NaviBoard and NaviChair: Limited Translation Combined with Full Rotation for Efficient Virtual Locomotion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Walking has always been considered as the gold standard for navigation in Virtual Reality research. Though full rotation is no longer a technical challenge, physical translation is still restricted through limited tracked areas. While rotational information has been shown to be important, the benefit of the translational component is still unclear with mixed results in previous work. To address this gap, we conducted a mixed-method experiment to compare four levels of translational cues and control: none (using the trackpad of the HTC Vive controller to translate), upper-body leaning (sitting on a "NaviChair", leaning the upper-body to locomote), whole-body leaning/stepping (standing on a platform called NaviBoard, leaning the whole body or stepping one foot off the center to navigate), and full translation (physically walking). Results showed that translational cues and control had significant effects on various measures including task performance, task load, and simulator sickness. While participants performed significantly worse when they used a controller with no embodied translational cues, there was no significant difference between the NaviChair, NaviBoard, and actual walking. These results suggest that translational body-based motion cues and control from a low-cost leaning/stepping interface might provide enough sensory information for supporting spatial updating, spatial awareness, and efficient locomotion in VR, although future work will need to investigate how these results might or might not generalize to other tasks and scenarios.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".