The VR community has introduced many object selection and manipulation techniques during the past two decades. Typically, they are empirically studied to establish their benefits over the stateof-the-art. However, the literature contains few guidelines on how to conduct such studies; standards developed for evaluating 2D interaction often do not apply. This lack of guidelines makes it hard to compare techniques across studies, to report evaluations consistently, and therefore to accumulate or replicate findings. To build such guidelines, we review 20 years of studies on VR object selection and manipulation. Based on the review, we propose recommendations for designing studies and a checklist for reporting them. We also identify research directions for improving evaluation methods and offer ideas for how to make studies more ecologically valid and rigorous. CCS CONCEPTS• Human-centered computing → HCI theory, concepts and models; HCI design and evaluation methods.

No abstract

Figure 1: Body LayARs is a toolkit for prototyping body-based AR applications. It offers node-based visual programming, but can also be customized and extended via JavaScript. Applications can be started on connected devices and edited while running. Shown on the right is the output of the application to the left, which tracks faces, detects emotions, and visualizes them as floating emoji. The output was generated with a photo as input to illustrate future AR device's fidelity.

No abstract

<b><i>Background:</i></b> Bronchoscopy is an essential procedure in the diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary diseases. However, the literature suggests that distractions affect the quality of bronchoscopy and affect inexperienced doctors more than experienced. <b><i>Objectives:</i></b> The objective of the study was as follows: does simulation-based bronchoscopy training with immersive virtual reality (iVR) improve the doctors’ ability to handle distractions and thereby increase the quality, measured in procedure time, structured progression score, diagnostic completeness (%), and hand motor movements of a diagnostic bronchoscopy in a simulated scenario. Exploratory outcomes were heart rate variability and a cognitive load questionnaire (Surg-TLX). <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Participants were randomized. The intervention group practiced in an iVR environment with a head-mounted display (HMD) while using the bronchoscopy simulator, while the control group trained without the HMD. Both groups were tested in the iVR environment using a scenario with distractions. <b><i>Results:</i></b> 34 participants completed the trial. The intervention group scored significantly higher in diagnostic completeness (100 i.q.r. 100–100 vs. 94 i.q.r. 89–100, <i>p</i> value = 0.03) and structured progress (16 i.q.r. 15–18 vs. 12 i.q.r. 11–15, <i>p</i> value 0.03) but not in procedure time (367 s standard deviation [SD] 149 vs. 445 s SD 219, <i>p</i> value = 0.06) or hand motor movements (−1.02 i.q.r. −1.03–[−1.02] versus −0.98 i.q.r. −1.02–[–0.98], <i>p</i> value = 0.27). The control group had a tendency toward a lower heart rate variability (5.76 i.q.r. 3.77–9.06 vs. 4.12 i.q.r. 2.68–6.27, <i>p</i> = 0.25). There was no significant difference in total Surg-TLX points between the two groups. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> iVR simulation training increases the quality of diagnostic bronchoscopy in a simulated scenario with distractions compared with conventional simulation-based training.