Direction and Location Are Not Sufficient for Navigating in Nonrigid Environments: An Empirical Study in Augmented Reality
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
Nonrigid environments, such as the human colon, present unique challenges in maintaining spatial orientation during navigation. This paper presents a design concept for presenting spatial information in an augmented reality (AR) display, together with results of an experiment conducted to evaluate the relative usefulness of three types of spatial information for supporting navigation and spatial orientation in a nonrigid environment. Sixteen untrained subjects performed a simulated colonoscopy procedure, using rigid and nonrigid colon models and six different AR displays comprising various combinations of direction, location, and shape information related to the scope inside the colon. Results showed that, unlike navigating in rigid environments, subjects took 44% longer to navigate the nonrigid environment and were less efficient, and suggested that it may be useful to train aspiring endoscopists in an equivalent rigid environment initially. A navigational aid presenting shape information was more beneficial than location or direction information for navigating in the nonrigid environment. Even though the AR navigational aid display did not speed up travel time, navigation efficiency and confidence in direction and location judgment for all subjects were improved. Subjectively, subjects preferred having shape information, in addition to position and direction information, in the navigational aid.
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 | 0.001 | 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