ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2022
Human reaction time in a mixed reality environment.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Anterior chamber stability of a novel phacoemulsification machine through the slit side view method.Journal of cataract and refractive surgery · 2026Article
- Measuring neurodevelopment of inhibitory control in children using naturalistic virtual reality.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Task integration and anticipation in complex, continuous motor tasks.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Over the last few years applications based on the use of immersive environments, where physical and digital objects coexist and interact, have gained widespread attention. Thanks to the development of new visualization devices, even at low cost, and increasingly effective rendering and processing techniques, these applications are reaching a growing number of users. While the adoption of digital information makes it possible to provide immersive experiences in a number of different applications, there are still many unexplored aspects. In this work, a preliminary step to understand the impact of the scene content on human perception of the virtual 3D elements in a mixed reality has been performed. To this aim, a subjective test was designed and implemented to collect the reaction time of a set of users in a mixed reality application. In this test each user was asked to wear an augmented reality headset and to catch a virtual objects randomly appearing in the subject's field of view. We first estimated the detection accuracy through omitted, anticipated, and completed responses; then we related stimulus location, scene content and estimated accuracy. For this purpose, the area of stimulus presentation was divided into upper, lower, right, left, inner, and outer, to understand in which area responses were omitted and anticipated with respect to the central point of view. Experimental results show that, in addition to the saliency of the real scene, natural body gesture technology and limited field of view influenced human reaction time.
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.