Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 77 references

A Room to Roam: Reset Prediction Based on Physical Object Placement for Redirected Walking

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A Vision Transformer trained on simulated walking can predict the number of redirected-walking resets a room layout will cause from a top-down floor-plan image alone, reporting RMSE 23.88 and R² 0.91 on held-out layouts.

desk verdict First learned reset predictor for RDW, honest and scoped to simulation; the real-room optimization claim needs baselines and transfer evidence, but the contribution is solid and deserves refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.17375 v1 pith:MXDITM7K submitted 2024-12-23 cs.HC

Sulim Chun , Ho Jung Lee , In-Kwon Lee This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords redirectedwalkingRDWresetpredictionvisiontransformerobjectplacementvirtualrealitydeeplearninglayoutoptimization
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

In redirected walking, when subtle directional tricks can no longer steer a user away from walls or furniture, the user must stop and turn in place — a "reset" — and this interruption degrades immersion. This paper argues that the number of such resets is a learnable function of the room's furniture arrangement, and it builds the first learning-based predictor to exploit that fact. The predictor is a Vision Transformer that takes a top-down binary image of the room's occupied space and outputs an expected reset count for a 500-meter walk; trained and evaluated on simulated living-room layouts, it reaches an RMSE of $23.88$, an MAE of $15.36$, and an $R^2$ of $0.91$ on held-out data. On top of the model, the paper builds a real-time drag-and-drop interface in which rearranging furniture immediately updates the predicted reset count, replacing slow simulations or user studies with instant feedback. If simulation-trained counts transfer to real walking, this gives VR users a practical tool for arranging a room to minimize disruptive resets.

What carries the argument

The central object is a Vision Transformer (ViT-B/16) regression model: it splits a $224\times224$ binary top-down image of the room into $16\times16$ patches, embeds each patch into a 768-dimensional vector, processes the sequence through 12 self-attention encoder layers, and maps the final representation through an MLP head to a single scalar, the predicted number of resets in a 500-meter walk. The model is pretrained on large-scale image data and fine-tuned on 300 simulated living-room placements generated by an RDW simulation with TAPF and R2G redirection controllers, using detection thresholds from prior studies. The same binary-image representation powers the interactive interface, and attention-rollout visualizations are used to show which image regions drive each prediction.

What would settle it

A real-user study in a 5 m × 5 m room with furniture arrangements drawn from the same three-to-five-object distribution would settle the transfer question: compare each layout's actual mean reset count against the model's prediction and check whether the model's ranking of layouts matches the real ranking, and whether errors stay near the reported RMSE. If the ranking diverges or real errors are much larger, the central claim that reset counts are predictable from the occupancy image in a way that helps real users is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that reset frequency in redirected walking can be predicted from the static geometry of the physical room alone, encoded as a top-down binary occupancy image, and that a Vision Transformer can learn this mapping from simulated walking data. On the held-out test split, the model predicts reset counts with an RMSE of $23.88$, an MAE of $15.36$, and an $R^2$ value of $0.91$; the authors present this as the first learning-based reset predictor and as the basis of an interactive layout-optimization interface. Attention-rollout heatmaps show the model assigning high weight to object edges, corners, and wall-adjacent zones, the same regions where collisions and resets occur, while the paper notes that its largest errors concentrate in rare layouts where the simulated user gets wedged between obstacles.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the simulation protocol used for training — straight-line virtual walks through an empty virtual world with standard redirection controllers — produces reset counts representative enough of real users in real rooms that lowering predicted resets also lowers actual resets in the interface.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A user can rearrange furniture in the interactive interface and immediately see the predicted reset count change, without waiting for a new simulation or user study.
  • Within the trained setting (a 5 m × 5 m living room with three to five furniture objects), the model can rank different layouts by expected reset frequency, so users can choose arrangements that minimize predicted resets.
  • The single model handles all placements in the 3- to 5-object range, so the approach is not limited to a fixed object count.
  • Attention heatmaps indicate which geometric features — object edges, corners, and wall proximity — matter most for reset prediction, offering visual guidance for layout improvement.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An unstated but direct extension is that the binary top-down representation is layout-generic: the same architecture should be retrainable for other room shapes, furniture sets, and virtual environments without changing the method, provided enough simulated data is collected.
  • Because the paper's error is concentrated in rare, high-reset layouts where the walker becomes trapped between obstacles, augmenting the input with a clearance or local-density feature might reduce those outliers; this follows from the failure pattern the authors report.
  • The predictor could be inverted by an optimizer to automatically propose low-reset arrangements, rather than only rating layouts the user tries; the authors mention a recommender as future work but do not implement it.
  • The biggest untested step is transfer to real users; a matched real-walking study would both validate the simulation assumption and reveal whether the reported test accuracy persists outside simulated paths.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a Vision Transformer (ViT-B/16) model that takes a top-down binary occupancy image of a physical room and predicts the expected number of redirected walking (RDW) resets, trained on simulated data. Study 1 generates 300 simulated layouts in a 5×5 m living-room-like space with three to five furniture items, using the Open-RDW library with TAPF and R2G controllers, and reports that reset counts differ significantly by object count. Study 2 fine-tunes the ViT on these simulated images and reports RMSE=23.88, MAE=15.36, and R²=0.91 on a 60-sample test split, then integrates the model into a Unity interface that displays reset predictions in real time as users move furniture. The paper also visualizes attention heatmaps to interpret the model's focus.

