ArticlePloS one2024
Temporal precision and accuracy of audio-visual stimuli in mixed reality systems.
Article in PloS one, 2024. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dynamic and Robotic Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery-A Possible Workflow for the Future?Australian dental journal · 2025Review
- P300 ERP System Utilizing Wireless Visual Stimulus Presentation Devices.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Evaluating Augmented Reality Head-Mounted Devices in Healthcare: A Review of Hardware, Software, and Usability Approaches.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mixed Reality (MR) techniques, such as Virtual (VR) and Augmented Reality (AR), are gaining popularity as a new methodology for neuroscience and psychology research. In studies involving audiovisual stimuli, it is crucial to have MR systems that can deliver these bimodal stimuli with controlled timing between the onset of each modality. However, the extent to which modern MR setups can achieve the necessary precision and accuracy of audiovisual stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs) remains largely unknown. The objective of this study is to systematically evaluate the lag and variability between the auditory and visual onset of audiovisual stimuli produced on popular modern MR head-mounted displays (HMDs) from Meta, Microsoft, HTC, and Varjo in conjunction with commonly used development environments such as Unity and the Unreal Engine. To accomplish this, we developed a low-cost measurement system that enabled us to measure the actual SOA and its associated jitter. Our findings revealed that certain MR systems exhibited significant SOAs, with one case averaging 156.63 ms, along with jitter of up to ±11.82 ms. Using our methodology, we successfully conducted experimental calibration of a headset, achieving SOAs of -3.89 ± 1.56 ms. This paper aims to raise awareness among neuroscience researchers regarding the limitations of MR systems in delivering audiovisual stimuli without prior calibration. Furthermore, we present cost-effective methods to calibrate these systems, thereby facilitating the replication of future results.
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.