Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 80 references

Perception of Visual Variables on Virtual Wall-Sized Tiled Displays in Immersive Environments

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Virtual curved walls beat flat walls for reading sizes in VR.

desk verdict Well-run VR perception studies with a credible within-VR layout result; the cross-study claim that curved virtual walls beat a physical wall is not controlled and should be softened. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.10338 v1 pith:TYTEXJCS submitted 2025-01-17 cs.HC

Dongyun Han , Anastasia Bezerianos , Petra Isenberg , Isaac Cho This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords virtualrealitywall-sizedtileddisplaysvisualvariablesmagnitudereproductionperceptionimmersiveanalytics3Duserinteractiondisplaycurvature
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

This paper investigates how accurately people can judge the magnitude of visual variables (length, angle, and area) on virtual wall-sized tiled displays in immersive VR. Two formal user studies were conducted: the first compares three virtual display arrangements (Flat, Cylinder, and Cockpit) and finds that the curved arrangements produce smaller absolute errors than the flat one, and also smaller errors than a physical flat wall display from prior work, though tasks take longer. The second study shows that adding 3D interaction techniques (Selection, Walking, Steering, and Teleportation) further reduces errors on a virtual flat display, with the Personal display plus Selection performing especially well. The work suggests that virtual curved displays could serve as a practical workspace for visual analytics, offering flexibility and better perception accuracy than real-world flat wall displays in certain conditions.

What carries the argument

The central object is the magnitude reproduction task, in which participants adjust a blue stimulus (a line segment, an angle, or a circle area) to match a red modulus target shown elsewhere on a virtual wall-sized tiled display of 32 individual tiles. The three display arrangements — Flat, Cylinder, and Cockpit — differ in curvature and orientation while sharing identical dimensions and aspect ratios; Cylinder wraps the tiles in a quarter-circle facing the participant, and Cockpit orients each tile toward the participant along both axes. The mechanism is that curved arrangements bring the modulus physically closer to the viewer and reduce acute viewing angles, which should make size comparisons easier, while the interaction techniques (Selection, Walking, Steering, Teleportation) let users reposition themselves or bring the modulus or stimulus closer to reduce depth disparity.

What would settle it

A direct replication that compares a physical curved wall display with the virtual curved displays at the same viewing distance, using identical stimulus sizes and adjustment rates, would settle the claim; if the physical curved wall does not show the same error advantage, or if the virtual advantage disappears when headset resolution is increased, the central claim is challenged.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In a magnitude reproduction task on a 32-tile virtual wall-sized display, participants made smaller estimation errors when the display was arranged in a curved configuration (Cylinder or Cockpit) than when it was flat (Flat), both in absolute error and in directional overestimation. When compared with a prior real-world flat wall study at the same 3.2 m viewing distance, the virtual curved displays also yielded smaller errors than the physical flat wall, at the cost of longer task completion times. In a second study, all four interaction techniques improved accuracy relative to a no-interaction baseline, and the Selection technique, which copies a distant display tile onto a controller-held personal display, gave the lowest absolute errors of any condition tested. These findings support the claim that virtual curved wall displays, and interactive techniques unique to VR, can make immersive environments a viable workspace for visual analytics.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison with the real-world flat wall display assumes that the VR setup (headset resolution, field of view, adjustment rates, and task implementation) is perceptually comparable to the physical display, so that any error difference is due to display curvature rather than to equipment or procedural differences.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Curved virtual wall displays can be adopted in immersive analytics as a substitute for physical flat wall displays, offering lower estimation errors for elementary magnitude-reading tasks.
  • The longer task completion times observed for curved displays mean designers face a speed-accuracy trade-off when choosing display curvature.
  • Interaction techniques, especially Selection with a Personal display, can make distant comparisons more accurate and may be particularly useful when physical navigation is impossible or impractical.
  • Teleportation and Steering can serve as viable alternatives to physical Walking in VR, providing similar accuracy improvements without requiring real-world space, though with longer completion times.
  • The absence of clear accuracy differences among length, angle, and area in VR suggests that the established real-world perceptual ranking may not transfer directly, which would affect how visual encodings are chosen in immersive analytics.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The error advantage of curved virtual walls may partly compensate for the limited resolution and field of view of current VR headsets, since curvature reduces the effective angular distance to displayed content; a direct test with higher-resolution headsets could separate these factors.
  • The lack of significant differences among length, angle, and area in VR might stem from the different adjustment rates used in the task (e.g., 0.25 cm per frame for length and area versus 1 degree per frame for angle) rather than a genuine change in perceptual ranking; a replication with equalized adjustment rates would test this explanation.
  • The Selection technique, which copies a distant display tile to the controller-held personal display, could be valuable in collaborative VR scenarios, but the paper notes it risks losing the spatial context of the original display; a follow-up that highlights the source tile could mitigate this.
  • The finding that curved arrangements reduce error but increase time suggests a practical design guideline: use curvature for accuracy-critical data reading and flat layouts for time-efficient browsing, which could be validated in a task that measures both metrics together.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports two user studies on magnitude reproduction of length, angle, and area on virtual wall-sized tiled displays in VR. Study 1 (between-subjects, n=49) compares Flat, Cylinder, and Cockpit display arrangements and compares the results to a previously published physical-wall study (RFlat) [10]. Study 2 (within-subjects, n=25) evaluates four interaction techniques (Selection, Walking, Steering, Teleportation) on the Flat layout. The main claims are that curved virtual arrangements reduce absolute error relative to virtual Flat and to the physical RFlat, at the cost of longer task completion time, and that interaction techniques improve perception accuracy. The paper includes detailed bootstrap confidence-interval analyses, pre-specified hypotheses, and supplementary materials.

