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

Negar Nouri

dblp:245/3038 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
2since 2021 · last 2024
—ORCID · none

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

Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 2 · 2 since 2021

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.

Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
2 papers
Immersive interaction · 50% Usability and user experience research · 50%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Immersive interaction › virtual reality
virtual reality for knowledge work
1.322024
Hold Tight: Identifying Behavioral Patterns During Prolonged Work in VR Through Video Analysis · IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 2024
Quantifying the Effects of Working in VR for One Week · IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 2022
Usability and user experience research
simulator sickness
0.612022
Quantifying the Effects of Working in VR for One Week · IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 2022

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

video analysis · 0.8behavioral pattern analysis · 0.8comparative user study · 0.6
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2024 Hold Tight: Identifying Behavioral Patterns During Prolonged Work in VR Through Video Analysis
abstract
VR devices have recently been actively promoted as tools for knowledge workers and prior work has demonstrated that VR can support some knowledge worker tasks. However, only a few studies have explored the effects of prolonged use of VR such as a study observing 16 participants working in VR and a physical environment for one work-week each and reporting mainly on subjective feedback. As a nuanced understanding of participants' behavior in VR and how it evolves over time is still missing, we report on the results from an analysis of 559 hours of video material obtained in this prior study. Among other findings, we report that (1) the frequency of actions related to adjusting the headset reduced by 46% and the frequency of actions related to supporting the headset reduced by 42% over the five days; (2) the HMD was removed 31% less frequently over the five days but for 41% longer periods; (3) wearing an HMD is disruptive to normal patterns of eating and drinking, but not to social interactions, such as talking. The combined findings in this work demonstrate the value of long-term studies of deployed VR systems and can be used to inform the design of better, more ergonomic VR systems as tools for knowledge workers.
Verena Biener, Forouzan Farzinnejad, Rinaldo Schuster, Seyedmasih Tabaei, Leon Lindlein, Jinghui Hu, Negar Nouri, John J. Dudley, Per Ola Kristensson, Jörg Müller 0001, Jens Grubert
IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph.7
2022 Quantifying the Effects of Working in VR for One Week
abstract
Virtual Reality (VR) provides new possibilities for modern knowledge work. However, the potential advantages of virtual work environments can only be used if it is feasible to work in them for an extended period of time. Until now, there are limited studies of long-term effects when working in VR. This paper addresses the need for understanding such long-term effects. Specifically, we report on a comparative study $i$, in which participants were working in VR for an entire week-for five days, eight hours each day-as well as in a baseline physical desktop environment. This study aims to quantify the effects of exchanging a desktop-based work environment with a VR-based environment. Hence, during this study, we do not present the participants with the best possible VR system but rather a setup delivering a comparable experience to working in the physical desktop environment. The study reveals that, as expected, VR results in significantly worse ratings across most measures. Among other results, we found concerning levels of simulator sickness, below average usability ratings and two participants dropped out on the first day using VR, due to migraine, nausea and anxiety. Nevertheless, there is some indication that participants gradually overcame negative first impressions and initial discomfort. Overall, this study helps lay the groundwork for subsequent research, by clearly highlighting current shortcomings and identifying opportunities for improving the experience of working in VR.
Verena Biener, Snehanjali Kalamkar, Negar Nouri, Eyal Ofek, Michel Pahud, John J. Dudley, Jinghui Hu, Per Ola Kristensson, Maheshya Weerasinghe, Klen Copic Pucihar, Matjaz Kljun, Stephan Streuber, Jens Grubert
IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph.3