Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 86 references

Adaptive Gen-AI Guidance in Virtual Reality: A Multimodal Exploration of Engagement in Neapolitan Pizza-Making

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Moderate adaptive AI guidance in VR reliably raises engagement measures compared with no adaptivity, and high adaptivity adds no further gain.

desk verdict Competent VR user study with a real confound: AI response latency and utterance length may drive the gaze and head-movement effects, and the 'moderate is optimal' claim outruns the statistics. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18438 v2 pith:2J3FQUCL submitted 2024-11-27 cs.HC

Ka Hei Carrie Lau , Sema Sen , Philipp Stark , Efe Bozkir , Enkelejda Kasneci This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords intangibleculturalheritagevirtualrealitygenerativeartificialintelligenceadaptivelearningmultimodalengagementeyetrackingheadmovementprocedural
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper asks whether the amount of adaptivity in a generative-AI tutor changes how engaged learners are in a virtual-reality procedural task. It builds a VR Neapolitan pizza-making environment with a GPT-4 tutor and compares three between-subject conditions: a fixed script, adaptation to ingredient choices, and adaptation to both ingredient choices and demographics. Using eye tracking, head movement, session time, and optional speech as behavioural proxies, it finds that moderate adaptivity produces the highest avatar dwell time and the lowest exploratory head movement relative to baseline, while high adaptivity does not improve on moderate. The authors read this as evidence for a sweet spot: real-time, action-based adaptation supports attention and focus, but adding demographic-based personalization gives no extra engagement.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a three-level adaptivity manipulation embedded in a GPT-4-based virtual tutor: moderate adaptivity responds to ingredient choices, high adaptivity adds demographic personalization, and the baseline uses a fixed script. Engagement is measured through multimodal behavioural proxies — relative avatar dwell time from eye-tracking, average head-movement speed, total session duration, and a binary verbal-interaction indicator — which together are meant to capture visual attention, physical exploration, and social engagement while avoiding the confound of subjective questionnaires.

What would settle it

A replication that fixes AI response latency and tutor speech duration across the three conditions would settle the issue: if the moderate-adaptivity advantage in avatar dwell time and the reduction in head-movement speed disappear, the claimed engagement effect is largely an artifact of pacing.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that moderate adaptivity — generated responses tailored only to real-time ingredient choices — significantly increases the percentage of session time spent gazing at the AI tutor and decreases average head-movement speed compared with a non-adaptive baseline, whereas high adaptivity (adding demographic-based personalization) yields no further significant gains. The paper also reports significantly longer total session time in both adaptive conditions relative to baseline and no significant differences in optional verbal interaction. It interprets these patterns as showing that balanced adaptivity sustains engagement and focused attention without removing learner agency, and it generalizes this to procedural cultural-heritage learning.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the gaze and head-movement measures are unbiased proxies for engagement, rather than artifacts of the longer wait times and longer AI speech that the adaptive conditions introduce.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Systems with moderate, action-based adaptivity can be expected to produce longer VR sessions than fixed-script tutors, a direct corollary of the reported session-time effect.
  • Designers should favor a bounded adaptivity level that responds to user choices rather than maximal personalization, since high adaptivity did not outperform moderate adaptivity on any engagement metric.
  • Multimodal behavioural metrics such as gaze and head motion can reveal engagement differences that a single temporal metric might confound with AI response latency.
  • Adaptive Gen-AI tutors that proactively provide guidance may not need to prompt users to speak, since verbal interaction was low and not condition-dependent.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper: because adaptive conditions also had longer AI response delays and longer tutor utterances, part of the higher avatar dwell time and slower head movement may reflect waiting behavior rather than engagement; a replication that equalizes response latency and speech duration would test this.
  • Beyond the paper: the sweet-spot result suggests a design heuristic for other procedural heritage tasks — adapt to the learner's current action rather than to static demographic profiles — but only if the engagement proxy is validated against learning outcomes.
  • Beyond the paper: the absence of verbal-interaction differences could imply that proactive avatar speech dominates the dialogue; letting users drive questions might reveal different engagement patterns.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents a between-subjects VR user study (N=54, three conditions: no, moderate, and high adaptive Gen-AI guidance in a Neapolitan pizza-making task) and reports multimodal behavioral measures of engagement: total session time, relative avatar dwell time from eye tracking, average head movement speed, and presence of verbal interaction. The authors conclude that moderate adaptivity optimally enhances engagement, increasing visual attention on the AI tutor and reducing exploratory head movement. The paper also contributes an open-source VR system and design recommendations for adaptive educational technologies.

