lorensen, H. Cline, C. Nafis, R. Kikinis, D. Altobelli, and L. Gleason, “Enhancing reality in the operating room,” inProceedings Visualization ’93, 1993, pp. 410–415

    1993

  24. [34]

    I’m in vr! using your own hands in a fully immersive mr sys- tem,

    F. Tecchia, G. Avveduto, R. Brondi, M. Carrozzino, M. Bergamasco, and L. Alem, “I’m in vr! using your own hands in a fully immersive mr sys- tem,” inProceedings of the 20th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Soft- ware and Technology, ser. VRST ’14, Edinburgh, Scotland: Associat...

    2014

  25. [35]

    Graphicalpasswords:Learn- ing from the first twelve years,

    R.Biddle,S.Chiasson,andP.VanOorschot,“Graphicalpasswords:Learn- ing from the first twelve years,”ACM Comput. Surv., vol. 44, no. 4, Sep. 2012, issn: 0360-0300. [Online]. Available:https://doi.org/10.1145/ 2333112.2333114

    2012

  26. [36]

    Identifying users by their hand tracking data in augmented and virtual reality,

    U. G. Jonathan Liebers Sascha Brockel and S. Schneegass, “Identifying users by their hand tracking data in augmented and virtual reality,”Inter- national Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 409– 424, 2024

    2024

  27. [37]

    Authentication in immersive virtual environments through gesture-based interaction with a virtual agent,

    D. Rupp, P. Grießer, A. Bonsch, and T. W. Kuhlen, “Authentication in immersive virtual environments through gesture-based interaction with a virtual agent,” in2024 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces Abstracts and Workshops (VRW), 2024, pp. 54–60

    2024

  28. [38]

    Dba: Direction-based authen- tication in virtual reality,

    Y. Huang, D. Zhang, and E. S. Rosenberg, “Dba: Direction-based authen- tication in virtual reality,” in2023 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces Abstracts and Workshops (VRW), 2023, pp. 953– 954. [Nanzatov et al.]

    2023

  29. [39]

    Sphinx authentication technique: Secure painting authentication in extended reality,

    D. Bologna, V. Micciché, G. Violo, A. Visconti, A. Cannavò, and F. Lam- berti, “Sphinx authentication technique: Secure painting authentication in extended reality,” in2023 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces Abstracts and Workshops (VRW), 2023, pp. 941–942

    2023

  30. [40]

    Retinal scan recognition us- ing wavelet energy entropy,

    R. A. Vora, V. A. Bharadi, and H. B. Kekre, “Retinal scan recognition us- ing wavelet energy entropy,” in2012 International Conference on Commu- nication, Information & Computing Technology (ICCICT), 2012, pp. 1– 6

    2012

  31. [41]

    Daugman, 600 million citizens of india are now enrolled with biomet- ric id, https : / / doi

    J. Daugman, 600 million citizens of india are now enrolled with biomet- ric id, https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1117 / 2 . 1201405 . 005449. (visited on 04/02/2022)

    2022

  32. [42]

    Skullconduct: Biometric user identification on eyewear computers using bone conduction through the skull,

    S. Schneegass, Y. Oualil, and A. Bulling, “Skullconduct: Biometric user identification on eyewear computers using bone conduction through the skull,” in Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ser. CHI ’16, San Jose, California, USA: Assoc...

    2016

  33. [43]

    Bio- metric as secure authentication for virtual reality environment: A system- atic literature review,

    C. H. Heruatmadja, Meyliana, A. N. Hidayanto, and H. Prabowo, “Bio- metric as secure authentication for virtual reality environment: A system- atic literature review,” in2023 International Conference for Advancement in Technology (ICONAT), 2023, pp. 1–7

    2023

  34. [44]

    Picture pass- words in mixed reality: Implementation and evaluation,

    G. Hadjidemetriou, M. Belk, C. Fidas, and A. Pitsillides, “Picture pass- words in mixed reality: Implementation and evaluation,” inExtended Ab- stracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Sys- tems, ser. CHI EA ’19, Glasgow, Scotland Uk: Association for Co...

    2019

  35. [45]

    User authentica- tion mechanisms based on immersive technologies: A systematic review,

    I. Anastasaki, G. Drosatos, G. Pavlidis, and K. Rantos, “User authentica- tion mechanisms based on immersive technologies: A systematic review,” Information, vol. 14, no. 10, 2023, issn: 2078-2489. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/2078-2489/14/10/538

    2023

  36. [46]

    A capacitive-sensing physical keyboard for vr text entry,

    T. Menzner, A. Otte, T. Gesslein, J. Grubert, P. Gagel, and D. Schnei- der, “A capacitive-sensing physical keyboard for vr text entry,” in2019 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR), 2019, pp. 1080–1081

    2019

  37. [47]

    Towards more secure virtual reality authentication for the metaverse: A decentralized method proposal,

    P. Kürtünlüoğlu, B. Akdik, R. Duygu, and E. Karaarslan, “Towards more secure virtual reality authentication for the metaverse: A decentralized method proposal,” in2023 16th International Conference on Information Security and Cryptology (ISCTürkiye), 2023, pp. 1–6. [NRXR-ID: 2...

