Toward a More Standardized Multi-Directional Tapping Task in VR: the Effect of Target Depth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The multi-directional tapping task has long served as a foundational tool for evaluating pointing performance in human-computer interaction research. However, its transition from 2D interfaces to virtual reality (VR) raises challenges, especially in standardizing target depth. This study explores how target depth influences performance in VR, focusing on two common techniques: Raycasting and Virtual Hand. We conducted two controlled experiments (each with <tex xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">$\mathrm{n}=20$</tex>) to isolate depth effects. In Experiment 1, fixed target size led to visual angle (VA) shifts across depths, affecting performance. Both techniques performed best when VA was between <tex xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">$1-4^{\circ}$</tex>; Raycasting peaked at 2 m, Virtual Hand at <tex xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">$0.4-0.5 ~\mathrm{m}$</tex>. In Experiment 2, we controlled VA to isolate depth itself. Raycasting remained stable beyond 2 m but degraded at close range due to biomechanical limits. Virtual Hand remained sensitive to depth despite fixed VA, but differences were smaller, with throughput unaffected. These results suggest VA should be the primary parameter for standardizing the task in VR. Depth-specific evaluation remains necessary, except for Raycasting beyond 2 m. We provide depth-aware guidelines to improve standardization and comparability while aligning with ISO protocols.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".