Significance. If the simulation-to-real transfer holds, the paper would provide the first learning-based reset predictor for physical layout optimization in RDW, and the interface concept is a useful step toward making layout-aware RDW usable in practice. The authors use a sensible image representation, choose a standard pre-trained architecture, and document the simulation protocol and hyperparameters in detail. However, the current evaluation does not establish the model's utility for real rooms: the R² and RMSE are measured only against the same simulation generator used for training, no baselines are reported, and no real-user validation is attempted. The contribution is therefore best read as a proof-of-concept surrogate model for a specific simulation protocol, rather than a validated layout-optimization tool.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 5.2] The evaluation reports only RMSE=23.88, MAE=15.36, and R²=0.91 on a single 60-sample test split, with no baselines and no uncertainty quantification. Since Study 1 shows that object count alone accounts for a large share of the variance (χ²=93.66, η²=0.31), a trivial count-based regressor may already achieve high R²; without comparing against such a baseline (and ideally against a handcrafted spatial feature such as free-space or distance-to-wall), the ViT's spatial contribution is not established. The paper should also report bootstrap confidence intervals or results over multiple training seeds, given the small test set.
  2. [Sections 4.1 and 5.2] The model is trained on simulated reset counts from a single protocol: straight-line walking to random virtual targets in an empty infinite virtual world, TAPF and R2G controllers, a 5×5 m room, and a fixed set of five furniture types. The central claim that the interface helps real users optimize their physical layout presupposes that this simulation rank-orders real-user reset counts across layouts. The authors cite Azmandian et al. [6] for general simulation validity, but that reference does not validate this specific path, target, controller, and virtual-space combination; the authors' own Section 6.2 acknowledges the virtual-space limitation. A real-user validation study, or at minimum a cross-check against a second simulation protocol or path model, is needed to support the recommendation use case.
  3. [Section 5.2 and Section 6.2] The model is evaluated on a random 6:2:2 split of the same 300-layout distribution (one room size, one furniture set, 3–5 objects). No held-out room shapes, room sizes, furniture types, object counts, or controllers are tested, so the abstract's and contribution (1)'s implication that the interface works for arbitrary user rooms is unsupported. The authors should either restrict the claims to the tested distribution or add a held-out evaluation (e.g., a different room size or furniture set) to demonstrate any generalization.
  4. [Section 4.1] Each layout's reset count is the average over 30 random paths, but the paper does not report the within-layout variance of these 30 paths or the resulting noise in the regression target. Without this, an RMSE of 23.88 and R²=0.91 cannot be interpreted relative to irreducible simulation noise; if two different 30-path samples yield materially different averages for the same layout, part of the reported error is label noise. The authors should report the standard error of the averaged resets or the distribution of per-path resets for at least a subset of layouts.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.2] The sentence 'we conducted statistical tests to determine whether the number of resets significantly with the number of objects' is missing a verb; it should presumably read 'varies significantly with the number of objects.'
  2. [Section 4.2] Tukey's HSD is a post-hoc test for pairwise differences in means, not variances; after Levene's test, a pairwise variance comparison (e.g., with a multiple-comparison correction) should be used, or the text should be rephrased to avoid the invalid inference.
  3. [Section 5.2] The claim that the model provides real-time feedback is not supported by any measured inference latency; reporting per-inference time in the Unity/Barracuda setup would substantiate the real-time claim.
  4. [General] The paper does not state whether the dataset and simulation code will be released; providing the generated layouts, reset counts, and random seeds would improve reproducibility.
  5. [Section 3] The description of the binary image says 'value of 1 for pixels containing objects and 0 for empty pixels,' but it is not specified whether the room boundary is encoded as an object; clarifying the encoding of walls would remove ambiguity, especially since the same encoding is used to generate the training images and the interface preview.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reset predictor is a learned regression on simulation-generated ground truth, evaluated on a held-out split; the paper's self-citations are background context, not load-bearing derivation.

