ArticlePloS one2021
The systematic evaluation of an embodied control interface for virtual reality.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Research on Guidance Methods of Digital Twin Robotic Arms Based on User Interaction Experience Quantification.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- A Natural Human-Drone Embodied Interface: Empirical Comparison With a Traditional Interface.Frontiers in neurorobotics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Embodied interfaces are promising for virtual reality (VR) because they can improve immersion and reduce simulator sickness compared to more traditional handheld interfaces (e.g., gamepads). We present a novel embodied interface called the Limbic Chair. The chair is composed of two separate shells that allow the user's legs to move independently while sitting. We demonstrate the suitability of the Limbic Chair in two VR scenarios: city navigation and flight simulation. We compare the Limbic Chair to a gamepad using performance measures (i.e., time and accuracy), head movements, body sway, and standard questionnaires for measuring presence, usability, workload, and simulator sickness. In the city navigation scenario, the gamepad was associated with better presence, usability, and workload scores. In the flight simulation scenario, the chair was associated with less body sway (i.e., less simulator sickness) and fewer head movements but also slower performance and higher workload. In all other comparisons, the Limbic Chair and gamepad were similar, showing the promise of the Chair for replacing some control functions traditionally executed using handheld devices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.