Leaning-Based Interfaces Improve Ground-Based VR Locomotion in Reach-the-Target, Follow-the-Path, and Racing Tasks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using standard handheld interfaces for VR locomotion may not provide a believable self-motion experience and can contribute to unwanted side effects such as motion sickness, disorientation, or increased cognitive load. This paper demonstrates how using a seated leaning-based locomotion interface -HeadJoystick- in VR ground-based navigation affects user experience, usability, and performance. In three within-subject studies, we compared controller (touchpad/thumbstick) with a more embodied interface ("HeadJoystick") where users moved their head and/or leaned in the direction of desired locomotion. In both conditions, users sat on a regular office chair and used it to control virtual rotations. In the first study, 24 participants used HeadJoystick versus Controller in three complementary tasks including reach-the-target, follow-the-path, and racing (dynamic obstacle avoidance). In the second study, 18 participants repeatedly used HeadJoystick versus Controller (8 one-minute trials each) in a reach-the-target task. To evaluate potential benefits of different brake mechanisms, in the third study 18 participants were asked to stop within each target area for one second. All three studies consistently showed advantages of HeadJoystick over Controller: we observed improved performance in all tasks, as well as higher user ratings for enjoyment, spatial presence, immersion, vection intensity, usability, ease of learning, ease of use, and rated potential for daily and long-term use, while reducing motion sickness and task load. Overall, our results suggest that leaning-based interfaces such as HeadJoystick provide an interesting and more embodied alternative to handheld interfaces in driving, reach-the-target, and follow-the-path tasks, and potentially a wider range of 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".