Significance. If the claimed effects are valid, the paper would be useful for the HCI and adaptive-learning communities: it demonstrates a concrete adaptive Gen-AI tutor in a procedural ICH context, uses multimodal behavioral metrics rather than self-report alone, and offers practical design guidance. The study is competently analyzed with appropriate nonparametric tests and effect sizes, and the open-source contribution is a strength. However, the central conclusion rests on two behavioral metrics that are vulnerable to a timing confound, and the 'optimal'/'sweet-spot' characterization is stronger than the pairwise test results support. These issues are addressable with additional analyses, but they currently block acceptance.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1, §3.7, §5.1] The two central metrics—relative avatar dwell time and average head movement speed—are computed over the entire session, but adaptive conditions contain systematically more waiting and listening time. Section 3.1 states that each STT interaction records 5 seconds of participant speech and GPT-4 responses arrive after 2–5 s, and Appendix Table 2 shows longer tutor utterances in the moderate and high conditions. As a result, adaptive sessions last about 200 s longer (§4.1), so participants have more time to gaze at the avatar while waiting or listening and more time with reduced head movement. Since dwell time is a percentage of total session time and head speed is averaged over the whole session, the observed differences could arise mechanically from interface latency and utterance length rather than from engagement. The manuscript notes timing variability for temporal metrics (§5.1) and AI variability in general (§5.4), but it does not establish that the gaze and head-movement metrics are exempt. Please report event-locked analyses (e.g., dwell time during tutor speech only, head speed during active task segments) or include response latency / utterance length as covariates to disentangle the confound.
  2. [§4.2, §4.3, §5.1] The claim that moderate adaptivity is 'optimal' and reflects a non-monotonic sweet spot is not supported by the pairwise comparisons. For dwell time, only No vs Moderate is significant (p=.005); No vs High is not (p=.137) and Moderate vs High is not (p=.178). For head speed, only No vs Moderate is significant (p=.029); No vs High is marginal (p=.058) and Moderate vs High is not (p=.687). Total session time also shows no significant difference between Moderate and High (p=.927). The data therefore support at most a moderate-vs-baseline effect, not an inverted-U relationship. Please soften the optimality claim or provide explicit evidence of a nonlinear trend (e.g., a contrast test or a model with a quadratic term) before asserting that moderate adaptivity is superior to high adaptivity.
  3. [§4.3, §5.1] Lower average head movement speed is interpreted as 'reduced unnecessary exploratory behaviour,' but the metric is an undifferentiated whole-session average. Reduced speed could also indicate passivity, reduced physical engagement, or simply more time spent listening to longer tutor utterances. Given that the high-adaptivity condition shows a similar but non-significant reduction, the interpretation depends on a finer-grained analysis. The authors should either validate the head-movement measure against task-relevant exploration (e.g., head movement during active ingredient selection and dough preparation) or temper the claim that exploratory behaviour specifically was reduced.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 5 caption] The text reports p<.001 for the Welch ANOVA, but the figure annotation uses four asterisks, which the caption maps to p<.0001; please align the reported p-value and the significance notation.
  2. [Appendix Figure 9 caption] The caption states 'Dunn's post-hoc' but does not report which pairwise comparison is significant or its direction and p-value; please provide the complete post-hoc result.
  3. [§3.1] The sentence 'Each STT interaction recorded 5 seconds of participant speech' is ambiguous: it could mean a fixed five-second recording window, a maximum duration, or a post-hoc extraction. Please clarify the recording procedure and whether its length varied across conditions or interactions.
  4. [References] Several reference entries are malformed, e.g., [5] lists 'Pamela Beach and Jen McConnel and. 2019' and [60] lists 'K. Renninger and Suzanne Hidi. 2016' with missing author names; please correct the author lists.
  5. [§3.4] The experimental design would benefit from a manipulation check: participants were not told about the Gen-AI agent, but no measure reports whether they noticed differences in adaptivity across conditions. Adding a brief post-experiment awareness question would strengthen the construct validity of the adaptivity manipulation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the engagement findings are data-driven empirical results and self-citations are background, non-load-bearing references.

