Exploring the effects of 3D-360°VR and 2D viewing modes on gaze behavior, head excursion, and workload during a boxing specific anticipation task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Recent evidence has started to demonstrate that 360°VR, a type of VR that immerses a user within a 360° video, has advantages over two-dimensional (2D) video displays in the context of perceptual-cognitive evaluation and training. However, there is currently a lack of empirical evidence to explain how perceptual-cognitive strategies differ between these two paradigms when performing sports-related tasks. Thus, the objective of this study was to examine and compare the impact of different viewing conditions (e.g., 3D-360°VR and 2D video displays), on gaze behavior and head excursions in a boxing-specific anticipatory task. A secondary objective was to assess the workload associated with each viewing mode, including the level of presence experienced. Thirdly, an exploratory analysis was conducted to evaluate any potential sex differences. Methods: Thirty-two novice participants (16 females) were recruited for this study. A total of 24 single-punch sequences were randomly presented using a standalone VR headset (Pico Neo 3 Pro Eye), with two different viewing modes: 3D-360°VR and 2D. Participants were instructed to respond to the punches with appropriate motor actions, aiming to avoid punches. Gaze behavior was recorded using a Tobii eyetracker embedded in the VR headset. Workload and presence were measured with the SIM-TLX questionnaire. Fixation duration, number of fixations, saccades, search rate and head excursions (roll, pitch, yaw) were analyzed using linear mixed models. Results: < 0.05). No sex differences were observed. These results demonstrate that 360°VR elicited shorter fixation durations but mostly greater head excursions and immersion compared to a 2D projection in the context of a boxing-specific task. Discussion: These findings contribute to the understanding of previous evidence supporting the possible advantages of using 360°VR over 2D for perceptual-cognitive evaluation and training purposes. Further validation studies that compare behaviors and performance in 360°VR with those in the real-world will be needed.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".