full rationale

The derivation chain is empirical rather than definitional. Study 1 generates ground-truth reset counts by running Open-RDW simulations with TAPF and R2G controllers over randomized 5x5 m living-room layouts, averaging 30 random 500 m paths per layout. Study 2 trains a ViT to regress a top-down binary image of the layout onto that simulated average-reset scalar, and evaluates on a random 6:2:2 split of the same dataset. No equation in the paper defines the input image in terms of the output reset count, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: the test split is held out during training, so the reported RMSE and R-squared are genuine in-distribution measures of the learned mapping. The load-bearing external-validity assumption, that simulated straight-line walking in an empty virtual space approximates real-user resets, is explicitly acknowledged as a limitation in Section 6.2 ("we set the virtual space as infinitely empty and used the TAPF algorithm, which does not consider the virtual space... a potential direction for future work involves developing a model that predicts the number of resets by considering both virtual and physical spaces together"). This is a generalization concern, not circularity. Self-citations involving the third author (e.g., [23], [28], [35]-[38]) are cited as related work on redirection controllers and locomotion techniques; they are not invoked to justify the reset prediction model or to forbid alternative approaches. The citation to Azmandian et al. [6] for simulation validity is external to the present authors and is used only to motivate simulation-based data collection, not to define the model's output. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz, or known empirical pattern is smuggled in via self-citation. Therefore the central claim, though limited to the simulation distribution it was trained on, does not reduce to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model is a fine-tuned ViT whose weights and hyperparameters are the main fitted quantities; the simulation protocol defines the ground truth and is assumed valid. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • ViT-B/16 fine-tuned weights = not disclosed (model has 86M parameters)
    The central prediction function is the learned network weights, fine-tuned on 240 training samples from the simulation dataset.
  • Training hyperparameters = batch 64, lr 1e-6, wd 1e-4, 500 epochs, augmentation p=0.05
    Selected by random grid search on the validation split; these values determine the fitted model and thus the reported RMSE.
  • Simulation protocol parameters = 500 m walk, 30 paths averaged, target radius 2-6 m
    Hand chosen; they define the magnitude and distribution of the target reset counts the model is trained to predict.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Simulated RDW behavior approximates real user reset behavior
    The paper relies on Azmandian et al. [6] to justify simulation as an evaluation proxy; the entire ground truth rests on this.
  • domain assumption Binary top-down occupancy is sufficient to determine expected resets
    Model input is a binary image; object type, height, and other semantic properties are discarded (Section 3).
  • domain assumption The user path distribution is representative of typical RDW use
    Simulated users walk straight lines to random targets in an empty infinite virtual space for 500 m per path (Section 4.1); this abstracts away task-driven and virtual-environment-dependent navigation.
  • domain assumption TAPF and R2G redirection controllers are representative
    Only Thomas et al. [61] controllers are simulated; other controllers (ARC, visibility-polygon methods) may yield different reset counts for the same layout.
  • standard math Detection thresholds from prior literature apply
    Gain thresholds [0.86,1.26], [0.67,1.24], and 7.5 m are taken from prior studies and treated as fixed user characteristics.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Room to Roam: Reset Prediction Based on Physical Object Placement for Redirected Walking." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MXDITM7K

