Exploring the Effects of Environment Density and Target Visibility on Object Selection in 3D Virtual Environments
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Object selection is a primary interaction technique which must be supported by any interactive three-dimensional virtual reality application. Although numerous techniques exist, few have been designed to support the selection of objects in dense target environments, or the selection of objects which are occluded from the user's viewpoint. There is, thus, a limited understanding on how these important factors will affect selection performance. In this paper, we present a set of design guidelines and strategies to aid the development of selection techniques which can compensate for environment density and target visibility. Based on these guidelines, we present two techniques, the depth ray and the 3D bubble cursor, both augmented to allow for the selection of fully occluded targets. In a formal experiment, we evaluate the relative performance of these techniques, varying both the environment density and target visibility. The results found that both of these techniques outperformed a baseline point cursor technique, with the depth ray performing best overall.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it