ArticlePloS one2026
Why would individuals use indoor positioning systems? A study from a potential user interface perspective.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Indoor positioning systems (IPS) differ from outdoor navigation in technological foundations and typical use cases, yet real-world deployments remain relatively rare. For an early-stage acceptance evaluation, literature-derived IPS functions were implemented as an interactive, task-based UI mock-up for a university setting. UTAUT2 was assessed with a pooled sample of 181 potential users across three independent data collections using PLS-SEM with one-tailed BCa bootstrap confidence intervals (90%; 5%/95% bounds). Performance expectancy showed the largest positive association with behavioral intention (β = 0.585, CI [0.480; 0.678]). Social influence (β = 0.179, CI [0.115; 0.245]), price value under a communicated one-time fee of €0.99 (β = 0.179, CI [0.096; 0.260]), and habit (β = 0.179, CI [0.097; 0.265]) also related positively to intention (R² = 0.781). Effort expectancy (β = -0.051, CI [-0.136; 0.023]), facilitating conditions (β = -0.027, CI [-0.108; 0.046]), and hedonic motivation (β = -0.002, CI [-0.109; 0.113]) were not supported; a robustness model indicated a negative age × price value interaction (β = -0.164, CI [-0.314; -0.071]). The findings extend UTAUT2 evidence to prototype-based IPS UI evaluation and suggest that performance-related beliefs dominate early intention formation. Practically, prototype concepts should prioritize and clearly communicate features that reduce uncertainty, time cost, and search effort in complex indoor environments. Because the stimulus was a UI mock-up and the outcome was self-reported intention, IPS-specific technical frictions (e.g., localization inaccuracies, latency, route deviations) and sustained real-world use were not observed, which may limit transferability to deployed IPS.
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.