    2023

  38. [48]

    Using decentralized identifiers and in- terplanetaryfilesystemtocreatearecoverablerarediseasepatientidentity framework,

    S. Mchale, L. Murr, and P. Zhang, “Using decentralized identifiers and in- terplanetaryfilesystemtocreatearecoverablerarediseasepatientidentity framework,” in Proceedings of the 2023 7th International Conference on Medical and Health Informatics, ser. ICMHI ’23, Kyoto, Japan: ...

    2023

  39. [49]

    A window to your smartphone: Exploring interaction and communication in immersive vr with augmented virtuality,

    A. P. Desai, L. Pena-Castillo, and O. Meruvia-Pastor, “A window to your smartphone: Exploring interaction and communication in immersive vr with augmented virtuality,” in2017 Computer And Robot Vision (CRV) Conf. Proc., Edmonton, AB, Mar. 2015

    2015

  40. [50]

    A user study on augmented virtuality using depth sensing cameras for near-range awareness in immersive vr,

    G. Alaee, A. P. Deasi, L. Pena-Castillo, E. Brown, and O. Meruvia-Pastor, “A user study on augmented virtuality using depth sensing cameras for near-range awareness in immersive vr,” inIEEE VR’s 4th Workshop on Everyday Virtual Reality (WEVR 2018), IEEE, 2018, Institute of Ele...

    2018

  41. [51]

    Trackcap: Enabling smartphones for 3D interaction on mobile head-mounted displays,

    P. Mohr, M. Tatzgern, T. Langlotz, A. Lang, D. Schmalstieg, and D. Kalkofen, “Trackcap: Enabling smartphones for 3D interaction on mobile head-mounted displays,” in Proc. CHI, NY, USA: Association for Com- puting Machinery, Inc, 2019

    2019

  42. [52]

    Inside-out tracking controller for vr/ar hmd using image recognition with smartphones,

    K. Hattori and T. Hirai, “Inside-out tracking controller for vr/ar hmd using image recognition with smartphones,” inACM SIGGRAPH 2020 Posters, SIGGRAPH 2020, https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1145 / 3388770 . 3407430,AssociationforComputingMachinery,Aug.2020, isbn:9781450379731

    2020

  43. [53]

    A hybrid 2D-3D tangible interface for virtual reality,

    L. Zhang, W. He, H. Bai, J. He, Y. Qiao, and M. Billinghurst, “A hybrid 2D-3D tangible interface for virtual reality,” inProc. SIGGRAPH, NY, USA: ACM, 2021

    2021

  44. [54]

    Bringing full-featured mobile phone interaction into virtual reality,

    H. Bai, L. Zhang, J. Yang, and M. Billinghurst, “Bringing full-featured mobile phone interaction into virtual reality,”Computers and Graphics (Pergamon), vol. 97, pp. 42–53, Jun. 2021

    2021

  45. [55]

    PAIR: Phone as an augmented immersive re- ality controller,

    A. E. Unlu and R. Xiao, “PAIR: Phone as an augmented immersive re- ality controller,” in Proc. VRST, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, Inc, 2021, pp. 1–6

    2021

  46. [56]

    Gy- rowand: Imu-based raycasting for augmented reality head-mounted dis- plays,

    J. D. Hincapié-Ramos, K. Özacar, P. P. Irani, and Y. Kitamura, “Gy- rowand: Imu-based raycasting for augmented reality head-mounted dis- plays,” in SUI 2015 - Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Symposium on Spa- tial User Interaction, https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1145 / 2788940 . 2788...

    2015

  47. [57]

    An arm-mounted in- ertial controller for 6dof input: Design and evaluation,

    T. S. Young, R. J. Teather, and I. S. Mackenzie, “An arm-mounted in- ertial controller for 6dof input: Design and evaluation,” in 2017 IEEE Symposium on 3D User Interfaces, 3DUI 2017 - Proceedings, https : //doi.org/10.1109/3DUI.2017.7893314 , Institute of Electrical and Elect...

    2017

  48. [58]

    TickTockRay: Smartwatch-based 3D pointing for smartphone-based virtual reality,

    D. Kharlamov, B. Woodard, L. Tahai, and P. Krzysztof, “TickTockRay: Smartwatch-based 3D pointing for smartphone-based virtual reality,” in Proc. VRST, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, Inc, 2016, pp. 363–364

    2016

  49. [59]

    Smartwatch-assisted robust 6-dof hand tracker for object manipulation in hmd-based augmented reality,

    H. I. Kim and W. Woo, “Smartwatch-assisted robust 6-dof hand tracker for object manipulation in hmd-based augmented reality,” in2016 IEEE Symposium on 3D User Interfaces, 3DUI 2016 - Proceedings, https : //doi.org/10.1109/3DUI.2016.7460065 , Institute of Electrical and Electro...