@misc{pith2026241217375,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Room to Roam: Reset Prediction Based on Physical Object Placement for Redirected Walking},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MXDITM7K}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.17375}
}
abstract

In Redirected Walking (RDW), resets are an overt method that explicitly interrupts users, and they should be avoided to provide a quality user experience. The number of resets depends on the configuration of the physical environment; thus, inappropriate object placement can lead to frequent resets, causing motion sickness and degrading presence. However, estimating the number of resets based on the physical layout is challenging. It is difficult to measure reset frequency with real users repeatedly testing different layouts, and virtual simulations offer limited real-time verification. As a result, while rearranging objects can reduce resets, users have not been able to fully take advantage of this opportunity, highlighting the need for rapid assessment of object placement. To address this, in Study 1, we collected simulation data and analyzed the average number of resets for various object placements. In study 2, we developed a system that allows users to evaluate reset frequency using a real-time placement interface powered by the first learning-based reset prediction model. Our model predicts resets from top-down views of the physical space, leveraging a Vision Transformer architecture. The model achieved a root mean square error (RMSE) of $23.88$. We visualized the model's attention scores using heatmaps to analyze the regions of focus during prediction. Through the interface, users can reorganize furniture while instantly observing the change in the predicted number of resets, thus improving their interior for a better RDW experience with fewer resets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.17375 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of the predicted number of resets in real time as the user adjusts the placement of object within our interface. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of our reset prediction model. Our model predicts the number of resets an RDW user will experience in the given [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The figure shows one of the simulation environments in which the data collection was carried out. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: An illustration where the number of resets changes depending on the placement of obstacles in the physical space. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Mean and standard deviation (𝑆𝐷) results of the number of resets as a result of placing the same number of obstacles in physical space. Error bars indicate 95% confidence intervals. obtain a representative reset count for each physical object placement. Therefore, we c…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Scatter plot illustrating the performance of the trained model on both the validation and test sets. The blue points represent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Visualizations of attention weights. The left side of each subfigure shows a top-down view of the object placement, where [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages

  1. [6]

    Mahdi Azmandian, Rhys Yahata, Timofey Grechkin, Jerald Thomas, and Evan Suma Rosenberg. 2022. Validating simulation-based evaluation of redirected walking systems. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 28, 5 (2022), 2288–2298

    work page 2022

  2. [1]

    Samira Abnar and Willem Zuidema. 2020. Quantifying attention flow in transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.00928 (2020)

    arXiv 2020

  3. [2]

    Adel Al-Zebari, Naaman Omar, and Abdulkadir Sengur. 2022. Vision Transformers-based Hand Gesture Classification. In 2022 3rd International Informatics and Software Engineering Conference (IISEC) . IEEE, 1–3

    work page 2022

  4. [3]

    Armen Avetisyan, Tatiana Khanova, Christopher Choy, Denver Dash, Angela Dai, and Matthias Nießner. 2020. Scenecad: Predicting object alignments and layouts in rgb-d scans. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part XXII 16 . Springer, 596–612

    work page 2020

  5. [4]

    Mahdi Azmandian, Timofey Grechkin, Mark Bolas, and Evan Suma. 2016. The redirected walking toolkit: a unified development platform for exploring large virtual environments. In 2016 IEEE 2nd Workshop on Everyday Virtual Reality (WEVR) . IEEE, 9–14

    work page 2016

  6. [5]

    Mahdi Azmandian, Timofey Grechkin, Mark T Bolas, and Evan A Suma. 2015. Physical Space Requirements for Redirected Walking: How Size and Shape Affect Performance.. In ICAT-EGVE. 93–100

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    James Bergstra and Yoshua Bengio. 2012. Random search for hyper-parameter optimization. Journal of machine learning research 13, 2 (2012)

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    Hugo Brument, Gerd Bruder, Maud Marchal, Anne Hélène Olivier, and Ferran Argelaguet. 2021. Understanding, modeling and simulating unintended positional drift during repetitive steering navigation tasks in virtual reality. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 27, 11 (2021), 4300–4310

    work page 2021

Show all 77 references
  1. [9]

