Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38995109›Full record

ArticleJournal of vision2024

Where was this thing again? Evaluating methods to indicate remembered object positions in virtual reality.

Immo Schuetz, Bianca R Baltaretu, Katja Fiehler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of vision, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Immo SchuetzExperimental Psychology, Justus Liebig University, Giessen, Germany.
Bianca R BaltaretuExperimental Psychology, Justus Liebig University, Giessen, Germany.
Katja FiehlerExperimental Psychology, Justus Liebig University, Giessen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A current focus in sensorimotor research is the study of human perception and action in increasingly naturalistic tasks and visual environments. This is further enabled by the recent commercial success of virtual reality (VR) technology, which allows for highly realistic but well-controlled three-dimensional (3D) scenes. VR enables a multitude of different ways to interact with virtual objects, but only rarely are such interaction techniques evaluated and compared before being selected for a sensorimotor experiment. Here, we compare different response techniques for a memory-guided action task, in which participants indicated the position of a previously seen 3D object in a VR scene: pointing, using a virtual laser pointer of short or unlimited length, and placing, either the target object itself or a generic reference cube. Response techniques differed in availability of 3D object cues and requirement to physically move to the remembered object position by walking. Object placement was the most accurate but slowest due to repeated repositioning. When placing objects, participants tended to match the original object's orientation. In contrast, the laser pointer was fastest but least accurate, with the short pointer showing a good speed-accuracy compromise. Our findings can help researchers in selecting appropriate methods when studying naturalistic visuomotor behavior in virtual environments.

Indexed as

Virtual RealityAdultCuesFemaleHumansMalePhotic StimulationPsychomotor PerformanceYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID38995109
PMCPMC11246095

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.