full rationale

The paper makes no formal derivation that could reduce to its inputs. Adaptivity levels are operationally defined in Section 3.4, and the dependent measures (total session time, relative avatar dwell time, average head movement speed, and verbal interaction) are independently defined in Sections 3.6 and 3.7. The results in Section 4 are direct statistical comparisons of these measured quantities across conditions; no parameter is fitted to the outcome data and then renamed a prediction, and no theoretical quantity is defined in terms of the effect it is supposed to explain. Self-citations, such as references [34] and [40], are methodological tutorials or prior VR evaluations and do not supply an assumption that forces the adaptivity result. The acknowledged variability in AI response times and utterance length (Sections 3.1, 5.4) is a potential validity confound for interpreting the gaze and head-movement metrics, but a confound is not a circularity: the reported effects are still measured outcomes rather than artifacts of how the constructs were defined. Therefore the central claim rests on the empirical data, not on circular reasoning.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on interpretive assumptions that link gaze, head movement, and session time to engagement, and on the assumption that AI response timing does not bias these measures. No free parameters are fitted to data.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Avatar dwell time is a valid proxy for cognitive engagement and attentional focus.
    Invoked in Section 3.6 as the primary visual attention measure; prior literature supports it, but it is an interpretive assumption.
  • domain assumption Average head movement speed is a valid proxy for exploratory behavior and cognitive uncertainty.
    Section 3.6 interprets higher head speed as exploration and lower as focus; this link is assumed.
  • domain assumption Total experiment time reflects sustained engagement rather than system latency.
    Section 4.1 treats longer sessions as engagement, but Section 3.1 introduces 2-5 s AI delays that differ by condition.
  • domain assumption The adaptive conditions truly differ in adaptivity as intended (manipulation validity).
    No manipulation check or perceived-adaptivity rating is reported; assumed from system design.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Adaptive Gen-AI Guidance in Virtual Reality: A Multimodal Exploration of Engagement in Neapolitan Pizza-Making." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2J3FQUCL

@misc{pith2026241118438,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Adaptive Gen-AI Guidance in Virtual Reality: A Multimodal Exploration of Engagement in Neapolitan Pizza-Making},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2J3FQUCL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18438}
}
read the original abstract

Virtual reality (VR) offers promising opportunities for procedural learning, particularly in preserving intangible cultural heritage. Advances in generative artificial intelligence (Gen-AI) further enrich these experiences by enabling adaptive learning pathways. However, evaluating such adaptive systems using traditional temporal metrics remains challenging due to the inherent variability in Gen-AI response times. To address this, our study employs multimodal behavioural metrics, including visual attention, physical exploratory behaviour, and verbal interaction, to assess user engagement in an adaptive VR environment. In a controlled experiment with 54 participants, we compared three levels of adaptivity (high, moderate, and non-adaptive baseline) within a Neapolitan pizza-making VR experience. Results show that moderate adaptivity optimally enhances user engagement, significantly reducing unnecessary exploratory behaviour and increasing focused visual attention on the AI avatar. Our findings suggest that a balanced level of adaptive AI provides the most effective user support, offering practical design recommendations for future adaptive educational technologies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18438 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Architecture for creating an adaptive VR experience. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Experiment setup with Varjo XR-3 headset and HTC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. VR scene showing avatar interaction within the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Stages in the experimental setup: (1) Onboarding, (2) Gameplay, and (3) Poster exploration. Tutor responses and poster [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Percentage of dwell time on the avatar across adap [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Total experiment time (seconds) across adaptivity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Average head movement speed (m/s) across adaptiv [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Number of participants who verbally interacted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Responses to the post-study survey question: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Najood Al Ghamdi and Wadee Alhalabi. 2019. Fixation Detection with Ray- casting in Immersive Virtual Reality. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications 10 (01 2019). doi:10.14569/IJACSA.2019.0100710

    work page arXiv 2019

  2. [2]

    Yahaya Ahmad and. 2006. The Scope and Definitions of Heritage: From Tangible to Intangible. International Journal of Heritage Studies 12, 3 (2006), 292–300. doi:10.1080/13527250600604639

    work page doi:10.1080/13527250600604639 2006

  3. [3]

    Andreas Aristidou, Nefeli Andreou, Loukas Charalambous, Anastasios Yian- nakidis, and Yiorgos Chrysanthou. 2021. Virtual Dance Museum: the Case of Greek/Cypriot Folk Dancing. In Eurographics Workshop on Graphics and Cultural Heritage, Vedad Hulusic and Alan Chalmers (Eds.). The Eurographics Association, Eindhoven, Netherlands, 1–10. doi:10.2312/gch.20211405

    work page doi:10.2312/gch.20211405 2021

  4. [4]

    Wojdynski

    Hyejin Bang and Bartosz W. Wojdynski. 2016. Tracking users’ visual atten- tion and responses to personalized advertising based on task cognitive demand. Computers in Human Behavior 55 (2016), 867–876. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.10.025

    work page doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.10.025 2016

  5. [5]

