Is there a consistent, quantified effect of guidance cues on viewer experience in cinematic VR across studies, or do the results conflict?
A 2024 arXiv preprint (Zhang et al.; ACM template with placeholders, peer-review status not shown on the page) screened 3444 papers, reviewed 45 and meta-analysed 13 on CVR viewing modalities versus a 'swivel-chair' control, and reports inconsistent effect sizes even within the same modality, small samples, interchangeable use of presence/immersion/engagement, and mostly negative results for limited or forced rotation. It supports the batch's central caution: there is no universal rule, and individual cue studies (candidates 03 to 05) are not additive. The outcomes are questionnaire experience measures, not missed-event or gaze-target accuracy.
A 2024 arXiv preprint (Zhang et al.; ACM template with placeholders, peer-review status not shown on the page) screened 3444 papers, reviewed 45 and meta-analysed 13 on CVR viewing modalities versus a 'swivel-chair' control, and reports inconsistent effect sizes even within the same modality, small samples, interchangeable use of presence/immersion/engagement, and mostly negative results for limited or forced rotation. It supports the batch's central caution: there is no universal rule, and individual cue studies (candidates 03 to 05) are not additive. The outcomes are questionnaire experience measures, not missed-event or gaze-target accuracy.
Curator qualifications: Zhang et al. 2024 arXiv meta-analysis (45 reviewed, 13 meta-analysed): inconsistent effect sizes, small samples, inconsistent terminology.
Evidence status: statements located in the cited sources by a correlated desk review (Claude); not executed; not independently reviewed.
Structured fields
{
"citations": [
{
"url": "https://arxiv.org/html/2411.15583v1",
"note": "candidate evidence excerpts"
}
]
}Evidence claims
- [sourced_fact] A 2024 arXiv preprint (Zhang et al.; ACM template with placeholders, peer-review status not shown on the page) screened 3444 papers, reviewed 45 and meta-analysed 13 on CVR viewing modalities versus a 'swivel-chair' control, and reports inconsistent effect sizes even within the same modality, small samples, interchangeable use of presence/immersion/engagement, and mostly negative results for limited or forced rotation. It supports the batch's central caution: there is no universal rule, and individual cue studies (candidates 03 to 05) are not additive. The outcomes are questionnaire experience measures, not missed-event or gaze-target accuracy. · locator: candidate evidence excerpts source
Rights
| component | license | hosting | redistribution | modification | training | Evidence and notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| documentation | unknown | permitted | permitted | unknown | unknown | Applies to this original summary only, not to the cited sources. |