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

Eden Or

dblp:373/5316 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 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 · 1 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 1 · 1 first-author · 1 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
1 paper
Immersive interaction · 77% Interaction techniques and input · 23%

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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Immersive interaction › multisensory perception
multisensory integration
0.812024
When Vision Lies - Navigating Virtual Environments with Unreliable Visual Information · VR 2024
Interaction techniques and input › spatial interaction › navigation
virtual reality navigation
0.212024
When Vision Lies - Navigating Virtual Environments with Unreliable Visual Information · VR 2024

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

virtual maze · 0.8user study · 0.8
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2024 When Vision Lies - Navigating Virtual Environments with Unreliable Visual Information
abstract
Humans typically utilize vision in a dominant role for navigation. However, what happens when vision becomes actively unreliable? Will it impair user performance, be suppressed, or be used advantageously? While such scenarios are rare in the real world, this question has important implications for multisensory integration in extended reality applications - e.g. virtual walls that a user sees but can walk through. We created virtual mazes which could be solved via audio or visual cues. We then manipulated the reliability of these sensory channels by including invisible walls which are not perceived but still blocked passage, and ghost walls which could be perceived but did not block participants. Participants navigated the exact same layouts under all conditions, and could solve these levels by ignoring the unreliable sensory modality and using only the other. Participants easily completed these mazes using vision-only, and with some difficulty via audition-only. Partially unreliable vision degraded performance, though still above audio-only demonstrating utilization of the unreliable visual cues. Mazes whose entire visual input was false degraded performance to the level of audio only, though participants subjectively reported it as easier then audio-only and did not close their eyes indicating that they still relied on vision. Testing a control in which visual information was both false and constantly moved, preventing its use as landmarks or optic flow, indeed caused participants to close their eyes, disregarding the false vision, but was accompanied by confounding nausea. In parallel, auditory incongruencies were easily suppressed across all unreliable auditory conditions. This demonstrates human attachment to visual information, even when mostly or completely false, and the ability to glean practical advantages from it unless it is completely stripped from usability. More broadly it lays a foundation for testing multisensory integration of sustained false sensory channels, and has implications for mixed reality design.
Eden Or, Shachar Maidenbaum
VR1