Investigating the Effects of Physical Landmarks on Spatial Memory for Information Visualisation in Augmented Reality
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
Augmented Reality (AR) is touted to be beneficial in supporting situated information display, allowing virtual information panels to be overlaid on real-world scenes. People must then use their spatial memory to navigate among these virtual panels effectively. While spatial memory has been studied in physical environments (wall displays) and virtual reality environments, there has been little research on how physical surroundings might affect memorisation of virtual content in a mixed environment like AR. Therefore, we provide the first AR study of spatial memory, comparing two different room settings with two different situated layouts of virtual targets on an abstract spatial memory task. We find that participants recall spatial patterns with greater accuracy and higher subjective ratings in a room with furniture compared to an empty room. Our findings lead to important design implications for mixed-reality user interfaces, particularly in information-rich applications like situated analytics and small-multiples information visualisation.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it