ArticlePloS one2025
Measuring eye vergence angle in extended reality.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Measuring the dynamics of attentional capture in hand and eye movements with virtual reality.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
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
Recently, extended reality (XR) displays, including augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR), have integrated eye tracking capabilities, which could enable novel ways of interacting with XR content. In natural settings, eye vergence angle (EVA) changes constantly, based on the distance of fixated objects. Here, we measured EVA for eye fixations on real and virtual target objects in three different environments: real objects in the real world (real), virtual objects in the real world (AR), and virtual objects in a virtual world (VR). In a repeated measures design with 13 participants, EVA was measured while participants fixated on targets at varying distances. As expected, the results showed a significant main effect of target depth such that increasing EVA was associated with closer targets. However, there were consistent individual differences in baseline EVA. There was also a smaller but statistically significant main effect of environment (real, AR, VR) on EVA. Importantly, EVA was stable with respect to the starting depth of previously fixated targets and invariant to the direction (convergence vs. divergence) of vergence changes. In addition, EVA proved to be a more veridical depth estimate than verbal subjective depth judgments.
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.