How Interaction Techniques Affect Workload in a Virtual Environment During Multitasking
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Virtual environments (VEs) can be modulated and adapted to the needs of each user, but in the case of patients, performance can be affected by several factors that are difficult to expertise. The objective of the study is to explore the relationship between workload and the interaction techniques used during selection in a virtual apartment. Fifty-six participants performed tasks in a VE with 2D or, more immersive, 3D interaction techniques. The VE used was the Virtual Multitasking Test (Banville et al., 2018) where participants realized several everyday tasks in a virtual apartment. Workload and variables describing how individuals felt in the VE were measured using questionnaires, and performance in VE has been assessed. Results showed that 2D selection techniques have a better usability than 3D ones. The performance (success in task realization) on the virtual tasks was not impacted by the interaction techniques. Our results suggest that the easier it is to use an interaction technique, the less workload is associated with it. Sense of presence and cybersickness were affected by 3D interaction techniques. Thus, future VEs for cognitive assessment and rehabilitation, based on instrumental activities of daily living, will have to adapt their interaction techniques to different users.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 it