    Nicolas Carion, Francisco Massa, Gabriel Synnaeve, Nicolas Usunier, Alexander Kirillov, and Sergey Zagoruyko. 2020. End-to-end object detection with transformers. In European conference on computer vision . Springer, 213–229

    2020

  2. [10]

    Hila Chefer, Shir Gur, and Lior Wolf. 2021. Transformer interpretability beyond attention visualization. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition . 782–791

    2021

  3. [11]

    Jun-Jie Chen, Huan-Chang Hung, Yu-Ru Sun, and Jung-Hong Chuang. 2024. APF-S2T: Steering to Target Redirection Walking Based on Artificial Potential Fields. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (2024)

    2024

  4. [12]

    Taizhou Chen, Lantian Xu, Xianshan Xu, and Kening Zhu. 2021. Gestonhmd: Enabling gesture-based interaction on low-cost vr head-mounted display. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 27, 5 (2021), 2597–2607

    2021

  5. [13]

    Jia Deng, Wei Dong, Richard Socher, Li-Jia Li, Kai Li, and Li Fei-Fei. 2009. Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. In2009 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition . Ieee, 248–255

    2009

  6. [14]

    Massimiliano Di Luca, Hasti Seifi, Simon Egan, and Mar Gonzalez-Franco. 2021. Locomotion vault: the extra mile in analyzing vr locomotion techniques. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 1–10

    2021

  7. [15]

    Tianyang Dong, Xianwei Chen, Yifan Song, Wenyuan Ying, and Jing Fan. 2020. Dynamic artificial potential fields for multi-user redirected walking. In 2020 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR) . IEEE, 146–154

    2020

  8. [16]

    Alexey Dosovitskiy. 2020. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Huan Fu, Bowen Cai, Lin Gao, Ling-Xiao Zhang, Jiaming Wang, Cao Li, Qixun Zeng, Chengyue Sun, Rongfei Jia, Binqiang Zhao, et al. 2021. 3d-front: 3d furnished rooms with layouts and semantics. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision . 10933–10942

    2021

  10. [18]

    Nisal Menuka Gamage, Deepana Ishtaweera, Martin Weigel, and Anusha Withana. 2021. So predictable! continuous 3d hand trajectory prediction in virtual reality. In The 34th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology . 332–343

    2021

  11. [19]

    Timofey Grechkin, Jerald Thomas, Mahdi Azmandian, Mark Bolas, and Evan Suma. 2016. Revisiting detection thresholds for redirected walking: Combining translation and curvature gains. In Proceedings of the ACM symposium on applied perception . 113–120

    2016

  12. [20]

    Kai Han, Yunhe Wang, Hanting Chen, Xinghao Chen, Jianyuan Guo, Zhenhua Liu, Yehui Tang, An Xiao, Chunjing Xu, Yixing Xu, et al. 2022. A survey on vision transformer. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence 45, 1 (2022), 87–110

    2022

  13. [21]

    Sara Hanson, Richard A Paris, Haley A Adams, and Bobby Bodenheimer. 2019. Improving walking in place methods with individualization and deep networks. In 2019 IEEE conference on virtual reality and 3D user interfaces (VR) . IEEE, 367–376

    2019

  14. [22]

    Teresa Hirzle, Florian Müller, Fiona Draxler, Martin Schmitz, Pascal Knierim, and Kasper Hornbæk. 2023. When xr and ai meet-a scoping review on extended reality and artificial intelligence. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–45

    2023

  15. [23]

    Sang-Bin Jeon, Jaeho Jung, Jinhyung Park, and In-Kwon Lee. 2024. F-RDW: Redirected Walking with Forecasting Future Position. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    Dayoung Jeong and Kyungsik Han. 2024. PRECYSE: Predicting Cybersickness using Transformer for Multimodal Time-Series Sensor Data. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies 8, 2 (2024), 1–24

    2024

  17. [25]

    Daekyo Jeong, Sangbong Yoo, and Jang Yun. 2019. Cybersickness analysis with eeg using deep learning algorithms. In 2019 IEEE conference on virtual reality and 3D user interfaces (VR) . IEEE, 827–835

    2019

  18. [26]

    Pinachuan Ke and Kenina Zhu. 2021. Larger step faster speed: Investigating gesture-amplitude-based locomotion in place with different virtual walking speed in virtual reality. In 2021 IEEE Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR) . IEEE, 438–447

    2021

  19. [27]

    Dooyoung Kim and Woontack Woo. 2023. Edge-centric space rescaling with redirected walking for dissimilar physical-virtual space registration. In 2023 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR) . IEEE, 829–838. Manuscript submitted to ACM 14 Sulim Chun,...

