MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400111722 · doi:10.1109/tvcg.2024.3420236

A Comparison of Virtual Reality Menu Archetypes: Raycasting, Direct Input, and Marking Menus

2024· article· en· W4400111722 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInteractive and Immersive Displays
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceUSableHuman–computer interactionArchetypeVirtual realityInteraction techniqueHierarchyComputer graphics (images)User interfaceMultimedia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We contribute an analysis of the prevalence and relative performance of archetypal VR menu techniques. An initial survey of 108 menu interfaces in 84 popular commercial VR applications establishes common design characteristics. These characteristics motivate the design of raycast, direct, and marking menu archetypes, and a two-experiment comparison of their relative performance with one and two levels of hierarchy using 8 or 24 items. With a single-level menu, direct input is the fastest interaction technique in general, and is unaffected by number of items. With a two-level hierarchical menu, marking is fastest regardless of item number. Menus using raycasting, the most common menu interaction technique, were among the slowest of the tested menus but were rated most consistently usable. Using the combined results, we provide design and implementation recommendations with applications to general VR menu design.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score0.660

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.304 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it