Significance. If the within-VR comparisons are taken as the paper's core contribution, the study provides useful and fairly rigorous evidence for immersive analytics: curved virtual wall layouts reduce absolute error in a magnitude-reproduction task, and several interaction techniques improve accuracy over a no-interaction baseline. The statistical analysis is careful by current HCI standards—pre-specified hypotheses, Latin-square counterbalancing, bootstrap CIs with Bonferroni correction, and explicit reporting of effect magnitudes. The movement-strategy observations and subjective measures enrich the contribution. However, the headline comparison to the physical wall is an uncontrolled between-study contrast, and the second study's Personal-condition claims lack a within-condition baseline. These issues are central to the abstract's strongest statements, so the paper's overall scientific contribution is currently overstated, though the underlying empirical work is valuable and largely sound.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.5, Figure 4] The claim in the Abstract and Section 4.5.1 that Cylinder and Cockpit yield smaller absolute errors than the physical flat wall (RFlat) rests on an uncontrolled between-study comparison. The viewing geometry is not matched: participants in the present study start 3.2 m from the leftmost column ColA (Section 3.3), whereas Bezerianos and Isenberg [10] describe a 3.2 m condition as 3.2 m away from the display; unless the original study also anchored the origin at the left edge, the modulus distances and viewing angles differ. The VR apparatus (Vive Pro Eye, 110° FOV, 1440×1600 per eye, touchpad adjustment) also differs from the physical wall and its input. The authors acknowledge in Section 4.5 that they 'can only compare a portion of their experimental results.' The observed 6.93 ppt and 8.47 ppt AbsErr advantages for Cylinder and Cockpit over RFlat may therefore be artifacts of these mismatches rather than genuine perceptual benefits of curved virtual layouts. This is load-bearing because the abstract's primary comparison to the physical wall depends on it.
  2. [Section 4.5, statistical method] The statistical comparison to RFlat is under-specified. Section 3.4 describes a bootstrap procedure with 10,000 BCa iterations, but the paper does not state whether the raw trial data from [10] were available or whether only published summary statistics were used. If only published means and CIs were used, the RFlat CIs (e.g., 15.9% [15.1, 16.8]) and the pairwise difference CIs (e.g., RFlat–Cylinder 6.93 ppt [3.90, 8.68]) cannot be produced by the described bootstrap; the procedure would be treating a fixed published aggregate as if it were a random sample from a comparable population. The authors should clarify the data source and, if raw data are unavailable, re-frame the RFlat comparison as descriptive and label the difference CIs as informal or adjust them to account for the aggregate nature of the external benchmark.
  3. [Section 5.1.1, Section 5.3.1] The conclusion that interaction techniques 'further improved task performance' (Abstract, Section 5.3.1) is not fully supported for the Personal stimulus location because no No Interaction baseline was collected for Personal. The reported improvements for Personal conditions (Selection, Walking, Steering, Teleportation) are all relative to 'No Interaction and Frontal' (Section 5.3.1, 'pairwise comparisons to the baseline condition (No Interaction and Frontal)'). Since Study 1 showed that Personal without interaction has substantially higher AbsErr than Frontal (7.19 ppt; Section 4.4.1), the observed improvements for Personal could reflect the absence of the Personal-display depth mismatch rather than the effect of the interaction techniques per se. I recommend either collecting a Personal No Interaction baseline or explicitly limiting the claim to Frontal conditions and to relative comparisons among interaction techniques.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 4.4.2] The sentence 'Frontal had a lower EstErr than Personal by 3.59ppt [0.60, 6.13]' contradicts the reported means (Frontal 6.69% vs Personal 3.10%); the direction should be reversed to 'Personal had a lower EstErr than Frontal'.
  2. [Section 4.5, Figure 3/4 captions] Please state in the text or figure caption how the RFlat CI values were obtained (e.g., from [10]'s reported CIs, or from raw data), as this is essential for interpreting the pairwise comparisons.
  3. [Section 4.1.3] The listing of initial magnitudes ('65 cm for length..., 178 degrees, and 41 cm in diameter') is grammatically ambiguous for Angle and Area. Also, the modulus multipliers are applied to 180 degrees for Angle, while the initial Angle stimulus is 178 degrees; clarify whether the Angle stimulus can initially exceed the largest modulus (0.7×180°=126°).
  4. [Figure 3 caption / Section 4.4] The figure caption uses CoWall, CyWall, and FWall, but the text uses Cockpit, Cylinder, and Flat; unify the abbreviations to avoid confusion.
  5. [Section 5.4] The term 'Z-fighting' is used to describe participants' strategy of overlapping the stimulus and modulus; consider explaining or glossing the term for readers unfamiliar with rendering artifacts.
  6. [Section 4.4.1, Section 4.6] The phrase 'rejection of H5' (also in Section 4.4.1) is stronger than the CI-based analysis warrants; 'no evidence supporting H5' would be more consistent with the paper's own statistical framework.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper reports controlled empirical studies; the cross-study comparison uses published external data as a benchmark, not as a fitted or self-defined input.

