Evaluating visual/motor co-location in fish-tank virtual 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
Virtual reality systems often co-locate the display and input (motor) spaces. Many input devices, such as the mouse, use indirect input mappings, and are disjoint from the display space. A study of visual/motor co-location was conducted to determine if there is any benefit to working directly ¿in¿ a virtual environment. Using a fish-tank VR setup, participants performed a 3D object movement task. This required moving an object from the centre of the environment to target regions, using a tracked pen, in both co-located and disjoint display/input conditions. Results were analyzed in the context of Fitts' Law, which models rapid aimed movements. Ultimately, no significant differences were found between co-located and disjoint conditions. However, when analyzing object movement in specific directions, the co-located condition was somewhat better than the disjoint one. In particular, movement into the scene was faster when the display and input device were co-located rather than disjoint.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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