    2023

  20. [28]

    Hyunjeong Kim, Sang-Bin Jeon, and In-Kwon Lee. 2024. Locomotion Techniques for Dynamic Environments: Effects on Spatial Knowledge and User Experiences. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    Jinwoo Kim, Woojae Kim, Heeseok Oh, Seongmin Lee, and Sanghoon Lee. 2019. A deep cybersickness predictor based on brain signal analysis for virtual reality contents. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision . 10580–10589

    2019

  22. [30]

    Alexander Kolesnikov, Lucas Beyer, Xiaohua Zhai, Joan Puigcerver, Jessica Yung, Sylvain Gelly, and Neil Houlsby. 2020. Big transfer (bit): General visual representation learning. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedin...

    2020

  23. [31]

    Lucie Kruse, Eike Langbehn, and Frank Steinicke. 2018. I can see on my feet while walking: Sensitivity to translation gains with visible feet. In 2018 IEEE conference on virtual reality and 3D user interfaces (VR) . IEEE, 305–312

    2018

  24. [32]

    Ripan Kumar Kundu, Osama Yahia Elsaid, Prasad Calyam, and Khaza Anuarul Hoque. 2023. VR-LENS: Super Learning-based Cybersickness Detection and Explainable AI-Guided Deployment in Virtual Reality. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Intelligent User Interface...

    2023

  25. [33]

    Eike Langbehn, Paul Lubos, Gerd Bruder, and Frank Steinicke. 2017. Bending the curve: Sensitivity to bending of curved paths and application in room-scale vr. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 23, 4 (2017), 1389–1398

    2017

  26. [34]

    Eike Langbehn, Paul Lubos, and Frank Steinicke. 2018. Evaluation of locomotion techniques for room-scale vr: Joystick, teleportation, and redirected walking. In Proceedings of the Virtual Reality International Conference-Laval Virtual . 1–9

    2018

  27. [35]

    Dong-Yong Lee, Yong-Hun Cho, and In-Kwon Lee. 2019. Real-time optimal planning for redirected walking using deep q-learning. In2019 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR) . IEEE, 63–71

    2019

  28. [36]

    Dong-Yong Lee, Yong-Hun Cho, Dae-Hong Min, and In-Kwon Lee. 2020. Optimal planning for redirected walking based on reinforcement learning in multi-user environment with irregularly shaped physical space. In 2020 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR) . ...

    2020

  29. [37]

    Ho Jung Lee, Sang-Bin Jeon, Yong-Hun Cho, and In-Kwon Lee. 2024. MARR: A Multi-Agent Reinforcement Resetter for Redirected Walking. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    Ho Jung Lee, Sang-Bin Jeon, Yong-Hun Cho, and In-Kwon Lee. 2024. Redirection Strategy Switching: Selective Redirection Controller for Dynamic Environment Adaptation. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (2024)

    2024

  31. [39]

    Huiyu Li and Linwei Fan. 2024. Enabling Predictive Redirection Reset Based on Virtual-Real Spatial Probability Density Distributions. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    Yi-Jun Li, Miao Wang, Frank Steinicke, and Qinping Zhao. 2021. Openrdw: A redirected walking library and benchmark with multi-user, learning- based functionalities and state-of-the-art algorithms. In 2021 IEEE International symposium on mixed and augmented reality (ISMAR) . IE...