full rationale

The paper is an empirical user study, not a derivation, so the circularity patterns based on equations or fitted parameters do not apply. Study 1's within-VR comparison among Flat, Cylinder, and Cockpit is self-contained: participants were assigned to conditions, and AbsErr, EstErr, and task completion time were measured directly rather than defined in terms of the display arrangements. The hypotheses H1-H8 are grounded in prior literature but are not used to construct the outcome measures, so there is no self-definitional circularity. The cross-study comparison in Section 4.5 uses RFlat data from Bezerianos and Isenberg [10] as an external empirical benchmark, not as a fitted parameter or a consequence of the present study's assumptions. While two of the present authors are also authors of [10], that prior work is a separate published study with its own data, and the paper explicitly restricts the comparison to the 3.2m condition and the Frontal stimulus location, stating in Section 4.5 that 'we can only compare a portion of their experimental results' and in Section 4.6 acknowledging 'the absence of a direct comparison between curved conditions in real and virtual environments.' These are methodological validity limitations, not circular reasoning. Study 2 likewise compares interaction techniques within a controlled within-subject design against a No Interaction baseline, with outcomes measured empirically. No equation in the paper equates a prediction with an input by construction, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported via self-citation. The self-citation to [10] is load-bearing only as a data source for comparison, and as an external published dataset it constitutes real evidence rather than a circular dependency. Therefore the appropriate finding is no significant circularity, score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the validity of the magnitude reproduction task as a measure of perception, the comparability of the VR setup to the physical wall display for the cross-study comparison, and the appropriateness of the bootstrap CI analysis. No free parameters are fitted to the outcome data; the listed parameters are experimental design constants. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Stimulus initial magnitudes = Length: 65 cm, Angle: 178 degrees, Area: 41 cm diameter
    Chosen to span a single display tile and to aid angle direction understanding; held constant across conditions, so not fitted to outcomes.
  • Adjustment rates = 0.25 cm/frame for Length/Area, 1 degree/frame for Angle
    Chosen for fine-grained control; differing rates for Angle may affect completion time comparisons, but not the primary accuracy comparisons.
  • Modulus magnitude multipliers = 0.1, 0.4, 0.7 times initial stimulus magnitudes
    Taken from prior research [10] to produce clear perceptual differences; design constants, not fitted.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Magnitude reproduction task is a valid operationalization of visual variable perception
    Standard psychophysical method; the paper's conclusions depend on the task measuring perceptual accuracy rather than motor control or interface usability.
  • domain assumption The virtual environment sufficiently replicates the relevant properties of the physical wall display for cross-study comparison
    The comparison with Bezerianos and Isenberg [10] assumes that differences in HMD resolution, display size, bezels, and task implementation do not confound the error and time differences; this is not validated.
  • standard math Bootstrap confidence intervals with Bonferroni correction provide valid frequentist inference for the study's comparisons
    The authors use BCa bootstrap CIs and interpret non-overlap with 0 as evidence of difference; this is a standard approach in HCI, though it is not a substitute for pre-registered hypothesis tests.
  • domain assumption Participants' error and time measurements are not systematically biased by VR sickness or learning effects across conditions
    Two participants withdrew due to VR sickness in the Cylinder condition, and the between-subjects design mitigates learning, but carryover effects within the within-subject Study 2 are not analyzed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Perception of Visual Variables on Virtual Wall-Sized Tiled Displays in Immersive Environments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TYTEXJCS

