Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Elham Sadr
dblp:265/2259
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2020
—ORCID · none
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 · 100% |
Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Virtual and augmented reality › augmented reality
augmented reality interaction |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Touch the Wall: Comparison of Virtual and Augmented Reality with Conventional 2D Screen Eye-Hand Coordination Training Systems · VR 2020 |
Virtual and augmented reality › immersive interaction
virtual reality training |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Touch the Wall: Comparison of Virtual and Augmented Reality with Conventional 2D Screen Eye-Hand Coordination Training Systems · VR 2020 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
user study · 0.4reaction test · 0.4fitts' law · 0.4
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | Touch the Wall: Comparison of Virtual and Augmented Reality with Conventional 2D Screen Eye-Hand Coordination Training SystemsabstractPrevious research on eye-hand coordination training systems has investigated user performance on a wall, 2D touchscreens, and in Virtual Reality (VR). In this paper, we designed an eye-hand coordination reaction test to investigate and compare user performance in three different virtual environments (VEs) – VR, Augmented Reality (AR), and a 2D touchscreen. VR and AR conditions also included two feedback conditions – mid-air and passive haptics. Results showed that compared to AR, participants were significantly faster and made fewer errors both in 2D and VR. However, compared to VR and AR, throughput performance of the participants was significantly higher in the 2D touchscreen condition. No significant differences were found between the two feedback conditions. The results show the importance of assessing precision and accuracy in eye-hand coordination training and suggest that it is currently not advisable to use AR headsets in such systems. Anil Ufuk Batmaz, Aunnoy K. Mutasim, Morteza Malekmakan, Elham Sadr, Wolfgang Stuerzlinger |
VR | 4 |