Remote VR Studies: A Framework for Running Virtual Reality Studies Remotely Via Participant-Owned HMDs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigate opportunities and challenges of running virtual reality (VR) studies remotely. Today, many consumers own head-mounted displays (HMDs), allowing them to participate in scientific studies from their homes using their own equipment. Researchers can benefit from this approach by being able to recruit study populations normally out of their reach, and to conduct research at times when it is difficult to get people into the lab (cf. the COVID pandemic). In an initial online survey ( N = 227), we assessed HMD owners’ demographics, their VR setups and their attitudes toward remote participation. We then identified different approaches to running remote studies and conducted two case studies for an in-depth understanding. We synthesize our findings into a framework for remote VR studies, discuss strengths and weaknesses of the different approaches, and derive best practices. Our work is valuable for Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) researchers conducting VR studies outside labs.
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 | 0.074 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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".