Comparing eye–hand coordination between controller-mediated virtual reality, and a real-world object interaction task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Virtual reality (VR) technology has advanced significantly in recent years, with many potential applications. However, it is unclear how well VR simulations mimic real-world experiences, particularly in terms of eye-hand coordination. This study compares eye-hand coordination from a previously validated real-world object interaction task to the same task re-created in controller-mediated VR. We recorded eye and body movements and segmented participants' gaze data using the movement data. In the real-world condition, participants wore a head-mounted eye tracker and motion capture markers and moved a pasta box into and out of a set of shelves. In the VR condition, participants wore a VR headset and moved a virtual box using handheld controllers. Unsurprisingly, VR participants took longer to complete the task. Before picking up or dropping off the box, participants in the real world visually fixated the box about half a second before their hand arrived at the area of action. This 500-ms minimum fixation time before the hand arrived was preserved in VR. Real-world participants disengaged their eyes from the box almost immediately after their hand initiated or terminated the interaction, but VR participants stayed fixated on the box for much longer after it was picked up or dropped off. We speculate that the limited haptic feedback during object interactions in VR forces users to maintain visual fixation on objects longer than in the real world, altering eye-hand coordination. These findings suggest that current VR technology does not replicate real-world experience in terms of eye-hand coordination.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".