    Pamela Beach and Jen McConnel and. 2019. Eye tracking methodology for studying teacher learning: a review of the research. International Journal of Research & Method in Education 42, 5 (2019), 485–501. doi:10.1080/1743727X.2018. 1496415 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2018.1496415

    work page arXiv 2019

  6. [6]

    Mafkereseb Kassahun Bekele, Roberto Pierdicca, Emanuele Frontoni, Eva Savina Malinverni, and James Gain. 2018. A Survey of Augmented, Virtual, and Mixed Reality for Cultural Heritage. J. Comput. Cult. Herit. 11, 2, Article 7 (March 2018), 36 pages. doi:10.1145/3145534

    doi:10.1145/3145534 2018

  7. [7]

    Matthew Bernacki and Candace Walkington. 2018. The Role of Situational Interest in Personalized Learning. Journal of Educational Psychology 110 (03 2018). doi:10.1037/edu0000250

    doi:10.1037/edu0000250 2018

  8. [8]

    Bieniek, M

    J. Bieniek, M. Rahouti, and D. C. Verma. 2024. Generative AI in Multi- modal User Interfaces: Trends, Challenges, and Cross-Platform Adaptability. arXiv:2411.10234 [cs.HC] https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.10234

    arXiv 2024

Show all 86 references
  1. [9]

    Efe Bozkir, Philipp Stark, Hong Gao, Lisa Hasenbein, Jens-Uwe Hahn, Enkelejda Kasneci, and Richard Göllner. 2021. Exploiting Object-of-Interest Information to Understand Attention in VR Classrooms. In2021 IEEE Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR). IEEE, Lisboa, Portugal...

    2021

  2. [10]

    Jennifer Brady. 2011. Cooking as Inquiry: A Method to Stir Up Prevailing Ways of Knowing Food, Body, and Identity.International Journal of Qualitative Methods 10, 4 (2011), 321–334. doi:10.1177/160940691101000402

    2011 doi

  3. [11]

    Morris Brako. 2024. Preserving culinary heritage: Challenges faced by Takoradi technical university food service lab students.World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews 21 (03 2024), 1536–1545. doi:10.30574/wjarr.2024.21.3.0882

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    Ronda L Brulotte and Michael A Di Giovine. 2016. Edible identities: Food as cultural heritage. Routledge, London, UK

    2016

  5. [13]

    Marcello Carrozzino, Alessandra Scucces, Rosario Leonardi, Chiara Evangelista, and Massimo Bergamasco. 2011. Virtually preserving the intangible heritage of artistic handicraft. Journal of Cultural Heritage 12, 1 (2011), 82–87. doi:10.1016/j. culher.2010.10.002

    2011 doi

  6. [14]

    Rossella Ceccarini. 2011. Pizza and pizza chefs in Japan: A case of culinary globalization. Vol. 31. Brill Academic Publishers, Leiden; Boston

    2011

  7. [15]

    Francesca Maria Dagnino, Francesca Pozzi, Erdal Yilmaz, Nikos Grammalidis, Kosmas Dimitropoulos, and Filareti Tsalakanidou. 2015. Designing Serious Games for ICH education. In 2015 Digital Heritage, Vol. 2. IEEE, Granada, Spain, 615–618. doi:10.1109/DigitalHeritage.2015.7419581

    2015

  8. [16]

    Areti Damala, Nenad Stojanovic, Tobias Schuchert, Jorge Moragues, Ana Cabrera, and Kiel Gilleade. 2012. Adaptive Augmented Reality for Cultural Heritage: ARt- SENSE Project. In Progress in Cultural Heritage Preservation , Marinos Ioannides, Dieter Fritsch, Johanna Leissner, Ro...

    2012

  9. [17]

    Laura Di Fiore. 2019. Heritage and food history: A critical assessment. In Food heritage and nationalism in Europe . Routledge, Abingdon

    2019

  10. [18]

    Do, Usama Bin Shafqat, Elsie Ling, and Nikhil Sarda

    Tiffany D. Do, Usama Bin Shafqat, Elsie Ling, and Nikhil Sarda. 2025. PAIGE: Examining Learning Outcomes and Experiences with Personalized AI-Generated Educational Podcasts. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25) . Association...

    2025

  11. [19]

    Beibei Dong, Shangshi Pan, and RongRong Fu. 2021. Design and Research on the Virtual Simulation Teaching Platform of Shanghai Jade Carving Techniques Based on Unity 3D Technology. In Virtual, Augmented and Mixed Reality , Jessie Y. C. Chen and Gino Fragomeni (Eds.). Springer I...

