Do Head-Mounted Display Stereo Deficiencies Affect 3D Pointing Tasks in AR and VR?
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
Most AR and VR headsets use stereoscopic displays to show virtual objects in 3D. However, the limitations of current stereo display systems affect depth perception through conflicting depth cues, which then also affect virtual hand interaction in peri-personal space, i.e., within arm's reach. We performed a Fitts' law experiment to better understand the impact of stereo display deficiencies of AR and VR headsets on pointing at close-by targets arranged laterally or along the line of sight. According to our results, the movement direction and the corresponding change in target depth affect pointing time and throughput; subjects' movements towards/away from their head were slower and less accurate than their lateral movements (left/right). However, even though subjects moved faster in AR, we did not observe a significant difference for pointing performance between AR and VR headsets, which means that previously identified differences in depth perception between these platforms seem to have no strong effect on interaction. Our results also help 3D user interface designers understand how changes in target depth affect users' performance in different movement directions in AR and VR.
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