ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2026
A Comprehensive Method to Evaluate the Usability of Virtual Reality Headset Devices for Industrial Applications.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The increasing adoption of virtual reality for industrial tasks such as virtual assembly, inspection, and operator training necessitates a standardized approach for evaluating and selecting appropriate hardware. This paper addresses this need by introducing a comprehensive methodology to assess the usability of commercially widespread virtual reality headsets specifically for industrial applications with hand-held controllers. We conducted a large-scale comparative study involving five leading headsets (HTC VIVE Pro 1 and 2, HTC VIVE XR Elite, Meta Quest Pro, and Meta Quest 3) and 60 demographically balanced participants. The evaluation was based on a protocol of 15 distinct tasks designed to measure performance in near and far-field object manipulation, interaction fidelity, visual clarity, ergonomics, and long-term comfort. By combining quantitative Key Performance Indicators with subjective user feedback and rigorous inferential statistical analysis, our findings reveal significant performance disparities among the devices. The results demonstrate that, while certain headsets excel in high-precision tracking for assembly tasks, others offer superior comfort, visual quality, and ease of use for inspection and prolonged sessions. Ultimately, this study concludes that no single headset is universally superior; the optimal choice is highly task-dependent. The proposed methodology provides a robust, evidence-based framework to guide industries in making informed virtual reality hardware selections tailored to their specific needs.
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.