@misc{pith2026250110338,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Perception of Visual Variables on Virtual Wall-Sized Tiled Displays in Immersive Environments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TYTEXJCS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.10338}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate the perception of visual variables on wall-sized tiled displays within an immersive environment. We designed and conducted two formal user studies focusing on elementary visualization reading tasks in VR. The first study compared three different virtual display arrangements (Flat, Cylinder, and Cockpit). It showed that participants made smaller errors on virtual curved walls (Cylinder and Cockpit) compared to Flat. Following that, we compared the results with those from a previous study conducted in a real-world setting. The comparative analysis showed that virtual curved walls resulted in smaller errors than the real-world flat wall display, but with longer task completion time. The second study evaluated the impact of four 3D user interaction techniques (Selection, Walking, Steering, and Teleportation) on performing the elementary task on the virtual Flat wall display. The results confirmed that interaction techniques further improved task performance. Finally, we discuss the limitations and future work.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.10338 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (A) The three wall-sized tiled display arrangements are investigated for magnitude reproduction tasks in an immersive [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The stimulus was shown either on a frontal display ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Study 1 analysis results. For each set of results by rows and columns, the measurement averages are presented first, followed by the pairwise [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison between our Study 1 results and the earlier work [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Selection is exclusive for Personal, whereas the others apply to both Frontal and Personal. Selection allows users to select a display tile and make its copy on the interaction controller. Steering and Tele￾portation enable virtual navigation from a fixed position, whi…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Study 2 analysis results. It shows the measurement averages and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Movement strategies. (A) With Frontal, we observed two repre￾sentative strategies: the target strategy and the overview strategy. (B) With Personal, participants employed a strategy of initially moving to the modulus positions and evaluating stimulus and modulus sizes.…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [10]

    Bezerianos and P

    A. Bezerianos and P. Isenberg. Perception of visual variables on tiled wall-sized displays for information visualization applications. IEEE Trans- actions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 18(12):2516–2525, 2012. doi: 10.1109/tvcg.2012.251 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

    doi:10.1109/tvcg.2012.251 2012

  2. [1]

    Al Zayer, P

    M. Al Zayer, P. MacNeilage, and E. Folmer. Virtual locomotion: a survey. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 26(6):2315– 2334, 2018. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2018.2887379 3

    arXiv 2018

  3. [3]

    Andrews, A

    C. Andrews, A. Endert, B. Yost, and C. North. Information visualiza- tion on large, high-resolution displays: Issues, challenges, and oppor- tunities. Information Visualization, 10(4):341–355, 2011. doi: 10.1177/ 1473871611415997 2

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    Andrews and C

    C. Andrews and C. North. The impact of physical navigation on spatial organization for sensemaking. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 19(12):2207–2216, 2013. doi: 10.1109/tvcg.2013.205 2

    doi:10.1109/tvcg.2013.205 2013

  5. [5]

    Argelaguet and C

    F. Argelaguet and C. Andujar. A survey of 3d object selection techniques for virtual environments. Computers & Graphics, 37(3):121–136, 2013. doi: 10.1016/j.cag.2012.12.003 3

    doi:10.1016/j.cag.2012.12.003 2013

  6. [6]

    L. Arns, D. Cook, and C. Cruz-Neira. The benefits of statistical visualiza- tion in an immersive environment. In Proceedings IEEE Virtual Reality (Cat. No. 99CB36316), pp. 88–95. IEEE, 1999. 2

    work page 1999

  7. [7]

    Ball and C

    R. Ball and C. North. Analysis of user behavior on high-resolution tiled displays. In IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 350–

    work page

  8. [9]

    Belkacem, C

    I. Belkacem, C. Tominski, N. Médoc, S. Knudsen, R. Dachselt, and M. Ghoniem. Interactive visualization on large high-resolution displays: A survey. In Computer Graphics Forum, p. e15001. Wiley Online Library,

    work page

Show all 80 references
  1. [11]

    Bezerianos, P

    A. Bezerianos, P. Isenberg, O. Chapuis, and W. Willett. Perceptual af- fordances of wall-sized displays for visualization applications: Color. In Proceedings of the CHI Workshop on Interactive, Ultra-High-Resolution Displays (PowerWall), 2013. 1

    2013

  2. [12]