    2021

  12. [20]

    Ilana Dubovi. 2022. Cognitive and emotional engagement while learning with VR: The perspective of multimodal methodology. Computers & Education 183 (2022), 104495. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104495

    2022

  13. [21]

    Ziv Epstein, Hause Lin, and Gordon Pennycook. 2022. Quantifying attention via dwell time and engagement in a social media browsing environment. doi:10. 48550/arXiv.2209.10464

    2022 doi arXiv

  14. [22]

    Aicha Er-Rafyg, Hajar Zankadi, and Abdellah Idrissi. 2024. AI in Adaptive Learning: Challenges and Opportunities . Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 329–342. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-65038-3_26

    2024 doi

  15. [23]

    Jasper Feine, Ulrich Gnewuch, Stefan Morana, and Alexander Maedche. 2019. A Taxonomy of Social Cues for Conversational Agents. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 132 (2019), 138–161. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2019.07.009

    2019 doi

  16. [24]

    Michael Garbutt, Scott East, Branka Spehar, Vicente Estrada-Gonzalez, Brooke Carson-Ewart, and Josephine Touma. 2020. The Embodied Gaze: Exploring Applications for Mobile Eye Tracking in the Art Museum. Visitor Studies 23, 1 (2020), 82–100. doi:10.1080/10645578.2020.1750271

    2020

  17. [25]

    Joseph L Gastwirth, Yulia R Gel, and Weiwen Miao. 2009. The impact of Levene’s test of equality of variances on statistical theory and practice. Statist. Sci. 24, 3 (2009), 343–360

    2009

  18. [26]

    Nadine Glas and Catherine Pelachaud. 2015. Definitions of engagement in human- agent interaction. In 2015 International Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction (ACII). IEEE, Xi’an, China, 944–949. doi:10.1109/ACII.2015. 7344688

    2015 doi

  19. [27]

    Hua Guo, Weiqian Yi, and Kecheng Liu. 2024. Enhancing Constructivist Learning: The Role of Generative AI in Personalised Learning Experiences. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS 2024) - Volume 1. SCITEPRESS – Science an...

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    Ann Renninger and

    Suzanne Hidi and K. Ann Renninger and. 2006. The Four-Phase Model of Inter- est Development. Educational Psychologist 41, 2 (2006), 111–127. doi:10.1207/ s15326985ep4102_4

    2006

  21. [29]

    Yumeng Hou, Sarah Kenderdine, Davide Picca, Mattia Egloff, and Alessandro Adamou. 2022. Digitizing Intangible Cultural Heritage Embodied: State of the Art. J. Comput. Cult. Herit. 15, 3, Article 55 (Sept. 2022), 20 pages. doi:10.1145/3494837

    2022 doi

  22. [30]

    Zhiming Hu, Andreas Bulling, Sheng Li, and Guoping Wang. 2023. EHTask: Recognizing User Tasks From Eye and Head Movements in Immersive Virtual Reality. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 29, 4 (2023), 1992–2004. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2021.3138902

    2023

  23. [31]

    Lei Huang, Weijiang Yu, Weitao Ma, Weihong Zhong, Zhangyin Feng, Haotian Wang, Qianglong Chen, Weihua Peng, Xiaocheng Feng, Bing Qin, and Ting Liu. 2023. A Survey on Hallucination in Large Language Models: Principles, Taxonomy, Challenges, and Open Questions. arXiv:2311.05232 ...

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Yong-Ming Huang, C.-H Liu, and C.-Y Lee. 2012. Designing a personalized guide recommendation system to mitigate information overload in museum learning. Educational Technology and Society 15 (01 2012), 150–166

    2012

  25. [33]

    Tumaini Kabudi, Ilias Pappas, and Dag Håkon Olsen. 2021. AI-enabled adap- tive learning systems: A systematic mapping of the literature. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence 2 (2021), 100017. doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100017

    2021

  26. [34]

    Enkelejda Kasneci, Hong Gao, Suleyman Ozdel, Virmarie Maquiling, Enkeleda Thaqi, Carrie Lau, Yao Rong, Gjergji Kasneci, and Efe Bozkir. 2024. Intro- duction to Eye Tracking: A Hands-On Tutorial for Students and Practitioners. arXiv:2404.15435 [cs.HC] https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.15435

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Enkelejda Kasneci, Kathrin Sessler, Stefan Küchemann, Maria Bannert, Daryna Dementieva, Frank Fischer, Urs Gasser, Georg Groh, Stephan Günnemann, Eyke Hüllermeier, Stephan Krusche, Gitta Kutyniok, Tilman Michaeli, Clau- dia Nerdel, Jürgen Pfeffer, Oleksandra Poquet, Michael Sa...

