The benefits of DOF separation in mid-air 3D object manipulation
Abstract
Object manipulation is a key feature in almost every virtual environment. However, it is difficult to accurately place an object in immersive virtual environments using mid-air gestures that mimic interactions in the physical world, although being a direct and natural approach. Previous research studied mouse and touch based interfaces concluding that separation of degrees-of-freedom (DOF) led to improved results. In this paper, we present the first user evaluation to assess the impact of explicit 6 DOF separation in mid-air manipulation tasks. We implemented a technique based on familiar virtual widgets that allow single DOF control, and compared it against a direct approach and PRISM, which dynamically adjusts the ratio between hand and object motions. Our results suggest that full DOF separation benefits precision in spatial manipulations, at the cost of additional time for complex tasks. From our results we draw guidelines for 3D object manipulation in mid-air.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The indirect manipulation techniques suffer from either hand tiredness or increased learning curve.
“However, these techniques suffer from either hand tiredness [32] or increased learning curve [35,36] which are important for medical context.”
From Trade-Off between Task Accuracy, Task Completion Time and Naturalness for Direct Object Manipulation in Virtual Reality (2022) · cites this paper as [36]
The indirect manipulation techniques are either more precise or fast to use.
“These indirect manipulation techniques are either more precise [36,37] or fast to use [32,37].”
From Trade-Off between Task Accuracy, Task Completion Time and Naturalness for Direct Object Manipulation in Virtual Reality (2022) · cites this paper as [36]
Cites
A handle bar metaphor for virtual object manipulation with mid-air interaction
Song, P., Goh, W. B., Hutama, W., Fu, C.-W., & Liu, X. (2012) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2207676.2208585 · Cited by 210 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Kangas, J., Kumar, S. K., Mehtonen, H., Järnstedt, J., & Raisamo, R. (2022) · Multimodal Technologies and Interaction · doi:10.3390/mti6010006 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
- Authors
- Mendes, D., Relvas, F., Ferreira, A., & Jorge, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Lisbon (PT)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 22nd ACM Conference on Virtual Reality Software and Technology
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2016-11-02
- Pages
- 261-268
- OpenAlex
- W2547735422
- Cited by
- 93
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5
- FWCI
- 4.09
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology (VRST) (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (UID/CEC/50021/2013)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Interactive and Immersive Displays
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Hand Gesture Recognition Systems
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Teleoperation and Haptic Systems
- Keywords
- mid-air interaction, 3D object manipulation, gesture-based interaction, PRISM, immersive virtual environments, user evaluation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
