2021 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR) 2021
DOI: 10.1109/ismar52148.2021.00062
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

CrowdXR - Pitfalls and Potentials of Experiments with Remote Participants

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
10
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
2

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 39 publications
2
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Similar observations were made by Mottelson et al (2021), reporting on the validity and reliability of remote iVR data while admitting to sampling issues (predominantly male). These findings are also corroborated by Zhao et al (2021).…”
Section: Feasibility and Reliabilitysupporting
confidence: 72%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Similar observations were made by Mottelson et al (2021), reporting on the validity and reliability of remote iVR data while admitting to sampling issues (predominantly male). These findings are also corroborated by Zhao et al (2021).…”
Section: Feasibility and Reliabilitysupporting
confidence: 72%
“…In relation to iVR, Previous work has shown that headset owners that are recruited for remote experiments are not radically different from participants used in in-lab experimental settings at universities, and the data obtained in remote experiments are generally comparable to inlab counterparts (Mottelson and Hornbaek, 2017). While this seems to be a general theme reported in the literature, some researchers, (e.g., Zhao et al, 2021), have noted that the spatial abilities, gender distribution, and gaming frequency of iVR device owner population are very different than the general public.…”
Section: Participantsmentioning
confidence: 83%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…A few studies have explicitly attempted to replicate lab-based (and sometimes real-world) research findings using a remote sample of participants who own their own VR equipment. In one study [34], lab and remote samples first attempted to memorize locations of 3D points within a VE and, after exiting the VE, performed memory-based distance judgments about inter-point separations. Memorization time was faster for remote participants compared to lab participants, which could reflect differences in spatial ability or differences in familiarity with the controllers and equipment used in this stage of the task.…”
Section: Remote Vr Researchmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There may also be important differences between participant samples recruited for lab and remote studies [10,34]. For example, remote participants are likely to be older and more diverse than those recruited through the typical university community.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%