  28. [36]

    Sarah Kenderdine, Leith K. Y. Chan, and Jeffrey Shaw. 2014. Pure Land: Futures for Embodied Museography. J. Comput. Cult. Herit. 7, 2, Article 8 (jun 2014), 15 pages. doi:10.1145/2614567

    2014 doi

  29. [37]

    Kyoung Jin Kim, Jiyoon Yoon, and Min-Kyung Han. 2021. Young chefs in the classroom: promoting scientific process skills and healthy eating habits through an inquiry-based cooking project. International Journal of Early Years Education 30 (08 2021), 1–10. doi:10.1080/09669760.2...

    2021

  30. [38]

    Markos Konstantakis and George Caridakis. 2020. Adding Culture to UX: UX Research Methodologies and Applications in Cultural Heritage. Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage 13 (02 2020), 1–17. doi:10.1145/3354002

    2020 doi

  31. [39]

    Markos Konstantakis, Yannis Christodoulou, Georgios Alexandridis, Alexandros Teneketzis, and George Caridakis. 2022. ACUX Typology: A Harmonisation of Cultural-Visitor Typologies for Multi-Profile Classification. Digital 2, 3 (2022), 365–378. doi:10.3390/digital2030020

    2022 doi

  32. [40]

    Ka Hei Carrie Lau, Efe Bozkir, Hong Gao, and Enkelejda Kasneci. 2024. Evaluating Usability and Engagement of Large Language Models in Virtual Reality for Traditional Scottish Curling. arXiv:2408.09285 https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.09285

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Kai-Sean Lee. 2023. Cooking up food memories: A taste of intangible cultural heritage. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 54 (2023), 1–9. doi:10. 1016/j.jhtm.2022.11.005

    2023

  34. [42]

    Joanne Leong, Pat Pataranutaporn, Valdemar Danry, Florian Perteneder, Yaoli Mao, and Pattie Maes. 2024. Putting Things into Context: Generative AI-Enabled Lau et al. Context Personalization for Vocabulary Learning Improves Learning Motivation. In Proceedings of the CHI Confere...

    2024

  35. [43]

    Claude Lévi-Strauss. 2012. The Culinary Triangle. In Food and Culture: A Reader , Carole Counihan and Penny Van Esterik (Eds.). Routledge, New York, NY, USA, 40–47. doi:10.4324/9781315680347-3

    2012 doi

  36. [44]

    Na Li, Shanshan Zhang, Lei Xia, and Yue Wu. 2022. Investigating the Visual Behavior Characteristics of Architectural Heritage Using Eye-Tracking.Buildings 12 (07 2022), 1058. doi:10.3390/buildings12071058

    2022 doi

  37. [45]

    Jack M Loomis, Jonathan W Kelly, Matthias Pusch, Jeremy N Bailenson, and Andrew C Beall. 2008. Psychophysics of Perceiving Eye-Gaze and Head Direction with Peripheral Vision: Implications for the Dynamics of Eye-Gaze Behavior. Perception 37, 9 (2008), 1443–1457. doi:10.1068/p5...

    2008 doi

  38. [46]

    Richard E. Mayer. 2014. Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 43–71

    2014

  39. [47]

    Cade McCall. 2017. Mapping Social Interactions: The Science of Proxemics. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 295–308. doi:10.1007/7854_2015_431

    2017 doi

  40. [48]

    Miguel Melo, Guilherme Gonçalves, josé Vasconcelos-Raposo, and Maximino Bessa. 2023. How Much Presence is Enough? Qualitative Scales for Interpreting the Igroup Presence Questionnaire Score. IEEE Access 11 (2023), 24675–24685. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3254892

    2023

  41. [49]

    Maria Mikhailenko, Nadezhda Maksimenko, and Mikhail Kurushkin. 2022. Eye- Tracking in Immersive Virtual Reality for Education: A Review of the Current Progress and Applications. Frontiers in Education 7 (03 2022), 697032. doi:10. 3389/feduc.2022.697032

    2022

  42. [50]

    Swaroop Mishra, Daniel Khashabi, Chitta Baral, Yejin Choi, and Hannaneh Ha- jishirzi. 2022. Reframing Instructional Prompts to GPTk’s Language. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022 , Smaranda Muresan, Preslav Nakov, and Aline Villavicencio (Ed...