    Bi, S.-H

    X. Bi, S.-H. Bae, and R. Balakrishnan. Effects of interior bezels of tiled-monitor large displays on visual search, tunnel steering, and target selection. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, pp. 65–74, 2010. doi: 10.1145/1753326.1753337 3

    2010

  3. [13]

    Bowman, E

    D. Bowman, E. Kruijff, J. J. LaViola Jr, and I. P. Poupyrev. 3D User interfaces: theory and practice, CourseSmart eTextbook. Addison-Wesley,

  4. [14]

    D. A. Bowman, D. Koller, and L. F. Hodges. Travel in immersive virtual environments: An evaluation of viewpoint motion control techniques. In Proceedings of IEEE 1997 Annual International Symposium on Virtual Reality, pp. 45–52. IEEE, 1997. doi: 10.1109/vrais.1997.583043 3, 8, 9

    1997

  5. [15]

    Bradel, A

    L. Bradel, A. Endert, K. Koch, C. Andrews, and C. North. Large high resolution displays for co-located collaborative sensemaking: Display usage and territoriality. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 71(11):1078–1088, 2013. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2013.07.004 2

    2013 doi

  6. [16]

    Buchsbaum

    M. Buchsbaum. Neural events and psychophysical law. Science, 172(3982):502–502, 1971. doi: 10.1126/science.172.3982.502 3

    1971 doi

  7. [17]

    Calmettes, G

    G. Calmettes, G. B. Drummond, and S. L. V owler. Making do with what we have: use your bootstraps. Advances in physiology education, 36(3):177–180, 2012. doi: 10.1113/expphysiol.2012.068379 4

    2012 arXiv

  8. [18]

    Chapuis, R

    O. Chapuis, R. James, M. Rafiei, and A. Bezerianos. Comparing Physical and VR-emulated Ultra-walls in a Classification Task. working paper or preprint, Feb. 2024. 2, 7

    2024

  9. [19]

    Choudhary, M

    Z. Choudhary, M. Gottsacker, K. Kim, R. Schubert, J. Stefanucci, G. Bruder, and G. F. Welch. Revisiting distance perception with scaled embodied cues in social virtual reality. In 2021 IEEE Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR), pp. 788–797. IEEE, 2021. doi: 10.1109/vr50...

    2021

  10. [20]

    W. S. Cleveland. The elements of graphing data. Wadsworth Publ. Co.,

  11. [21]

    W. S. Cleveland and R. McGill. Graphical perception: Theory, experimen- tation, and application to the development of graphical methods. Journal of the American statistical association, 79(387):531–554, 1984. doi: 10. 2307/2288400 2, 7

    1984

  12. [22]

    Cockburn, P

    A. Cockburn, P. Dragicevic, L. Besançon, and C. Gutwin. Threats of a replication crisis in empirical computer science. Communications of the ACM, 63(8):70–79, 2020. doi: 10.1145/3360311 4

    2020 doi

  13. [23]

    Czerwinski, G

    M. Czerwinski, G. Smith, T. Regan, B. Meyers, G. G. Robertson, and G. K. Starkweather. Toward characterizing the productivity benefits of very large displays. In Interact, vol. 3, pp. 9–16, 2003. 2

    2003

  14. [24]

    Dragicevic

    P. Dragicevic. Fair statistical communication in hci. Modern statistical methods for HCI, pp. 291–330, 2016. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-26633-6_13 4

    2016 doi

  15. [25]

    Dwyer, K

    T. Dwyer, K. Marriott, T. Isenberg, K. Klein, N. Riche, F. Schreiber, W. Stuerzlinger, and B. H. Thomas. Immersive analytics: An introduction. Immersive analytics, pp. 1–23, 2018. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-01388-2_1 1

    2018 doi

  16. [26]

    El Jamiy and R

    F. El Jamiy and R. Marsh. Survey on depth perception in head mounted displays: distance estimation in virtual reality, augmented reality, and mixed reality. IET Image Processing, 13(5):707–712, 2019. doi: 10.1049/ iet-ipr.2018.5920 3

    2019

  17. [27]

    Endert, C

    A. Endert, C. Andrews, Y .-H. Lee, and C. North. Visual encodings that support physical navigation on large displays. In Graphics Interface, pp. 103–110, 2011. 4

    2011

  18. [28]

    B. Ens, J. D. Hincapié-Ramos, and P. Irani. Ethereal planes: a design framework for 2d information space in 3d mixed reality environments. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM symposium on Spatial user interaction, pp. 2–12, 2014. 4

    2014

  19. [29]

    Erickson, K

    A. Erickson, K. Kim, G. Bruder, and G. F. Welch. Effects of dark mode graphics on visual acuity and fatigue with virtual reality head-mounted dis- plays. In 2020 IEEE Conference on virtual reality and 3D user interfaces (VR), pp. 434–442. IEEE, 2020. 3

