Use of virtual reality (VR) is considered beneficial for reviewing 3D models throughout product design. However, research on its usability in the design field is still explorative, and previous studies are often contradictory regarding the usability of VR for 3D model review. This paper argues that the usability of VR should be assessed by analysing human factors such as spatial perception and taking into consideration the complexity of the reviewed product. Hence, a comparative evaluation study has been conducted to assess spatial perception in desktop interface-based and VR-based review of 3D models of products with different levels of complexity. The results show that participants in VR more could perceive the fit of user interface elements, and estimation of the model dimensions had a lower relative error than in desktop interface. It has been found that various sensory cues are used to perceive the model size and that the employed sensory cues depend on the level of complexity. Finally, it is proposed that differences between a desktop interface and VR for reviewing models are more evident when reviewing models of higher complexity levels.
This paper provides an overview and appraisal of the International Design Engineering Annual (IDEA) challenge - a virtually hosted design hackathon run with the aim of generating a design research dataset that can provide insights into design activities at virtually hosted hackathons. The resulting dataset consists of 200+ prototypes with over 1300 connections providing insights into the products, processes and people involved in the design process. The paper also provides recommendations for future deployments of virtual hackathons for design research.
The conventional prescriptive and descriptive models of design typically decompose the overall design process into elementary processes, such as analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. This study revisits some of the assumptions established by these models and investigates whether they can also be applied for modelling of problem-solution co-evolution patterns that appear during team conceptual design activities. The first set of assumptions concerns the relationship between performing analysis, synthesis, and evaluation and exploring the problem and solution space. The second set concerns the dominant sequences of analysis, synthesis, and evaluation, whereas the third set concerns the nature of transitions between the problem and solution space. The assumptions were empirically tested as part of a protocol analysis study of team ideation and concept review activities. Besides revealing inconsistencies in how analysis, synthesis, and evaluation are defined and interpreted across the literature, the study demonstrates co-evolution patterns, which cannot be described by the conventional models. It highlights the important role of analysis-synthesis cycles during both divergent and convergent activities, which is co-evolution and refinement, respectively. The findings are summarised in the form of a model of the increase in the number of new problem and solution entities as the conceptual design phase progresses, with implications for both design research and design education.
Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a common complication of pregnancy that adversely affects maternal and offspring health. A variety of risk factors, such as BMI and age, have been associated with increased risks of gestational diabetes. However, in many cases, gestational diabetes occurs in healthy nulliparous women with no obvious risk factors. Emerging data suggest that the tendency to develop gestational diabetes has genetic and environmental components. Here we develop a polygenic risk score for GDM and investigate relationships between its genetic architecture and genetically constructed risk factors and biomarkers. Our results demonstrate that the polygenic risk score can be used as an early screening tool that identifies women at higher risk of GDM before its onset allowing comprehensive monitoring and preventative programs to mitigate the risks.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.