    2022 doi

  43. [51]

    Nornadiah Mohd Razali and Bee Yap. 2011. Power Comparisons of Shapiro-Wilk, Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Lilliefors and Anderson-Darling Tests. J. Stat. Model. Analytics 2 (01 2011)

    2011

  44. [52]

    Andrew Moreo, Mark Traynor, and Srikanth Beldona. 2022. Food enthusiasts: A behavioral typology. Food Quality and Preference 96 (2022), 104369. doi:10.1016/ j.foodqual.2021.104369

    2022

  45. [53]

    Maria Laura Nappi, Mario Buono, Camelia Chivăran, and Rosa Maria Giusto

  46. [54]

    Elena Not and Daniela Petrelli. 2019. Empowering cultural heritage professionals with tools for authoring and deploying personalised visitor experiences. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 29, 1 (March 2019), 67–120. doi:10.1007/ s11257-019-09224-9

    2019

  47. [55]

    Remi Poivet, Mélanie Lopez Malet, Catherine Pelachaud, and Malika Auvray

  48. [56]

    Zhixin Pu and Michael Beam. 2024. The impacts of relevance of recommendations and goal commitment on user experience in news recommender design. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 34 (06 2024), 925–953. doi:10.1007/s11257- 024-09405-1

    2024 doi

  49. [57]

    Susanne Putze, Dmitry Alexandrovsky, Felix Putze, Sebastian Höffner, Jan David Smeddinck, and Rainer Malaka. 2020. Breaking The Experience: Effects of Questionnaires in VR User Studies. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, ...

    2020 doi

  50. [58]

    Python. 2021. Python 3.9.6 documentation. https://docs.python.org/release/3.9.6/

    2021

  51. [59]

    Frontiers in Psychology 14 (2023), 1266186

    The Influence of Conversational Agents’ Role and Communication Style on User Experience. Frontiers in Psychology 14 (2023), 1266186. doi:10.3389/ fpsyg.2023.1266186

    2023

  52. [60]

    Renninger and Suzanne Hidi

    K. Renninger and Suzanne Hidi. 2016. The Power of Interest for Motivation and Engagement. Routledge, New York, NY, USA. 1–177 pages. doi:10.4324/ 9781315771045

    2016

  53. [61]

    Pranab Sahoo, Ayush Kumar Singh, Sriparna Saha, Vinija Jain, Samrat Mondal, and Aman Chadha. 2024. A Systematic Survey of Prompt Engineering in Large Language Models: Techniques and Applications. arXiv:2402.07927 [cs.AI] https: //arxiv.org/abs/2402.07927

    2024 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Leonhard Schilbach. 2015. Eye to eye, face to face and brain to brain: novel approaches to study the behavioral dynamics and neural mechanisms of social interactions. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 3 (2015), 130–135. doi:10. 1016/j.cobeha.2015.03.006 Social behavior

    2015

  55. [63]

    Raptis, Christos Fidas, Christina Katsini, and Nikolaos Avouris

    George E. Raptis, Christos Fidas, Christina Katsini, and Nikolaos Avouris. 2019. A cognition-centered personalization framework for cultural-heritage content. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 29, 1 (March 2019), 9–65. doi:10. 1007/s11257-019-09226-7

    2019

  56. [64]

    Soler-Dominguez, Jorge D

    Jose L. Soler-Dominguez, Jorge D. Camba, Manuel Contero, and Mariano Alcañiz

  57. [65]

    Marialuisa Stazio. 2021. Verace Glocal Pizza. Localized globalism and globalized localism in the Neapolitan artisan pizza. Food, Culture & Society 24 (03 2021), 1–25. doi:10.1080/15528014.2021.1884400

    2021

  58. [66]

    Oliviero Stock, Massimo Zancanaro, Paolo Busetta, Charles Callaway, Antonio Krüger, Michael Kruppa, Tsvi Kuflik, Elena Not, and Cesare Rocchi. 2007. Adap- tive, intelligent presentation of information for the museum visitor in PEACH. User Model. User-Adapt. Interact. 17 (05 20...

    2007 doi

  59. [67]

    SciPy. 2024. SciPy 1.13.1 documentation. https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy-1.13.1/

    2024

  60. [68]

    Trubek, Maria Carabello, Caitlin Morgan, and Jacob Lahne

    Amy B. Trubek, Maria Carabello, Caitlin Morgan, and Jacob Lahne. 2017. Em- powered to cook: The crucial role of ‘food agency’ in making meals. Appetite 116 (2017), 297–305. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2017.05.017

    2017 doi

  61. [69]

    UNESCO. 2004. Co-operation and coordination between the UNESCO Conven- tions concerning heritage: the Yamato Declaration on Integrated Approaches for Safeguarding Tangible and Intangible Cultural Heritage. World Her- itage Committee, 7th extraordinary session, Paris, 2004. Doc...

