Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Edward Downs

dblp:151/8394 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2018
—ORCID · unresolved

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 1Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Computer graphics and multimedia
1 paper
Virtual and augmented reality · 61% Visualization and visual analytics · 39%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Virtual and augmented reality
immersive interaction
0.312018
Memory Task Performance Across Augmented and Virtual Reality · VR 2018
Virtual and augmented reality
learning and educational technologies
0.312018
Memory Task Performance Across Augmented and Virtual Reality · VR 2018
Visualization and visual analytics › usability and user experience research
user experience research
0.312018
Memory Task Performance Across Augmented and Virtual Reality · VR 2018
Visualization and visual analytics
display technology
0.112018
Memory Task Performance Across Augmented and Virtual Reality · VR 2018

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

empirical user study · 0.3
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2018 Memory Task Performance Across Augmented and Virtual Reality
abstract
As commodity virtual reality and augmented reality hardware becomes more accessible, the opportunity to use these systems for learning and training will increase. This study provides an exploratory look at performance differences for a simple memory matching task across four different technologies that could easily be used for learning and training. We compare time and number of attempts to successfully complete a memory matching game across virtual reality, augmented reality, a large touchscreen table-top display and a real environment. The results indicate that participants took more time to complete the task in both the augmented reality and real conditions. Augmented reality and real environments were statistically different than the fastest two conditions, which occurred in the virtual reality and table-top touch display conditions.
Peter Willemsen 0001, William Jaros, Charles McGregor, Edward Downs, Maranda Berndt, Alexander Passofaro
VR4