Perception of Looming Motion in Virtual Reality Egocentric Interception Tasks
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
Motion in depth is commonly misperceived in Virtual Reality (VR), making it difficult to intercept moving objects, for example, in games. We investigate whether motion cues could be modified to improve these interactions in VR. We developed a time-to-contact estimation task, in which observers ($n=18$n=18) had to indicate by button press when a looming virtual object would collide with their head. We show that users consistently underestimate speed. We construct a user-specific model of motion-in-depth perception, and use this model to propose a novel method to modify monocular depth cues tailored to the specific user, correcting individual response errors in speed estimation. A user study was conducted in a simulated baseball environment and observers were asked to hit a looming baseball back in the direction of the pitcher. The study was conducted with and without intervention and demonstrates the effectiveness of the method in reducing interception errors following cue modifications. The intervention was particularly effective at fast ball speeds where performance is most limited by the user's sensorimotor constraints. The proposed approach is easy to implement and could improve the user experience of interacting with dynamic virtual environments.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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