    2004

  62. [70]

    UNESCO. 2024. Oral traditions and expressions including language as a vehicle of the intangible cultural heritage. https://ich.unesco.org/en/oral-traditions- and-expressions-00053 Retrieved July 10, 2024

    2024

  63. [71]

    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. 2017. Art of Neapolitan ‘Pizzaiuolo’ . UNESCO. https://ich.unesco.org/en/RL/art-of- neapolitan-pizzaiuolo-00722 Accessed: July 17, 2024

    2017

  64. [72]

    John Sweller, Paul Ayres, and Slava Kalyuga. 2011. The Guidance Fading Effect . Springer New York, New York, NY, 171–182. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-8126-4_13

    2011 doi

  65. [73]

    Per- sonalizing

    Candace Walkington and Matthew Bernacki. 2014. Motivating Students by “Per- sonalizing” Learning around Individual Interests: A Consideration of Theory, Design, and Implementation Issues. Vol. 18. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, UK, 139–176. doi:10.1108/S0749-742320...

    2014 doi

  66. [74]

    Jiayin Wang, Weizhi Ma, Peijie Sun, Min Zhang, and Jian-Yun Nie. 2024. Understanding User Experience in Large Language Model Interactions. arXiv:2401.08329 [cs.HC] https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.08329

    2024 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Stephen E. Weil. 1999. From Being about Something to Being for Somebody: The Ongoing Transformation of the American Museum. Daedalus 128, 3 (1999), 229–258. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20027573

    1999

  68. [76]

    Richard Wilk. 2006. Fast Food/Slow Food: The Cultural Economy of the Global Food System. AltaMira Press, Lanham, MD, USA

    2006

  69. [77]

    2018-2024

    Raphael Vallat. 2018-2024. Pingouin documentation. https://pingouin-stats.org/ build/html/index.html

    2018

  70. [78]

    Yaremych and Susan Persky

    Haley E. Yaremych and Susan Persky. 2019. Tracing physical behavior in virtual reality: A narrative review of applications to social psychology. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 85 (2019), 103845. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2019.103845

    2019

  71. [79]

    Steffi Zander, Maria Reichelt, Stefanie Wetzel, Sven Bertel, and Frauke Kämmerer

  72. [80]

    Great choice! Let’s get started on the dough. Com- bine flour, water, yeast, and salt. Neapolitan pizza is all about simplicity and authenticity

    Lichao Zhang, Jia Yu, Shuai Zhang, Long Li, Yangyang Zhong, Guanbao Liang, Yuming Yan, Qing Ma, Fangsheng Weng, Fayu Pan, Jing Li, Renjun Xu, and Zhenzhong Lan. 2024. Unveiling the Impact of Multi-Modal Interactions on User Engagement: A Comprehensive Evaluation in AI-driven C...

    2024 arXiv

  73. [82]

    Wei Xu, Marvin Dainoff, Liezhong Ge, and Zaifeng Gao. 2023. Transitioning to Human Interaction with AI Systems: New Challenges and Opportunities for HCI Professionals to Enable Human-Centered AI. International Journal of Human- Computer Interaction 39 (01 2023), 494–518. doi:1...

    2023

  74. [112]

    doi:10.1186/s40494-024-01219-z

    doi

  75. [2015]

    Frontline Learning Research 3 (11 2015), 1–13

    Does Personalisation Promote Learners’ Attention? An Eye-Tracking Study. Frontline Learning Research 3 (11 2015), 1–13. doi:10.14786/flr.v3i4.161

    2015 doi

  76. [2017]

    InVirtual, Augmented and Mixed Reality, Stephanie Lackey and Jessie Chen (Eds.)

    A Proposal for the Selection of Eye-Tracking Metrics for the Implementa- tion of Adaptive Gameplay in Virtual Reality Based Games. InVirtual, Augmented and Mixed Reality, Stephanie Lackey and Jessie Chen (Eds.). Springer Interna- tional Publishing, Cham, 369–380

  77. [2023]

    Learning and Individual Differences 103 (2023), 102274

    ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences 103 (2023), 102274. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274

    2023

  78. [2024]

    Heritage Science 12, 1 (05 Apr 2024),

    Models and tools for the digital organisation of knowledge: accessible and adaptive narratives for cultural heritage. Heritage Science 12, 1 (05 Apr 2024),

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.