    2020

  20. [30]

    Etemadpour, E

    R. Etemadpour, E. Monson, and L. Linsen. The effect of stereoscopic immersive environments on projection-based multi-dimensional data visu- alization. In 2013 17th International Conference on Information Visuali- sation, pp. 389–397. IEEE, 2013. 2

    2013

  21. [31]

    Han and I

    D. Han and I. Cho. Evaluating 3d user interaction techniques on spatial working memory for 3d scatter plot exploration in immersive analytics. In 2023 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR), pp. 513–522. IEEE, 2023. doi: 10.1109/ismar59233.2023.00066 1

    2023

  22. [32]

    D. Han, D. Kim, and I. Cho. Portal: Portal widget for remote target acquisition and control in immersive virtual environments. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology, pp. 1–11, 2022. doi: 10.1145/3562939.3565639 3

    2022

  23. [33]

    Henry and T

    D. Henry and T. Furness. Spatial perception in virtual environments: Evaluating an architectural application. In Proceedings of IEEE virtual reality annual international symposium, pp. 33–40. IEEE, 1993. doi: 10. 1109/vrais.1993.380801 2

    1993

  24. [34]

    J. J. Higgins. An introduction to modern nonparametric statistics . Brooks/Cole Pacific Grove, CA, 2004. 4

    2004

  25. [35]

    S. In, E. Krokos, K. Whitley, C. North, and Y . Yang. Evaluating navigation and comparison performance of computational notebooks on desktop and in virtual reality. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–15, 2024. 2

    2024

  26. [36]

    B. Inc. Eyemeasure, 2024. 5

    2024

  27. [37]

    Interrante, B

    V . Interrante, B. Ries, and L. Anderson. Distance perception in immersive virtual environments, revisited. In IEEE virtual reality conference (VR 2006), pp. 3–10. IEEE, 2006. doi: 10.1109/vr.2006.52 2

    2006 doi

  28. [38]

    Isenberg, D

    P. Isenberg, D. Fisher, S. A. Paul, M. R. Morris, K. Inkpen, and M. Cz- erwinski. Co-located collaborative visual analytics around a tabletop display. IEEE Transactions on visualization and Computer Graphics , 18(5):689–702, 2011. doi: 10.1109/tvcg.2011.287 2

    2011 doi

  29. [39]

    M. R. Jakobsen and K. Hornbæk. Up close and personal: Collaborative work on a high-resolution multitouch wall display. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) , 21(2):1–34, 2014. doi: 10. 1145/2576099 2

    2014

  30. [40]

    James, A

    R. James, A. Bezerianos, and O. Chapuis. Evaluating the extension of wall displays with ar for collaborative work. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’23, article no. 99, 17 pages. Association for Computing Machinery, New York,...

    2023

  31. [41]

    Kiluk, V

    A. Kiluk, V . Paneva, S. Seinfeld, and J. Müller. The impact of different virtual work environments on flow, performance, user emotions, and pref- erences. In 2023 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality Adjunct (ISMAR-Adjunct), pp. 276–282. IEEE, 2023. 3

    2023

  32. [42]

    H. K. Kim, J. Park, Y . Choi, and M. Choe. Virtual reality sickness questionnaire (vrsq): Motion sickness measurement index in a virtual reality environment. Applied ergonomics, 69:66–73, 2018. doi: 10.1016/j. apergo.2017.12.016 8

    2018 doi

  33. [43]

    Kobayashi, N

    D. Kobayashi, N. Kirshenbaum, R. S. Tabalba, R. Theriot, and J. Leigh. Translating the benefits of wide-band display environments into an XR space. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Spatial User Interaction (SUI), pp. 9:1–9:11, 2021. doi: 10.1145/3485279.3485294 2, 3, 4

    2021

  34. [44]

    Kraus, J

    M. Kraus, J. Fuchs, B. Sommer, K. Klein, U. Engelke, D. Keim, and F. Schreiber. Immersive analytics with abstract 3d visualizations: A survey. In Computer Graphics Forum, vol. 41, pp. 201–229. Wiley Online Library, 2022. doi: 10.1111/cgf.14430 2

    2022 doi

  35. [45]

    Kraus, N

    M. Kraus, N. Weiler, D. Oelke, J. Kehrer, D. A. Keim, and J. Fuchs. The impact of immersion on cluster identification tasks. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 26(1):525–535, 2019. doi: 10. 1109/tvcg.2019.2934395 2

    2019

  36. [46]

    J. J. LaViola Jr, E. Kruijff, R. P. McMahan, D. Bowman, and I. P. Poupyrev. 3D user interfaces: theory and practice . Addison-Wesley Professional,

  37. [47]

    Leigh, D

    J. Leigh, D. Kobayashi, N. Kirshenbaum, T. Wooton, A. Gonzalez, L. Re- nambot, A. Johnson, M. Brown, A. Burks, K. Bharadwaj, et al. Usage patterns of wideband display environments in e-science research, devel- opment and training. In 2019 15th International Conference on eScie...