    2021

  33. [41]

    Esteban Segarra Martinez, Annie S Wu, and Ryan P McMahan. 2022. Research trends in virtual reality locomotion techniques. In2022 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR) . IEEE, 270–280

    2022

  34. [42]

    Justin Messinger, Eric Hodgson, and Eric R Bachmann. 2019. Effects of tracking area shape and size on artificial potential field redirected walking. In 2019 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR) . IEEE, 72–80

    2019

  35. [43]

    George B Mo, John J Dudley, and Per Ola Kristensson. 2021. Gesture knitter: A hand gesture design tool for head-mounted mixed reality applications. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 1–13

    2021

  36. [44]

    Seungwon Paik, Youngseung Jeon, Patrick C Shih, and Kyungsik Han. 2021. I feel more engaged when i move!: Deep learning-based backward movement detection and its application. In 2021 IEEE Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR) . IEEE, 483–492

    2021

  37. [45]

    Despoina Paschalidou, Amlan Kar, Maria Shugrina, Karsten Kreis, Andreas Geiger, and Sanja Fidler. 2021. Atiss: Autoregressive transformers for indoor scene synthesis. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34 (2021), 12013–12026

    2021

  38. [46]

    Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca Antiga, Alban Desmaison, Andreas Kopf, Edward Yang, Zachary DeVito, Martin Raison, Alykhan Tejani, Sasank Chilamkurthy, Benoit Steiner, Lu ...

    2019

  39. [47]

    Akshay Gadi Patil, Manyi Li, Matthew Fisher, Manolis Savva, and Hao Zhang. 2021. Layoutgmn: Neural graph matching for structural layout similarity. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . 11048–11057

    2021

  40. [48]

    Akshay Gadi Patil, Supriya Gadi Patil, Manyi Li, Matthew Fisher, Manolis Savva, and Hao Zhang. 2024. Advances in Data-Driven Analysis and Synthesis of 3D Indoor Scenes. In Computer Graphics Forum, Vol. 43. Wiley Online Library, e14927

    2024

  41. [49]

    Sharif Razzaque. 2005. Redirected Walking. Ph. D. Dissertation. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

    2005

  42. [50]

    Tal Ridnik, Emanuel Ben-Baruch, Asaf Noy, and Lihi Zelnik-Manor. 2021. Imagenet-21k pretraining for the masses. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.10972 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Roy A Ruddle and Simon Lessels. 2009. The benefits of using a walking interface to navigate virtual environments. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 16, 1 (2009), 1–18

    2009

  44. [52]

    Vishnu Dutt Sharma, Anukriti Singh, and Pratap Tokekar. 2024. Pre-Trained Masked Image Model for Mobile Robot Navigation. In 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 5126–5133. Manuscript submitted to ACM A Room to Roam: Reset Prediction Bas...

    2024

  45. [53]

    Jae-eun Shin, Hayun Kim, Callum Parker, Hyung-il Kim, Seoyoung Oh, and Woontack Woo. 2019. Is any room really ok? the effect of room size and furniture on presence, narrative engagement, and usability during a space-adaptive augmented reality game. In 2019 IEEE International S...

    2019

  46. [54]

    Jae-eun Shin, Boram Yoon, Dooyoung Kim, and Woontack Woo. 2022. The effects of spatial complexity on narrative experience in space-adaptive ar storytelling. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 29, 12 (2022), 5137–5148

    2022

  47. [55]

    Leslie N Smith and Nicholay Topin. 2019. Super-convergence: Very fast training of neural networks using large learning rates. InArtificial intelligence and machine learning for multi-domain operations applications , Vol. 11006. SPIE, 369–386

    2019

  48. [56]

    Andreas Steiner, Alexander Kolesnikov, Xiaohua Zhai, Ross Wightman, Jakob Uszkoreit, and Lucas Beyer. 2021. How to train your vit? data, augmentation, and regularization in vision transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.10270 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Frank Steinicke, Gerd Bruder, Klaus Hinrichs, Jason Jerald, Harald Frenz, and Markus Lappe. 2009. Real walking through virtual environments by redirection techniques. JVRB-Journal of Virtual Reality and Broadcasting 6, 2 (2009)

    2009

  50. [58]

    Frank Steinicke, Gerd Bruder, Jason Jerald, Harald Frenz, and Markus Lappe. 2009. Estimation of detection thresholds for redirected walking techniques. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 16, 1 (2009), 17–27

    2009

  51. [59]

    Ryan R Strauss, Raghuram Ramanujan, Andrew Becker, and Tabitha C Peck. 2020. A steering algorithm for redirected walking using reinforcement learning. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 26, 5 (2020), 1955–1963