    2016

  50. [60]

    Watchvr: Explor- ing the usage of a smartwatch for interaction in mobile virtual reality,

    T. Hirzle, J. Gugenheimer, J. Rixen, and E. Rukzio, “Watchvr: Explor- ing the usage of a smartwatch for interaction in mobile virtual reality,” in Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.1145/3170427.3188629, Association for Comput- i...

  51. [61]

    New design and comparative analysis of smart- watch metaphor-based hand gestures for 3d navigation in mobile virtual reality,

    K. B. Park and J. Y. Lee, “New design and comparative analysis of smart- watch metaphor-based hand gestures for 3d navigation in mobile virtual reality,”Multimedia Tools and Applications, vol. 78, pp. 6211–6231, 5 Mar. 2019, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-018-6403-9, issn: 15737721

    2019 doi

  52. [62]

    Smartcasting: A discount 3D interaction technique for public displays,

    K. Pietroszek, A. Kuzminykh, J. R. Wallace, and E. Lank, “Smartcasting: A discount 3D interaction technique for public displays,” inProc. OzCHI, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, Inc, 2014, pp. 119–128

    2014

  53. [63]

    Poster: Virtual reality in- teraction using mobile devices,

    S. A. Aseeri, D. Acevedo-Feliz, and J. Schulze, “Poster: Virtual reality in- teraction using mobile devices,” inIEEE Symposium on 3D User Interface 2013, 3DUI 2013 - Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.1109/3DUI.2013. 6550211, 2013, pp. 127–128,isbn: 9781467360975

    2013 doi

  54. [64]

    Interaction techniques for hmd-hhd hybrid ar systems,

    R. Budhiraja, G. A. Lee, and M. Billinghurst, “Interaction techniques for hmd-hhd hybrid ar systems,” in2013 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality, ISMAR 2013, https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1109/ISMAR.2013.6671786, 2013, pp. 243–244,isbn: 9781479928699

    2013

  55. [65]

    Smartvr pointer: Using smartphones and gaze orientation for se- lection and navigation in virtual reality,

    B. McDonald, Q. Zhang, A. Nanzatov, L. Peña-Castillo, and O. Meruvia- Pastor, “Smartvr pointer: Using smartphones and gaze orientation for se- lection and navigation in virtual reality,”Sensors, vol. 24, no. 16, 2024, issn: 1424-8220. [Online]. Available: https : / / www . mdp...

    2024

  56. [66]

    Phoneinvr: An evalu- ation of spatial anchoring and interaction techniques for smartphone usage in virtual reality,

    F. Zhu, M. Sousa, L. Sidenmark, and T. Grossman, “Phoneinvr: An evalu- ation of spatial anchoring and interaction techniques for smartphone usage in virtual reality,” inProceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Fac- tors in Computing Systems, ser. CHI ’24, , Honolulu, HI, USA...

    2024

  57. [67]

    Eye vs. head: Com- paring gaze methods for interaction in augmented reality,

    N. Pathmanathan, M. Becher, N. Rodrigues,et al., “Eye vs. head: Com- paring gaze methods for interaction in augmented reality,” inACM Sym- posium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications, ser. ETRA ’20 Short Papers, Stuttgart, Germany: Association for Computing Machinery, 202...

    2020

  58. [68]

    Controller-based text-input techniques for virtual reality: An empirical comparison,

    C. Boletsis and S. Kongsvik, “Controller-based text-input techniques for virtual reality: An empirical comparison,”International Journal of Virtual Reality, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 2–15, Oct. 2019. [Online]. Available:https: //ijvr.eu/article/view/2917

    2019

  59. [69]

    Advantages of eye-gaze over head-gaze-based selection in virtual and augmented reality under varying field of views,

    J. Blattgerste, P. Renner, and T. Pfeiffer, “Advantages of eye-gaze over head-gaze-based selection in virtual and augmented reality under varying field of views,” inProceedings of the Workshop on Communication by Gaze Interaction, ser. COGAIN ’18, 0.1145/3206343.3206349, Warsa...

    2018

  60. [70]

    Wearhand: Head-worn, rgb-d camera- based, bare-hand user interface with visually enhanced depth perception,

    T. Ha, S. Feiner, and W. Woo, “Wearhand: Head-worn, rgb-d camera- based, bare-hand user interface with visually enhanced depth perception,” in 2014 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR), 2014, pp. 219–228

    2014

  61. [71]

    Usability of augmented reality for revealing secret messages to users but not their devices,

    S. J. Andrabi, M. K. Reiter, and C. Sturton, “Usability of augmented reality for revealing secret messages to users but not their devices,” in Proceedings of the Eleventh USENIX Conference on Usable Privacy and Security, ser. SOUPS ’15, Ottawa, Canada: USENIX Association, 2015...

    2015

  62. [72]

    A survey on trends of two-factor authenti- cation,

    D. Tirfe and V. K. Anand, “A survey on trends of two-factor authenti- cation,” in Contemporary Issues in Communication, Cloud and Big Data Analytics, H. K. D. Sarma, V. E. Balas, B. Bhuyan, and N. Dutta, Eds., Singapore: Springer Singapore, 2022, pp. 285–296,isbn: 978-981-16-4244- 9

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.