    2019

  38. [48]

    R. V . Levine and A. Norenzayan. The pace of life in 31 countries. Journal of cross-cultural psychology, 30(2):178–205, 1999. doi: 10.1177/ 0022022199030002003 8

    1999

  39. [49]

    Leyrer, S

    M. Leyrer, S. A. Linkenauger, H. H. Bülthoff, and B. J. Mohler. Eye height manipulations: A possible solution to reduce underestimation of egocentric distances in head-mounted displays. ACM Transactions on Applied Perception (TAP), 12(1):1–23, 2015. doi: 10.1145/2699254 2

    2015 doi

  40. [50]

    Lisle, K

    L. Lisle, K. Davidson, E. J. Gitre, C. North, and D. A. Bowman. Sense- making strategies with immersive space to think. In 2021 IEEE Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR), pp. 529–537. IEEE, 2021. doi: 10. 1109/vr50410.2021.00077 1, 2, 3

    2021

  41. [51]

    C. Liu, O. Chapuis, M. Beaudouin-Lafon, E. Lecolinet, and W. E. Mackay. Effects of display size and navigation type on a classification task. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 4147–4156, 2014. doi: 10.1145/2556288.2557020 2

    2014

  42. [52]

    J. Liu, B. Ens, A. Prouzeau, J. Smiley, I. K. Nixon, S. Goodwin, and T. Dwyer. DataDancing: An exploration of the design space for visu- alisation view management for 3d surfaces and spaces. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI) , pp. 379...

    2023

  43. [53]

    J. Liu, A. Prouzeau, B. Ens, and T. Dwyer. Design and evaluation of interactive small multiples data visualisation in immersive spaces. In Proceedings of the Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR), pp. 588–597. IEEE, 2020. doi: 10.1109/VR46266.2020.00081 2, 3

    2020

  44. [54]

    J. Liu, A. Prouzeau, B. Ens, and T. Dwyer. Effects of display layout on spatial memory for immersive environments. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 6(ISS):468–488, 2022. doi: 10.1145/ 3567729 2, 4

    2022

  45. [55]

    J. M. Loomis and J. M. Knapp. Visual perception of egocentric distance in real and virtual environments. In Virtual and adaptive environments, pp. 21–46. CRC Press, 2003. doi: 10.1201/9781410608888.pt1 2

    2003 doi

  46. [56]

    W. Luo, A. Lehmann, H. Widengren, and R. Dachselt. Where should we put it? layout and placement strategies of documents in augmented reality for collaborative sensemaking. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–16, 2022. doi: 10....

    2022

  47. [57]

    Mackinlay and M

    J. Mackinlay and M. R. Genesereth. Expressiveness and language choice. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 1(1):17–29, 1985. doi: 10.1016/0169-023x (85)90025-4 2

    1985 doi

  48. [58]

    B. J. Mohler, S. H. Creem-Regehr, W. B. Thompson, and H. H. Bülthoff. The effect of viewing a self-avatar on distance judgments in an hmd-based virtual environment. Presence, 19(3):230–242, 2010. doi: 10.1162/pres.19. 3.230 7

    2010 doi

  49. [59]

    B. J. Mohler, W. B. Thompson, S. H. Creem-Regehr, H. L. Pick, and W. H. Warren. Visual flow influences gait transition speed and preferred walking speed. Experimental brain research, 181:221–228, 2007. doi: 10. 1007/s00221-007-0917-0 8

    2007

  50. [60]

    T. Munzner. Visualization analysis and design. CRC press, 2014. doi: 10. 1201/b17511 1, 3, 7

    2014

  51. [61]

    Phillips, B

    L. Phillips, B. Ries, M. Kaeding, and V . Interrante. Avatar self- embodiment enhances distance perception accuracy in non-photorealistic immersive virtual environments. In 2010 IEEE virtual reality conference (VR), pp. 115–1148. IEEE, 2010. doi: 10.1109/vr.2010.5444802 2

    2010

  52. [62]

    Prouzeau, A

    A. Prouzeau, A. Bezerianos, and O. Chapuis. Trade-offs between a vertical shared display and two desktops in a collaborative path-finding task. In Proceedings of Graphics Interface, GI ’17, 6 pages. CHCCS, May 2017. doi: 10.5555/3141475.3141516 2