    2020

  52. [60]

    Evan A Suma, Gerd Bruder, Frank Steinicke, David M Krum, and Mark Bolas. 2012. A taxonomy for deploying redirection techniques in immersive virtual environments. In 2012 IEEE Virtual Reality Workshops (VRW) . IEEE, 43–46

    2012

  53. [61]

    Jerald Thomas and Evan Suma Rosenberg. 2019. A general reactive algorithm for redirected walking using artificial potential functions. In 2019 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR) . IEEE, 56–62

    2019

  54. [62]

    Martin Usoh, Kevin Arthur, Mary C Whitton, Rui Bastos, Anthony Steed, Mel Slater, and Frederick P Brooks Jr. 1999. Walking> walking-in-place> flying, in virtual environments. In Proceedings of the 26th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques . 359–364

    1999

  55. [63]

    Shikhar Vashishth, Shyam Upadhyay, Gaurav Singh Tomar, and Manaal Faruqui. 2019. Attention interpretability across nlp tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.11218 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  56. [64]

    A Vaswani. 2017. Attention is all you need. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (2017)

    2017

  57. [65]

    Kai Wang, Yu-An Lin, Ben Weissmann, Manolis Savva, Angel X Chang, and Daniel Ritchie. 2019. Planit: Planning and instantiating indoor scenes with relation graph and spatial prior networks. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 38, 4 (2019), 1–15

    2019

  58. [66]

    Kai Wang, Manolis Savva, Angel X Chang, and Daniel Ritchie. 2018. Deep convolutional priors for indoor scene synthesis. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 37, 4 (2018), 1–14

    2018

  59. [67]

    Sarah Wiegreffe and Yuval Pinter. 2019. Attention is not not explanation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.04626 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Betsy Williams, Gayathri Narasimham, Bjoern Rump, Timothy P McNamara, Thomas H Carr, John Rieser, and Bobby Bodenheimer. 2007. Exploring large virtual environments with an HMD when physical space is limited. In Proceedings of the 4th symposium on Applied perception in graphics...

    2007

  61. [69]

    Niall L Williams, Aniket Bera, and Dinesh Manocha. 2021. Arc: Alignment-based redirection controller for redirected walking in complex environments. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 27, 5 (2021), 2535–2544

    2021

  62. [70]

    Niall L Williams, Aniket Bera, and Dinesh Manocha. 2021. Redirected walking in static and dynamic scenes using visibility polygons. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 27, 11 (2021), 4267–4277

    2021

  63. [71]

    Niall L Williams, Aniket Bera, and Dinesh Manocha. 2022. Eni: Quantifying environment compatibility for natural walking in virtual reality. In 2022 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR) . IEEE, 419–427

    2022

  64. [72]

    Niall L Williams and Tabitha C Peck. 2019. Estimation of rotation gain thresholds considering fov, gender, and distractors. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 25, 11 (2019), 3158–3168

    2019

  65. [73]

    Xue-Liang Wu, Huan-Chang Hung, Sabarish V Babu, and Jung-Hong Chuang. 2023. Novel design and evaluation of redirection controllers using optimized alignment and artificial potential field. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (2023)

    2023

  66. [74]

    Sen-Zhe Xu, Tian-Qi Liu, Jia-Hong Liu, Stefanie Zollmann, and Song-Hai Zhang. 2022. Making resets away from targets: Poi aware redirected walking. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 28, 11 (2022), 3778–3787

    2022

  67. [75]

    Linwei Ye, Mrigank Rochan, Zhi Liu, and Yang Wang. 2019. Cross-modal self-attention network for referring image segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition . 10502–10511

    2019

  68. [76]

    Song-Hai Zhang, Chiahao Chen, and Stefanie Zollmann. 2022. One-step out-of-place resetting for redirected walking in vr. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 29, 7 (2022), 3327–3339

    2022

  69. [77]

    Song-Hai Zhang, Chia-Hao Chen, Fu Zheng, Yong-Liang Yang, and Shi-Min Hu. 2022. Adaptive optimization algorithm for resetting techniques in obstacle-ridden environments. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 29, 4 (2022), 2080–2092. Received 11 October 2024 ...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.