Effects of color cues on eye-hand coordination training with a mirror drawing task in virtual environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mirror drawing is a motor learning task that is used to evaluate and improve eye-hand coordination of users and can be implemented in immersive Virtual Reality (VR) Head-Mounted Displays (HMDs) for training purposes. In this paper, we investigated the effect of color cues on user motor performance in a mirror-drawing task between Virtual Environment (VE) and Real World (RW), with three different colors. We conducted a 5-day user study with twelve participants. The results showed that the participants made fewer errors in RW compared to VR, except for pre-training, which indicated that hardware and software limitations have detrimental effects on the motor learning of the participants across different realities. Furthermore, participants made fewer errors with the colors close to green, which is usually associated with serenity, contentment, and relaxation. According to our findings, VR headsets can be used to evaluate participants' eye-hand coordination in mirror drawing tasks to evaluate the motor-learning of participants. VE and RW training applications could benefit from our findings in order to enhance their effectiveness.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".