    2017

  53. [63]

    Reipschlager, T

    P. Reipschlager, T. Flemisch, and R. Dachselt. Personal augmented reality for information visualization on large interactive displays. IEEE Transac- tions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 27(2):1182–1192, 2020. doi: 10.1109/tvcg.2020.3030460 2

    2020

  54. [64]

    B. Ries, V . Interrante, M. Kaeding, and L. Anderson. The effect of self- embodiment on distance perception in immersive virtual environments. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM symposium on Virtual reality software and technology, pp. 167–170, 2008. doi: 10.1145/1450579.1450614 7

    2008

  55. [65]

    B. Ries, V . Interrante, M. Kaeding, and L. Phillips. Analyzing the effect of a virtual avatar’s geometric and motion fidelity on ego-centric spatial perception in immersive virtual environments. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM symposium on virtual reality software and technolo...

  56. [66]

    R. A. Ruddle and S. Lessels. The benefits of using a walking interface to navigate virtual environments. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 16(1):1–18, 2009. doi: 10.1145/1502800.1502805 3

    2009

  57. [67]

    Satkowski, R

    M. Satkowski, R. Rzayev, E. Goebel, and R. Dachselt. Above & below: investigating ceiling and floor for augmented reality content placement. In 2022 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR), pp. 518–527. IEEE, 2022. doi: 10.1109/ismar55827.2022.00068 2

    2022

  58. [68]

    K. A. Satriadi, B. Ens, M. Cordeil, T. Czauderna, and B. Jenny. Maps around me: 3d multiview layouts in immersive spaces. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 4(ISS):1–20, 2020. doi: 10. 1145/3427329 2, 4

    2020

  59. [69]

    Shupp, C

    L. Shupp, C. Andrews, M. Dickey-Kurdziolek, B. Yost, and C. North. Shaping the display of the future: The effects of display size and curvature on user performance and insights. Human–Computer Interaction, 24(1- 2):230–272, 2009. doi: 10.1080/07370020902739429 1

    2009 doi

  60. [70]

    Shupp, R

    L. Shupp, R. Ball, B. Yost, J. Booker, and C. North. Evaluation of viewport size and curvature of large, high-resolution displays. InGraphics Interface, pp. 123–130, 2006. 1

    2006

  61. [71]

    D. S. Tan, D. Gergle, P. Scupelli, and R. Pausch. With similar visual angles, larger displays improve spatial performance. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, pp. 217–224,

  62. [72]

    Thompson, R

    W. Thompson, R. Fleming, S. Creem-Regehr, and J. K. Stefanucci. Visual perception from a computer graphics perspective. CRC press, 2011. 9

    2011

  63. [73]

    J. A. Wagner Filho, M. F. Rey, C. M. Freitas, and L. Nedel. Immersive visualization of abstract information: An evaluation on dimensionally- reduced data scatterplots. In 2018 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR), pp. 483–490. IEEE, 2018. doi: 10.1109...

    2018

  64. [74]

    J. R. Wallace, D. V ogel, and E. Lank. Effect of bezel presence and width on visual search. In Proceedings of The International Symposium on Pervasive Displays, pp. 118–123, 2014. doi: 10.1145/2611009.2611019 9

    2014

  65. [75]

    C. Ware. Visual thinking for design. Elsevier, 2010. 9

    2010

  66. [76]

    Wigdor, C

    D. Wigdor, C. Shen, C. Forlines, and R. Balakrishnan. Effects of display position and control space orientation on user preference and performance. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pp. 309–318, 2006. doi: 10.1145/1124772.1124819 2

    2006

  67. [77]

    Wigdor, C

    D. Wigdor, C. Shen, C. Forlines, and R. Balakrishnan. Perception of elementary graphical elements in tabletop and multi-surface environments. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, pp. 473–482, 2007. doi: 10.1145/1240624.1240701 2, 7

    2007

  68. [78]

    B. Yost, Y . Haciahmetoglu, and C. North. Beyond visual acuity: the perceptual scalability of information visualizations for large displays. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, pp. 101–110, 2007. doi: 10.1145/1240624.1240639 2 Percept...

    2007

  69. [363]

    doi: 10.1007/11555261_30 3

    Springer, 2005. doi: 10.1007/11555261_30 3

    2005 doi

  70. [1985]

    doi: 10.1093/sysbio/34.4.471 7

    doi

  71. [2003]

    doi: 10.1145/642611.642650 2

  72. [2009]

    doi: 10.1145/1643928.1643943 2

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.